7d6 damage/level? No save??

[ahenobarbi]

Hydrogen is neither mineral, vegetable nor metal so it's out. And at least for the latter, there's no surface capable of supporting a star anyway.

Metallic hydrogen will work

EDIT: Ninjas make me cry ;(

[John Longarrow]

Deophaun and ahenobarbi
Jinx...

[Psyren]

Hydrogen can indeed be a metal.

That won't work - without the necessary 3.5 million PSI to keep it that way, it will not stay in that form. Therefore, the "surface to support it" that you actually need is the core of a planet, and I doubt you'd be getting much spellcasting done down there.

[TheDarkSaint]

Is anyone else starting to feel like this has turned in to a Monty Python skit?

[Psyren]

Is anyone else starting to feel like this has turned in to a Monty Python skit?

It is a silly place thread.

[John Longarrow]

Psyren,
but the floor would easily support it... Fortunatly there is no restriction like the specifically included one in summon monster/natures ally that the item summoned needs to be able to survive. As an example, if you summon iron in a room with oxygen, some of the iron will oxidize and rust away. Likewise if you summon ice and it isn't cold enough or if there isn't enough pressure/humidity, some will melt or evaporate.

And Yes, my retainer IS being funded by Asmodeus.

[John Longarrow]

TheDarkSaint
Now I am wondering what shadowspam would taste like...

[Deophaun]

Therefore, the "surface to support it" that you actually need is the core of a planet, and I doubt you'd be getting much spellcasting done down there.

First, as I said, it was not to be used in a campaign. Second, no. You're trying to shift the definition of support to be whatever is most useful to your position at any given time, rather than being consistent. And the phrasing of the conjuration text does not lend itself to your usage.

If the language said "cannot be conjured on a surface that cannot support it," you would have a case, albeit a slim one, if you could identify some aspect in which the surface did not support the object (such as not being able to support its continued existence). However, it is not worded in the negative that way. Instead, it is worded in the positive: "It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it." Thus, if anything, one need only identify a single aspect in which the surface does support the object (such as bearing its weight), and the condition is satisfied.

Besides, surfaces do not support objects in the fashion that you use it. It is not the floor, after all, that prevents your blood from boiling off or stops the Sun's radiation from cooking you. There are other external forces at work supporting you in this manner.

[Psyren]

You're trying to shift the definition of support to be whatever is most useful to your position at any given time, rather than being consistent.

How is it inconsistent?

If the language said "cannot be conjured on a surface that cannot support it," you would have a case, albeit a slim one, if you could identify some aspect in which the surface did not support the object (such as not being able to support its continued existence). However, it is not worded in the negative that way. Instead, it is worded in the positive: "It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."

I see no difference between these two phrasings that matters. In either case, what is important is the support.

Besides, surfaces do not support objects in the fashion that you use it. It is not the floor, after all, that prevents your blood from boiling off or stops the Sun's radiation from cooking you. There are other external forces at work supporting you in this manner.

But the very nature of the object is defined by the pressure forces in your article. Without that level of pressure it simply ceases to be Metallic Hydrogen, therefore it cannot exist outside of that environment and still be what it is. Whereas a human with all his blood boiled off or cooked is still human (albeit dead) etc.

[Raven777]

That won't work - without the necessary 3.5 million PSI to keep it that way, it will not stay in that form. Therefore, the "surface to support it" that you actually need is the core of a planet, and I doubt you'd be getting much spellcasting done down there.

Objection. At moment t (where t -> 0) that it is summoned, it is in its metallic state and totally supported by the surface it is summoned on. Not our fault if that state ain't sustainable past t.

[Psyren]

Objection. At moment t (where t -> 0) that it is summoned, it is in its metallic state and totally supported by the surface it is summoned on. Not our fault if that state ain't sustainable past t.

Except you're not summoning it, you're creating it. Thus there is no quantum moment t such that it exists independently of the pressure required for its creation.

[Deophaun]

How is it inconsistent?

Because the definition of support must change depending on the object summoned. Otherwise, it's possible to summon a chunk of granite on a cobweb, because the cobweb supports its existence, instead of its weight.

I see no difference between these two phrasings that matters. In either case, what is important is the support.

Phrased in the negative, any failure to support can be interpreted as satisfying the condition of not being allowed to conjure. Phrased in the positive, any support can be interpreted as satisfying the condition to conjure. These are very big differences.

But the very nature of the object is defined by the pressure forces in your article. Without that level of pressure it simply ceases to be Metallic Hydrogen.

That's fine. It will cease to be metallic hydrogen. After it is created. Just as ice ceases to be ice after it is created inside a furnace.

[JaronK]

Easier way of doing this: just summon a whole bunch of Sinmaker's Surprise. There's roughly 996 doses per cubic foot, and each dose forces a DC 24 save or take 3d6 acid damage and 2d6 con damage (and take the con damage again in a minute if you fail a second save). You don't need to summon it over the enemy, just a bunch where they're standing. They have to be immune to poison and acid to be immune to the whole thing, otherwise they're just dead.

And if you're a Factotum or otherwise can cast it as a standard action, it's an instant kill. It's also vegetable based so it lasts a long time... so you can keep the poison that's created and use it to poison your arrows or something.

JaronK

[John Longarrow]

Psyren,
Once more breaking out my solicitors hat, I'd have to point out that the surface will support the item, just not the surrounding environment.

If you wish to argue that the surrounding environment must be non-damaging to the item, then that would preclude most everything you summon. After all, damp dungeons (a common local) are very destructive towards metal object and often cause rot in vegetation.

I will admit, were I DMing I'd not allow a player to do this kinda thing.

[Phelix-Mu]

Summon Physicists

This epic druidic spell is seen as a last line of defense against wizards intent on destroying the natural balance in some ill-conceived magical experiment. By drawing on the laws inherent in the world (read: RAW), the spell seeks to bewitch the wizards into thinking that advanced physics is the best direction to go with their magic.

In game terms, any group of up to 1d4 wizards targeted by this spell will spend n+1 rounds involved in pithy, yet ultimately futile, discussion of the interaction between magic and science. "n" is defined to be a number not less than the number of rules lawyers at the table, yet not greater than the number of catgirls whom Asmodeus is currently busy damning, their only crime a combination of sheer numbers, and a reality-defying tendency to expire at the behest of online discussions.

[Psyren]

Because the definition of support must change depending on the object summoned. Otherwise, it's possible to summon a chunk of granite on a cobweb, because the cobweb supports its existence, instead of its weight.

I agree that shouldn't be possible but don't see how anything I said makes that possible (granite on cobwebs.)

Phrased in the negative, any failure to support can be interpreted as satisfying the condition of not being allowed to conjure. Phrased in the positive, any support can be interpreted as satisfying the condition to conjure. These are very big differences.

I'm still not seeing the difference. If the item has 3 requirements for "support" and the surface only meets two of them, then the conjuration would fail - so what's the problem?

For instance, water has two "support" conditions - weight and volume. You can't conjure it in midair due to the first, and you can't conjure it on a perfectly flat plane due to the second - it needs to be in a container.

That's fine. It will cease to be metallic hydrogen. After it is created. Just as ice ceases to be ice after it is created inside a furnace.

Let's assume you're right and take a step back. This whole digression started because I said Hydrogen wasn't a metal/mineral, which in turn started because Longarrow wanted to create "hot Osmium" over someone's head on a platform of ice.

So my question then is - can the spell create Hot X or Cold X? "Ice" and "Water" are different situations I would say, because there are actually different names for those states. Letting temperature be a parameter where it isn't specified as one in the spell for every material just leads to trouble. What's stopping you from using "Create Hot Water" to scald someone with for instance?

Summon Physicists

[John Longarrow]

Phelix-Mu for the WIN!!!

Only thing left is to get the Marching band to parade so Godwin's law is triggered!

[Phelix-Mu]

Phelix-Mu for the WIN!!!

Only thing left is to get the Marching band to parade so Godwin's law is triggered!

I keep thinking I can come up for a better name for the spell, but I went for an obvious/expedient one in an (apparently futile) effort to stem the tide of dead catgirls.

[The Random NPC]

For instance, water has two "support" conditions - weight and volume. You can't conjure it in midair due to the first, and you can't conjure it on a perfectly flat plane due to the second - it needs to be in a container.

I don't believe that is correct, the only requirement for conjuring water is a surface that won't collapse when you summon/create it. Otherwise Create Water wouldn't have that line about possibly creating a downpour when conjured.

[John Longarrow]

Phelix-Mu

Only thing you need to add is "Upon expiration of spell duration, said Physicists conjure cherry pies by science and proceed to propel them at a rate equal to not less than the number of wizards raise by the number of catgirls power kilometers per parsec into the faces of the wizards."

[TuggyNE]

Phelix-Mu

Only thing you need to add is "Upon expiration of spell duration, said Physicists conjure cherry pies by science and proceed to propel them at a rate equal to not less than the number of wizards raise by the number of catgirls power kilometers per parsec into the faces of the wizards."

Kilometers per what now? Do you mean meters per mile, or something of that nature? A parsec is a unit of length, not time.

[Phelix-Mu]

Kilometers per what now? Do you mean meters per mile, or something of that nature? A parsec is a unit of length, not time.

I wouldn't amend the spell until we iron that last bit out. All I could picture was some warp engines on a cherry pie. Not the amount of mindscrew I was looking for, but nice nonetheless.

[John Longarrow]

Kilometers per what now? Do you mean meters per mile, or something of that nature? A parsec is a unit of length, not time.

Not sure if its before your time or not, but its from the line "made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs". Gotta Love Han's line!

Phelix-Mu
I've I'm sure you'll get it expanded to truly epic levels soon!
NOTE: Once you get past 20th level, you are EPIC. Once you break your DM's brain to hurt, you are TRULY EPIC!

[Jack_Simth]

No, the real fun comes from taking two ring gates and shoving ten into each other until you get a closed hemisphere from which things cannot escape but they can go in. Use Wall of Stone or whatever to make stone. Cut it into as many five pound boulders as you can. Shrink them permanently. Make a very, very large amount. Billions. Shove them all into the hemisphere. The constant motion combined with the orientation of the rings means they reach and stay at terminal velocity (D&D terminal velocity, that is, constant maximum falling distance). Then throw this contraption over an area and hit it with dispel magic.

The sudden rain of billions of pounds of stone deals damage best represented with scientific notation. The area is saturated, too, but limited, so it's a controlled area hit by multiple boulders rather than a ginormous spread.

Trouble is, in 3.5, Ring Gates have a per-day weight limit. In order for things to become trapped, they have to have a nature that prevents them from ever being fully through. Otherwise, the ring gate quickly hits the limit, and things simply start going through like they would a mundane ring.

That aspect can be used to make an amusing gravity cannon - get two sets of ring gates: One set arranged so that the exit is directly above the entry (so anything falling in that path keeps falling until the daily weight limit is reached). The other set with an entry just below the other two, and an exit mounted on your fighter friend's shield (which he keeps pointed at the enemy).

Really? Atleast it still works on really mildly large creatures. Ready action greater shadow conjuration poison into a t-rex's mouth would be pretty funny (or into the gullet for that matter for when your teammate cuts their way out).

Yep. Part of the Line of Effect rules.

[TuggyNE]

Not sure if its before your time or not, but its from the line "made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs". Gotta Love Han's line!

I'm aware. The joke is that that is almost the worst nonsequitur possible in that context. I suppose "in less than twelve radians" might be weirder, but not by all that much.

It gets worse when you remove the only possible justification for using the unit like that (i.e., that he'd managed to find a shortcut that spanned less than 12 parsecs distance, which presumes that the regular run is something over 12) by deliberately using it as if it were a unit of time.