I can make objects up to 30 cubic feet! .... anyone know what that means?

[Odessa333]

So as the topic says, I can make objects up to 30 cubic feet with a character I'm working on. Sadly, math is not my strong point, and I have NO IDEA what this would mean in practical terms. From what I understand from research, if I were to make a box shape, it would be similar to a refrigerator. It's a start, but I'm not trying to create refridgerators generally.

I'm trying to learn how to 'stretch' it out, like making a wall or a fence. Such as, could I block a 10 foot wide hallway if the creation wasn't as thick as a fridge? I've been trying - and failing - to do the math on this for an hour, and I'm ready to throw out this notebook. If someone could help me on this, or share a trick to figure this stuff out, I'd be grateful. Thank you for your time!

[NRSASD]

What material are you making this out of? It would have a huge impact on what kind of things are feasible. Here's a couple of reference points to consider when trying to gauge just what 30 cubic feet means:

*You can make a column 1 foot wide and 30 feet long
*You can make a rectangle 3 feet wide, 2 feet deep, and 5 feet tall.
* Modern house walls are about 8 inches thick.
*The classic 2 by 4 plank is 2 inches thick, thus you could make a plank 1 foot wide, 2 inches thick, and 180 feet long.
*Medieval castle walls are anywhere from 5-15 feet thick.

Hope this helps!

[infinitum3d]

Imagine 30 one square foot cubes. You can stack them however you like.

[Algeh]

*puts on math teacher hat*

The most important thing to remember is that cubic feet is a measure of three dimensional volume, not a measure of length or area. This means that there are 12x12x12 = 1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot, not 12 as in a linear foot (this was very confusing to some of my geometry students this year when working practical volume problems, so that's why I'm bringing it up even though you didn't ask). I heartily recommend thinking in terms of say, a half foot rather than six inches whenever possible, since unit conversion errors are no fun and it's thus best to stay in cubic feet unless you absolutely can't avoid it.

The general formula for finding the volume of a rectangular prism (a box shape) is length x width x height = volume. Since your volume is 30 cubic feet, that means that your other three numbers have to multiply together to a number less than or equal to 30, and then you can make a box shape that big.

Solid walls can be easily modeled this way - if you want to completely block a rectangular passage, and you already know how tall and wide it is, then you can maximize the thickness as follows:

(tall x wide)/30 = how thick you can make it in cubic feet.

For example, if you wanted to block a 10 foot wide corridor with 8 foot ceilings, it would be:
(8 x 10)/30 = thickness
80/30 = thickness
8/3 = thickness
or about 2.67 feet thick.


I had my fraction upside down, which is what I get for not using scratch paper when solving for thickness (and not checking my work in either of the two ways I ask students to do).

Correct formula is 30/(tall x wide) = thickness. (Thanks, Rockphed!)

For example, if you wanted to block a 10 foot wide corridor with 8 foot ceilings, it would be:
30/(8 x 10) = thickness
30/80 = thickness
3/8 = thickness
or about 0.375 feet thick.

This will work to maximize the third dimension whenever you already know what you want the other two to be, which is probably the easiest way to go about it in practice.

If you want formulas for other common geometric solids (cones, cylinders, spheres, etc), I suggest searching for "volume formula sheet" and printing out whichever one looks easiest to use.

If you can make more complex shapes rather than just simple solids, you can block a lot more space by making something like a chain link fence rather than a solid wall, but the math is more complicated as well. If you can go that route, I'd suggest modeling a few such shapes in advance and having them ready in your notes rather than doing so during a game session. If you can make arbitrarily complex objects, you'd probably be better off creating a 30 cubic foot swarm of small but heavily armed combat robots to block the passageway for you, really, so find out the limits of this power before spending too much time on mathematical modeling of shapes.

[DaedalusMkV]

I'm trying to learn how to 'stretch' it out, like making a wall or a fence. Such as, could I block a 10 foot wide hallway if the creation wasn't as thick as a fridge? I've been trying - and failing - to do the math on this for an hour, and I'm ready to throw out this notebook. If someone could help me on this, or share a trick to figure this stuff out, I'd be grateful. Thank you for your time!

For any rectangular prism, the math is pretty easy. Just take the length of the area you're trying to cover, multiply by the width (or height, in the case of a vertical wall), then divide the result of that by 30 to figure out how thick it will be. In this case, assuming the hallway is ten feet tall, you're getting a wall a tad less than four inches thick; if the hallway is only five feet tall, you're getting one 7.5 inches thick. Assuming the object needs to be contiguous (and thus making a chain link fence a no-go) but you don't need a fully opaque wall, you could effectively increase the thickness of your wall by half or more by making it a grate, which will actually make it a bit more structurally sound than a flat wall.

Try to avoid anything that isn't a sphere, cylinder, rectangular prism or perfect pyramid, though. The math on volumes for complex shapes can very quickly become a nightmare from which there is no escape. Calculating the volume of a standard lunchroom chair (curse you curved seat and backing!) was probably the most difficult thing I ever did in a math class, requiring fairly advanced calculus in places. In that case, you're best off just approximating with rectangular prisms and saying "I can make something bigger than what I want, so I can make what I want".

[Odessa333]

Thank the goddess for this. If I had to attempt this one more time, my pencil would not have survived.


Wise teacher Algeh, thank you for the math lesson. I like knowing there are teachers here, personally. I used to teach English myself, but that was a long time ago. Memory isn't what it used to be, and I wasn't so hot at math even then if I'm being honest. But I ramble. Thanks again.

[Rockphed]

*puts on math teacher hat*

The most important thing to remember is that cubic feet is a measure of three dimensional volume, not a measure of length or area. This means that there are 12x12x12 = 1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot, not 12 as in a linear foot (this was very confusing to some of my geometry students this year when working practical volume problems, so that's why I'm bringing it up even though you didn't ask). I heartily recommend thinking in terms of say, a half foot rather than six inches whenever possible, since unit conversion errors are no fun and it's thus best to stay in cubic feet unless you absolutely can't avoid it.

The general formula for finding the volume of a rectangular prism (a box shape) is length x width x height = volume. Since your volume is 30 cubic feet, that means that your other three numbers have to multiply together to a number less than or equal to 30, and then you can make a box shape that big.

Solid walls can be easily modeled this way - if you want to completely block a rectangular passage, and you already know how tall and wide it is, then you can maximize the thickness as follows:

(tall x wide)/30 = how thick you can make it in cubic feet.

For example, if you wanted to block a 10 foot wide corridor with 8 foot ceilings, it would be:
(8 x 10)/30 = thickness
80/30 = thickness
8/3 = thickness
or about 2.67 feet thick.

This will work to maximize the third dimension whenever you already know what you want the other two to be, which is probably the easiest way to go about it in practice.

If you want formulas for other common geometric solids (cones, cylinders, spheres, etc), I suggest searching for "volume formula sheet" and printing out whichever one looks easiest to use.

If you can make more complex shapes rather than just simple solids, you can block a lot more space by making something like a chain link fence rather than a solid wall, but the math is more complicated as well. If you can go that route, I'd suggest modeling a few such shapes in advance and having them ready in your notes rather than doing so during a game session. If you can make arbitrarily complex objects, you'd probably be better off creating a 30 cubic foot swarm of small but heavily armed combat robots to block the passageway for you, really, so find out the limits of this power before spending too much time on mathematical modeling of shapes.

Um...you got your fraction upside down.

It should be:

Thickness = 30/(tall x wide)
So your 8 foot x 10 foot hall would be blocked by a wall 0.375 feet thick, or about 5 inches thick.

[Algeh]

Um...you got your fraction upside down.

It should be:

Thickness = 30/(tall x wide)
So your 8 foot x 10 foot hall would be blocked by a wall 0.375 feet thick, or about 5 inches thick.

You are correct. That's what I get for trying to do math by typing instead of on paper (then not checking my work - don't tell my students)...Thanks for catching my mistake!

[Strigon]

Interesting question...
Can you make them of any shape?
Because there are some very nasty things you could do with that in combat, or some very helpful things you can do with that outside of combat, provided you stay well inside the 30ft³ rule (this is so you don't have to do the math on some irregular shapes).
Just off the top of my head, you could probably argue for a ladder well over 100ft tall, or you could even be a walking 3D printer!

[MrStabby]

Can you make them ANY shape?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach...Tarski_paradox

[Odessa333]

It's for mutants and masterminds, and it reads 'You can form any simple geometric shape or common object." Ladder would likely work, the paradox one, likely not. I will eventually be able to add the modifier of 'precise' to this power, allowing for more precise control and allowing more complexity.


So just to test my math here... with the next power upgrade, I would get object creation up to 60 cubit feet. Using the same formula, it would be


60/(tall x wide)
60/(10 x 8)
60/ 80

for .75 feet thick. Right?

[Strigon]

So just to test my math here... with the next power upgrade, I would get object creation up to 60 cubit feet. Using the same formula, it would be


60/(tall x wide)
60/(10 x 8)
60/ 80

for .75 feet thick. Right?

Right. I recommend you start checking your math yourself, though; it's just a simple matter of multiplying all 3 values, and seeing if they come out to your maximum.

So in this case, you would have 10 x 8 x 0.75, which does come out to 60.

[Anonymouswizard]

How permanent are your creations?

I'm not going to give any examples of objects, because I'm too used to working in real units (read: meters) to get how big 30 cubic feet is (anybody doing maths or science outside of SI units is being silly once you get high enough, SI units are defined to make conversions easier). However, if your creations aren't sustained (if they are, why? There is a lot you lose out on) then you can easily block off whatever you want by just attacking your current 30 cubic feet piece to the last one.

[Odessa333]

I actually am using Continuous with my creations, so they permit even if I can't spend the free action to maintain them. The power has create, continuous, and selective right now. Given enough time, I could block off ANY entry. This character has no real attack option (a complication I'm working with) so if she is being attacked/chased, her defense is to create obstacles and run. It's partly why I was thinking things like 'fence' and 'wall' to see how much of an obstacle I could make in front of an attacker. I'm also going to be making selective cover for allies, and I wasn't sure what 30 cubit feet would mean for that. Cover one ally? Two? Four? Wasn't sure, though this gives me some concrete numbers to use.

And for what it's worth, I hate feet/inches/etc. Metric would make things so much simpler.

[Strigon]

I actually am using Continuous with my creations, so they permit even if I can't spend the free action to maintain them. The power has create, continuous, and selective right now. Given enough time, I could block off ANY entry. This character has no real attack option (a complication I'm working with) so if she is being attacked/chased, her defense is to create obstacles and run. It's partly why I was thinking things like 'fence' and 'wall' to see how much of an obstacle I could make in front of an attacker. I'm also going to be making selective cover for allies, and I wasn't sure what 30 cubit feet would mean for that. Cover one ally? Two? Four? Wasn't sure, though this gives me some concrete numbers to use.

And for what it's worth, I hate feet/inches/etc. Metric would make things so much simpler.

You could very easily turn this into some manner of offensive capability (depending on the material, it might be harder).
What's the range on the power?

[Reltzik]

Calculating the volume of a standard lunchroom chair (curse you curved seat and backing!) was probably the most difficult thing I ever did in a math class, requiring fairly advanced calculus in places. In that case, you're best off just approximating with rectangular prisms and saying "I can make something bigger than what I want, so I can make what I want".

But.... but... that's exactly what calculus does!

[Odessa333]

The range is a good question. Let me see, the power is rank 5, and the srd says

"A ranged effect has a short range of (rank x 25 feet), a medium range of (rank x 50 feet) and a long range of (rank x 100 feet)."

So that would be short range 125 feet, medium would be 250 feet, and long range would 500 feet. Good to know, actually!

Incidentally, the 'create' power is listed here:

http://www.d20herosrd.com/6-powers/e...create-control

[Socksy]

Can you make them ANY shape?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach...Tarski_paradox

This thing had me awake for three nights and messaging my geometry and mathematical analysis lecturers in a panic when I first discovered it.

But.... but... that's exactly what calculus does!

Simpson's Rule seems like it'd be good for the chair issue.
Or push it underwater and measure displacement xD (although I'm guessing it was a hypothetical chair.)

If you can create 30ft of matter, start looking at poisons. The nastiest ones you can. Positoxins. Acid does something like 20d6 if you can fully submerge a creature.

[MrStabby]

This thing had me awake for three nights and messaging my geometry and mathematical analysis lecturers in a panic when I first discovered it.

Oh? How did you get to sleep in the end? This has kept my brain hurting for about 5 years.

This whole thing seems like a reducto ad absurdam argument to prove that maths is silly. The fact that it is logical and consistent breaks my mind. To Quote Douglass Adams "I don't believe it. Prove it to me and i still won't believe it".

[Reltzik]

This thing had me awake for three nights and messaging my geometry and mathematical analysis lecturers in a panic when I first discovered it.



Simpson's Rule seems like it'd be good for the chair issue.
Or push it underwater and measure displacement xD (although I'm guessing it was a hypothetical chair.)

If you can create 30ft of matter, start looking at poisons. The nastiest ones you can. Positoxins. Acid does something like 20d6 if you can fully submerge a creature.

Or, if you want to do some REAL damage, 30 cubic ft of plutonium-238. (For easy reference, this is roughly 300 times critical mass.)

.... I'm the sort of person that a wise DM restricts to core rules.

[Reltzik]

Oh? How did you get to sleep in the end? This has kept my brain hurting for about 5 years.

This whole thing seems like a reducto ad absurdam argument to prove that maths is silly. The fact that it is logical and consistent breaks my mind. To Quote Douglass Adams "I don't believe it. Prove it to me and i still won't believe it".

Here's how to make sense of it:

Infinity is weird. Really, really weird. There is absolutely no way to make intuitive sense of it. No matter how you carefully and sanely you set up your definitions and axioms, your intuition will find something to become a dissident over and you have to take it out behind the chemical shed and shoot it.

As a more elementary example: The set of all integers is infinite. The set of EVEN integers is also infinite... and despite containing only roughly half of the elements found in the set of all integers ("roughly" because "half" is not well-defined here), it is EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE as the set of all integers. So too is the set of all odd integers. You can divide an infinite set into two equal, disjoint infinite sets and have them both be the same size as the original.

This is a lot like what's being done here. Old hat.

But it's not a case that all infinite things are the same size, because some infinities are bigger than each other. Cantor showed us a method for producing larger and larger orders of infinity. Starting with the natural numbers (classed as a"countable" infinity, equivalent in size to the integers and the rationals), we have a method to produce a larger order of infinity, equivalent to the Reals. Applying this method to the reals, and we produce a larger order, equivalent to Function Space. Keep applying this method forever, and you keep getting orders of infinity, each order of infinity a bigger infinity than the last.

FOREVER. INFINITELY many orders of infinity.

Specifically, the infinity of orders of infinity generated in this manner is countably infinite. Whether there are more orders of infinity (generated by some other method) that could make all the orders of infinity uncountably infinite is an open problem. If some method were to be found that could take this countably infinite order of infinity, and generate uncountably infinite orders of infinity in a manner similar to what Cantor did, then we may well end up having countably infinite orders of orders of infinity.

Pleasant dreams!

[Rockoe10]

I actually am using Continuous with my creations, so they permit even if I can't spend the free action to maintain them. The power has create, continuous, and selective right now. Given enough time, I could block off ANY entry. This character has no real attack option (a complication I'm working with) so if she is being attacked/chased, her defense is to create obstacles and run. It's partly why I was thinking things like 'fence' and 'wall' to see how much of an obstacle I could make in front of an attacker. I'm also going to be making selective cover for allies, and I wasn't sure what 30 cubit feet would mean for that. Cover one ally? Two? Four? Wasn't sure, though this gives me some concrete numbers to use.

And for what it's worth, I hate feet/inches/etc. Metric would make things so much simpler.

You could actually cover many allies at once. By reducing the thickness of the wall and making it hollow (a dome for example), you can enclose a large space (larger than 30ft^3).

As mentioned above, the displacement of water would be greater than if it was a solid object. Also bouyant!

[MrStabby]

Here's how to make sense of it:

Infinity is weird. Really, really weird. There is absolutely no way to make intuitive sense of it. No matter how you carefully and sanely you set up your definitions and axioms, your intuition will find something to become a dissident over and you have to take it out behind the chemical shed and shoot it.

As a more elementary example: The set of all integers is infinite. The set of EVEN integers is also infinite... and despite containing only roughly half of the elements found in the set of all integers ("roughly" because "half" is not well-defined here), it is EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE as the set of all integers. So too is the set of all odd integers. You can divide an infinite set into two equal, disjoint infinite sets and have them both be the same size as the original.

This is a lot like what's being done here. Old hat.

But it's not a case that all infinite things are the same size, because some infinities are bigger than each other. Cantor showed us a method for producing larger and larger orders of infinity. Starting with the natural numbers (classed as a"countable" infinity, equivalent in size to the integers and the rationals), we have a method to produce a larger order of infinity, equivalent to the Reals. Applying this method to the reals, and we produce a larger order, equivalent to Function Space. Keep applying this method forever, and you keep getting orders of infinity, each order of infinity a bigger infinity than the last.

FOREVER. INFINITELY many orders of infinity.

Specifically, the infinity of orders of infinity generated in this manner is countably infinite. Whether there are more orders of infinity (generated by some other method) that could make all the orders of infinity uncountably infinite is an open problem. If some method were to be found that could take this countably infinite order of infinity, and generate uncountably infinite orders of infinity in a manner similar to what Cantor did, then we may well end up having countably infinite orders of orders of infinity.

Pleasant dreams!

Yeah, I remember that infinity stuff. That different types of infinite numbers of discontinuities in different series do different things. Cantor diagonalisation and all that stuff. Infinity I can kind of cope with... Kind of. Made me wish I had studied something useful like engineering instead of mathematics.

[DaedalusMkV]

But.... but... that's exactly what calculus does!

Yes, yes it is. Which is why I used Calculus to do it. I still would not recommend it to anyone who isn't currently taking a university-level Calculus course, because it is very difficult and no fun whatsoever.

Just try it some time if you want a headache. Find a chair with a curved bottom, curved backing, curved legs (though that's not a big deal) and a cutout somewhere on it and calculate the volume of it solely using geometry. Have fun. Nobody in my class did.

[5ColouredWalker]

Or, if you want to do some REAL damage, 30 cubic ft of plutonium-238. (For easy reference, this is roughly 300 times critical mass.)

.... I'm the sort of person that a wise DM restricts to core rules.

Ok, lets not create Plutonium or Uranium, because in theory the creator wants to survive, and she's certainly not able to create it from outside the blast radius.


However, you could create a 30ft cube of, say, CLF3, preferably gaseos given it's in that state at room temperature [I imagine as a solid it would explode]. That'd light everything on fire and douse it in acid at the same time, which should solve problems fairly quickly. It also allows you to chew through non-metal barricades easily. [Note, steel counts as non-metal in this case, though you may not chew through much.]

For something more allowable than chemical warfare, I would suggest dropping a 30ft cube of a dense metal on people. You could drop it from 100ft on targets 75ft away while being in short range, and 30ft cube of lead would weigh 340.8lb/154.90[90rep]kg [From a quick google. Note, this is as much as a heavily obese person]. Depending on falling rules, this may do a lot with a save to avoid, or just do a middling amount with no save. You could shape the object into a wedge or spike for different damage types.

Also, being lead, you likely wouldn't be accused of trying to break the economy. However be careful doing this around water sources.

Edit:
*Looks for falling rules*
Huh, create has rules for creating objects to fall on people. Height and weight isn't a factor. Well, assuming you chose not to isolate people by putting them in boxes, based on the rules given, you could create an object that's arbritrarily thin to create an extremely wide area attack that does your ranks in damage.

[ExLibrisMortis]

a 30ft cube of lead would weigh 340.8lb/154.90[90rep]kg

Err, that's a bit low. Lead weighs a bit over 11 g/cm³, or roughly eleven times as much as water. 30 cubic feet is roughly 30 * 30 * 30 * 30 = 810.000 cm³ (~30 cm in a foot), for a weight of some 9.000.000 grams, 9000 kilograms - that's about 20.000 lb, or six cars or so.

If you're dropping stuff on people, I'd go with some sort of fast-acting glue or resin, or possibly molten lead, if that's possible. Better still, molten rock. Not so much for the heat, but it should harden - or at least thicken - pretty quickly. The advantage of these things is that they don't need to drop from above - or they can be a flattish sheet that folds inwards around the target - so you can use them indoors or sideways, as needed.

That'd light everything on fire and douse it in acid at the same time, which should solve problems fairly quickly.

Yes, that will dissolve problems alright.

Check out this chemistry blog for fun stuff to conjure up.

I think you could also have fun with nets, if you can conjure up some exotic fibres. If you're precise enough, summon a seamless super-strong bag around your opponent, and make sure it's airtight.

[5ColouredWalker]

Err, that's a bit low. Lead weighs a bit over 11 g/cm³, or roughly eleven times as much as water. 30 cubic feet is roughly 30 * 30 * 30 * 30 = 810.000 cm³ (~30 cm in a foot), for a weight of some 9.000.000 grams, 9000 kilograms - that's about 20.000 lb, or six cars or so.

If you're dropping stuff on people, I'd go with some sort of fast-acting glue or resin, or possibly molten lead, if that's possible. Better still, molten rock. Not so much for the heat, but it should harden - or at least thicken - pretty quickly. The advantage of these things is that they don't need to drop from above, so you can use them indoors or sideways, as needed.

1: That's why I said 'Based off a quick google'. I got a number, it felt wrong, but I passed it on anyway. Also, ouch.
2: Based on the rules you'd have to do the resin or cool lead, unless you could link powers though.



But yes, chemistry is fun. Even sticking to mundane chemicals such as HCL, create a mass of high molar HCL around the target and they'll be out of the fight.

[Reltzik]

Ok, lets not create Plutonium or Uranium, because in theory the creator wants to survive, and she's certainly not able to create it from outside the blast radius.

CHICKEN!

Just create a shell of the stuff around you, argue that this sort of reaction has an "eye of the storm" effect, and trust that your GM isn't likely to break out the nuclear physics textbooks in the middle of a session in order to contest you. HOW COULD THIS POSSIBLY FAIL?

....

Why that sudden look of horror on everyone's faces?

Okay, okay, fine. If you don't want to cause some REAL damage, might I suggest mercury azides or FOOF instead?

[5ColouredWalker]

Just create a shell of the stuff around you, argue that this sort of reaction has an "eye of the storm" effect, and trust that your GM isn't likely to break out the nuclear physics textbooks in the middle of a session in order to contest you. HOW COULD THIS POSSIBLY FAIL?

He could argue common sense, or require you to prove it.
Also, the object is at most 500ft away. IF you're going to do stuff like that, you might as well go for planet cracking and pull out antinuetronium.

While I remember FOOF, I still think ClF3 is better, seeing how instead of just exploding/lighting things on fire, it light's things on fire AND douses them in gaseous acid. You will need your running shoes in either case.

[Reltzik]

He could argue common sense, or require you to prove it.
Also, the object is at most 500ft away. IF you're going to do stuff like that, you might as well go for planet cracking and pull out antinuetronium.

While I remember FOOF, I still think ClF3 is better, seeing how instead of just exploding/lighting things on fire, it light's things on fire AND douses them in gaseous acid. You will need your running shoes in either case.

If running shoes will help, you're not going hardcore enough.

Hmmm. For something with more utility than bang, consider Lonsdaleite. It's naturally-occuring, and while not enough of it has been gathered together in pure form to verify this experimentally, simulations suggest that it's over half-again harder than diamond. So long as you're not up against a gem-cutter who knows the exact angle to chisel and cut his way through such a substance, it would make a very effective wall or cage. (It wouldn't hold back the fluorine chemicals, though.)

Edit: Also, there needs to be a name for "that infinitely-dense stuff that makes up a black hole". It's not even neutronium at that point. .... we can create 30 cubic feet of that, right? That will either produce a big bang or an even bigger crunch.