Spells dealing cold damage. effects?

[Greenfield]

Since you insist...

The setting was D&D 3.0, the creature was an Epic monster, something title a "Colossus". It was a construct, Colossal in size, with a DR50/+5 Magic, and it had a 50 foot radius of Anti Magic Field around it. (Meaning that there is no such thing as a +5 weapon anywhere near it.)

I proposed using large boulders and using Shrink Item on them, reducing them to the size of a pea. Now use a sling, or even a blow-gun, to fire them at the Colossus. As they enter the AMF the spell on them goes down and you have a barrage of catapult stones coming in.

The DM argued that "Conservation of Momentum" will apply, and the stones will lose speed as soon as they enter the Anti Magic Field.

And thus was born the Hamster cannon. Not to kill the Collosus, but to deliver a fatal blow to the concept of applying physics to magic.

Start with a mule wearing a pack saddle. Now load him down with as much stone as he can carry and still stans. (Walking isn't needed). Polymorph it into a hamster.

Because gear the target is wearing gets absorbed into the new form if it's something inappropriate for that new form, all the rocks and the pack saddle essentially vanish.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the loaded mule weighed 2,000 lbs. Reduced to a 4 ounce hamster, that's an 8,000 to 1 reduction.

Now the problem with the "conservation of Momentum" argument is that the DM was thinking of the surface of the world as stationary. It isn't. If the world runs on physics, then the planet spins, like the Earth, and it orbits a sun. Earth surface velocity from spin varies from a bit over 1,000 mph at the equator to near zero at the poles. To keep the math simple, we'll presume the caster is in a temperate zone, and the speed is an even thousand miles an hour.

The Earth orbits the sun at an average speed of 62,500 mph (it varies with the season). If the Polymorph takes place at midnight, you add the surface rotational velocity to the orbital velocity. If it happens at noon, you subtract it.

In either case, if you want to apply Conservation of Momentum when the stone (or hamster) gets thrown into that AMF, you also have to apply it when the original transformation takes place.

So, 63,500 of planetary motion, multiplied by 8,000 (the loss of mass) yields a velocity of 508,000,000 miles per hour. That's about sixty percent of the speed of light, and that's how fast the hamster takes off the moment you Polymorph it.

The resultant shock wave will tear away approximately 30% of the planetary atmosphere, and the caster will get dragged along by the horrendous draft, and hurled into space.

Now if you do this at sunrise the speed is slightly lower, but the trajectory is straight up. Do it at sunset and you get the same reduced speed, but the trajectory is straight down. The impact would result in more damage than the meteor that created Iceland, when it punched through the Earth's crust. In short, disrupt crustal tectonics, a crater larger than Tuscarora, and the area goes volcanic.

So do it at midnight, using the spell at maximum range, from a protected bunker, and set up to the east of your target. I don't care what it is, it's dead.

Now, to be fair, the hamster dies as well. By the rules, even though he'll incinerate almost instantly, his death isn't official until the end of the round, so you have six full seconds of warp-speed hamster before his ashes revert to those of a non warp-speed donkey. After which a ton of rocks fall on someone.

We had a discussion on the relative aerodynamics of hamsters, and whether he would do better butt-first or nose first. The final conclusion was, if I recall correctly, that because of the turbulence caused by the legs and ears (while they lasted), he'd be a knuckleball no matter how he started.

Don't even think about using an Elephant for this. A large male African Elephant can range as heavy as 13,500 lbs, before we begin loading him down. The Elephant/Hamster conversion at midnight should come out to 3,810,000,000 mph at launch point (presuming he can carry as much stone as the donkey), which is several times the speed of light. Presuming that Einstein was right about Relativity, the actual velocity would top out at something like 0.9999999999 C., but the impact mass would be near infinite. In the "straight down" scenario, good by planet.

Worldwide destruction for something as simple as a non-epic 5th level spell!

The point of this exercise in the hyper-mathematics of launching Hamsters into orbit (or Elephants, for that matter) is that if you're going to try and apply real-world physics to a situation that can't actually happen in the real world (i.e. objects spontaneously gaining or losing mass), you have to apply it all the time, not just as a way to limit what PCs can do.

An arrow fired by someone under Enlarge Person should revert to normal size as soon as it leaves the bow. It's mass drops by a factor of eight (half size, cubed since it's a three dimensional object), so it's velocity should multiply by a like factor. And since kinetic energy damage is based on mass times velocity squared, the damage on impact should be 8 times greater, not the measly "1D8 becomes 2 D6" conversion from the weapons size chart. (Listed damage, divided by 8 because of loss of mass, multiplied by 64 because of the increase in velocity).

But this is an example of the way most people try to apply "real world physics" to games, and what happens when they do. They seldom realize the size of the task they're undertaking, and end up applying "gut level feel" of how they think physics *should* work in that situation.

 

[Dozen]

That's it. I'm done being nice.

Not to be argumentative

...

...you know.

...

...you know.

Yeah. Yeah, I'm not buying that in this lifetime. Saying your argument is not X at the start of the argument doesn't magically void everything that would suggest it is X afterwards, you know. Moreover, saying 'you know' after stating a trivial fact based on the assumption rather than clear knowledge the recipient isn't aware questions and undermines the recipient's status as to slowly chip away his self-esteem. You know. Cheapass psychological attacks against those who plan to major in psychology tend not to work out very well. You know?

Do you calculate real world falling speed? Do you take air density into account?

Well, yes. Why wouldn’t I? It's a 6th grader level equation and every information necessary is given. Takes about half a minute with a calculator when I take my time, and mostly you can prepare beforehand anyway.

Do you have some formula for converting mass times velocity-squared into hit points?

Here's falling:
m(obj.; lbs.)/100(min.1)*1d6*(10ft+Hardness-6)*v²(median homo s.)/v²(obj.)+a(Ability Modifier)

The others are a little more complicated, and since assuming your debate partners are intellectually inferior is accepted and commonplace here, I'll follow your lead and keep them to myself.

Do Lightning Bolt spells burn the hand of the caster?

Gee, I wonder if they would invent and cast a hazardous spell without proper safety measures taken.

Now seriously, are you high? Because I am, and I still would have seen this coming from a mile away. You knew very well what I was going to answer. What's the point in asking other than pissing me off?

Does the spell start fires?

Duh.

Where does the energy for a Lightning Bolt come from?

Various sources of Arcana too numerous to list. The damn thing just floats about in the multiverse, flip up the Manual of the Planes or the Planar Handbook sometime.

Where do the material components go?

Material components provide either clear assistance to creating circumstances that make the spell effect possible, symbolic meaning/sacrifice in pact-based magic or psychological support to the caster(a.k.a. placebo, see Dragonlance prequel Brother's In Arms, Raistlin Chronicles). When they are not outright Glitterdust-style "jokes" that fail at being funny.

How do you account for the sudden appearance of matter when spells like Create Food and Drink are cast?

Lazy to glance at the school descriptions to come up with a half-decent argument? How respectful of you. Can you report a fellow ENWorlder for being willfully ignorant? Does that count as disruptive?

Material involved in Conjuration spells always comes from somewhere. There are potentially infinite possible sources of matter to be arranged in a shape and form that provides nourishment. It doesn't violate anything other than your limited imagination.

Where does the energy for spells like Continual Flame come from?

When conjured? The Elemental Plane of Fire. Again, duh. Other than that, the circumstances necessary to keep the flame burning (or in existence, as the case may be with Evocation) are maintained for the spell's duration from the surrounding Arcana. What was that about paying attention to me again?

Where does the energy go when sunlight hits a Darkness spell?

Absorbed by the Shadowstuff the darkness consists of. I didn't even need to come up with this one, it's canon. See Lesser Shadow Magic entry in Tome of Magic Chapter two, and origin stories of the Plane of Shadow.

How does Teleport work? Is velocity maintained? Do you take planetary spin into account? Where does the energy come from/go to when the starting point and destination are at different altitudes? Different latitudes? (The caster's velocity is higher near the equator than it is as they move away. See Coriolis Force as applied to course plotting in air travel, if you need a reference.)

Momentum and velocity are not maintained, due to the nature of planar travel. Why planar, you ask? The vast majority of teleportation spells cause the target to enter the Astral Plane(in case they weren't there already), where momentum and velocity don't exist. You knew that? Of course you did, but you started stating the obvious. Even if I didn't know I could use Google, you passive-agressive prick. Don't hide your dislike of me(at least not so badly) and I might respect you for it. Or maybe you could forgo the backhanded routine and I'd stop hurling insults in return. Maybe.

I suspect that what you strive for is "Realism", not "Reality". That is, something that suits your gut level feeling of how physics ought to work, without any real consideration for how it does work.

And you'd dare to play grammar nazi when you argued we shouldn't use the word 'instant''s textbook definition because it was more convenient for you? Congrats, you just won the yearly Hypocrite award.

So, to be clear, I'm not saying that your game doesn't work. I'm just suggesting that you're picking and choosing what part of "physics" you want to allow/require/apply, and then using it to justify the results you feel you should have. In short, you're using "Credibility", rather than reality. It's just a question of what's credible to you.

Bu-huhu-huulllpiiiieeees.
It's must be nice to assume everything works the same way for everyone as it does for you until proven otherwise, but come on. Every once in a while the assumption will be false and you end up looking silly. Spare yourself the trouble and ask first before you draw a premature conclusion. Did it occur to you at any moment that I may possibly know what my own motives are as opposed to lying to myself, and recognize if I didn't achieve my goals yet? Yes? Or is that something I can't be possibly capable of in your opinion?

While I would love to point out the giant gaping holes in your ridiculous, albeit funny shamster story based on a rule a DM came up with on the fly, I find I care less and less for talking to you. If you’re actually interested in that, say so, until then I’m not wasting my time.

(Oh, edit: You know the thing about Bulverism and Appeals to Motive? They don't work. My emotional state and what I want to achieve has nothing to do with how right or wrong I am. Be nice and don't focus your retort on it.)

 

[Greenfield]

Without dissecting your reply line by line, I'll simply observe that you went from a straight formulation to presuming "safety factors" to plain old hand-waving in very short order. "Someplace in the multiverse" is an answer that flatly ignores physics. So are most of your others. They just kind of say "It's handled, somehow". Your analysis of materiel components was casually interesting, but deftly dodged the question I asked: Where do they go? You don't even try to give a meaningful answer. You just try to imply that it's all physics, somehow.

The rest of us say, "It's Magic". As in, "it's not physics." As in, "It's a game".

Now I agree that there are holes in the Hamster Cannon. I didn't, for example, consider the motion of the sun around the galactic center, nor the motion of the galaxy itself through the local galactic cluster. Including those would introduce seasonal variances, and some truly immeasurable factors.

But as far as the hard numbers I presented, please, show me one that's wrong.

Ignoring the relativity-defying case of the Elephant-to-Hamster conversion, it all works. Even the relatively simple case of an arrow dropping mass as it's fired, which ignores planetary motion entirely, is right on he money. Run the numbers yourself if you don't believe me.

And why don't momentum and velocity exist in the Astral plane? Astral Projection might ignore them, since there is no substance to the Astral form, but when you're moving actual matter around, the laws of motion should still apply, particularly when said matter re-enters the physical world. If, that is, you're ruling that physics applies in a magical game. If you're blowing off physics in favor of the meta-physics of the game world, great. We find ourselves in agreement.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Trying to apply real-world physics to D&D is a house rule. If it works for you and your players, great. But it is patently moronic to try and push it on others. The game has its own sets of (sometimes inconsistent) laws, and those should be the ones worked with. Trying to fit our understanding of our own world on worlds that are definitely not real or our own is very often merely an exercise in frustration.

 

[Starfox]

Now I agree that there are holes in the Hamster Cannon. I didn't, for example, consider the motion of the sun around the galactic center, nor the motion of the galaxy itself through the local galactic cluster. Including those would introduce seasonal variances, and some truly immeasurable factors.

This question boils down to Foucault pendulum and relative to what it's motion is stable - the ubiquitous mass of distant objects.

As to the merits of physics in RPGs, I am afraid you will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Dozen]

Trying to apply real-world physics to D&D is a house rule. If it works for you and your players, great. But it is patently moronic to try and push it on others. The game has its own sets of (sometimes inconsistent) laws, and those should be the ones worked with. Trying to fit our understanding of our own world on worlds that are definitely not real or our own is very often merely an exercise in frustration.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of that! He says my rules for physics aren't actually rules for physics. That pisses me off. Well, not anymore. I find I'm comparably calm right now. Greenfield was a lot more respectful in his last post - it's only natural that I reciprocate his efforts.

Greenfield, read on, I think we might reach a conclusion here.

"Someplace in the multiverse" is an answer that flatly ignores physics.

What, so I should define for you the exact position of Arcana clouds for every setting's every square mile in casual conversation? Simply not observing it doesn't cause my argument to lose merit. We know arcana exist, and when we cast spells, we prove it's there. The same goes for air: we can't actually see the damn thing. We aren't aware of it's exact position, or composition at any point in time. We can find out it's properties through research, experiments. (You may note that's what spellcasters do to various degrees, but that's a different story.)
And we haven't learned everything yet. That doesn't mean I handwave the rules governing it. I would very much like to know, but nobody told me yet, nor have I figured it out alone.

So it's not to say I don't handwave anything. I do retreat to... how you said, Credibility? Yes, I see that was it. So I do when I reach my limits, but deliberately at the highest possible denominator. The premise arcana works the way the books say it does, um, somehow, is a premise I had to accept due to lack of information, but I could explain everything related based on the premise. I see my magic-users know how to do it, and that enough for me - why it works the way it does would be nice to know, but so are the limits of the game and my intellect.

The rest of us say, "It's Magic". As in, "it's not physics." As in, "It's a game".

I... find it a little hurtful you'd say I ignore this is a game, but fine. I can endure this much, let's pretend you didn't say that.

Your analysis of materiel components was casually interesting, but deftly dodged the question I asked: Where do they go? You don't even try to give a meaningful answer. You just try to imply that it's all physics, somehow.

For a branch I actually did, but, uhh, I can see why you might arrive at that conclusion on the other two. I should have been clearer here, my bad.

Let's run through one of them in depth. Assume the magic in question utilizes oaths or pacts. In such a case the component could be(not necessarily IS) a sacrifice. When the recipient is not specified, the material is a symbolic sacrifice for power. The consciousness of the multiverse(yes, that's canon) accepts your sacrifice as something you own and willingly give up to it to twist itself a bit for you. And since you should not have access to it in the future, the component should disappear. I stressed 'should' because, thanks to the conservation of matter and energy, it cannot. There is(isn't?) a concept of nonexistence, but you cannot simply make something not a thing - that would require changing the fundamental rules of the plane you are on. Thus the matter enters the void where vestiges reside. The vestigial void isn't even empty space - it's nothing in as a literal sense as humanly understandable. The component still exists, but, lacking free will, it can never come in contact with you ever again, so it might as well doesn't as far as you're concerned.

And why don't momentum and velocity exist in the Astral plane? Astral Projection might ignore them, since there is no substance to the Astral form, but when you're moving actual matter around, the laws of motion should still apply, particularly when said matter re-enters the physical world.If, that is, you're ruling that physics applies in a magical game. If you're blowing off physics in favor of the meta-physics of the game world, great. We find ourselves in agreement.

Maybe, but surely not completely. The astral plane is a different plane of existence. Not every rule of the prime material applies to it. Physicists believe(and we're talking actual, widely accepted experts here, not crazy basement-dwellers), provided there are different universes, they would have different physical rules and properties compared to ours. By writing subjective physics off as unrealistic, you discredit their theories.

And even if that wasn't the case, adding to the rules of physics for the setting's sake and changing or flat out ignoring them for the same reason are visibly different. I don't mind if a new splashbook comes along with a new branch of magic that says "X and Y works that way". I think: "Sure, fine with me. I'll just find a logically satisfying explanation and implement it in my system." The book gives you a premise you ha- okay, you don't have to accept it, but it's easier to do so instead of coming up with something on the fly. Credibility rears it's head, but I don't mind him here. As long as it helps me explain what's below it within clear physical rules.

I did the same when I bought my copy of Tome of Magic. Binders were a big challenge(Implementing nonexistence gave me a massive headache). I didn't so much apply real physics to it as I accepted the physics the creators made up. But I did apply real physics and clear rules to everything they didn't explain to fill the blanks.

To surmise, I believe my games still utilize realism more than the other two you mentioned, even if they are fundamentally required.

 

[pemerton]

Magic has, thankfully, some quasi-defined set of semi-rules you can figure out if you're too nerdy for your own good and have enough time to waste on pointless thought exercise. The spells themselves defy physics, but spell effects are within our natural laws. Otherwise you could change a minor property of reality through a low level Transmutation spell that would make existence impossible and everything within the area of effect would be unmade.

We know arcana exist, and when we cast spells, we prove it's there.

<snip>

Assume the magic in question utilizes oaths or pacts. In such a case the component could be(not necessarily IS) a sacrifice. When the recipient is not specified, the material is a symbolic sacrifice for power. The consciousness of the multiverse(yes, that's canon) accepts your sacrifice as something you own and willingly give up to it to twist itself a bit for you. And since you should not have access to it in the future, the component should disappear. I stressed 'should' because, thanks to the conservation of matter and energy, it cannot. There is(isn't?) a concept of nonexistence, but you cannot simply make something not a thing - that would require changing the fundamental rules of the plane you are on. Thus the matter enters the void where vestiges reside. The vestigial void isn't even empty space - it's nothing in as a literal sense as humanly understandable. The component still exists, but, lacking free will, it can never come in contact with you ever again, so it might as well doesn't as far as you're concerned.

<snip>

The astral plane is a different plane of existence. Not every rule of the prime material applies to it. Physicists believe(and we're talking actual, widely accepted experts here, not crazy basement-dwellers), provided there are different universes, they would have different physical rules and properties compared to ours.

I find these two quoted passages hard to reconcile.

For instance, in what sense is a spell transporting a person into the Astral Plane creating an effect that is "within our natural laws"? In what sense is an object entering "the void where vestiges reside", yet not constituting a loss of matter/energy, "within our natural laws"?

It's trite to point out that the amount of energy required to Create Water, or even establish a Light spell, is quite a bit more then would be needed to disrupt a few crucial components of the heart or the brain by simply introducing additional kinetic energy. The reason instant death spells are higher level than those utility spells isn't for any reason to do with the physical laws involved. It's about the mechanical balance of the game.

 

[Dozen]

It's trite to point out that the amount of energy required to Create Water, or even establish a Light spell, is quite a bit more then would be needed to disrupt a few crucial components of the heart or the brain by simply introducing additional kinetic energy. The reason instant death spells are higher level than those utility spells isn't for any reason to do with the physical laws involved. It's about the mechanical balance of the game.

Yes, you're quite right. That was the developers' reason, clearly. I'm simply prone to justify everything I come across from an in-game observer's standpoint. I prefer to think of it as a defense mechanism against optimizer bullsh*t.

For instance, in what sense is a spell transporting a person into the Astral Plane creating an effect that is "within our natural laws"? In what sense is an object entering "the void where vestiges reside", yet not constituting a loss of matter/energy, "within our natural laws"?

Well, assuming it is possible to enter another plane of existence in reality(yes, this is in fact a pretty convenient assumption on my part, nothing else), creating the circumstances necessary for that to surely happen is within the laws of reality. If you can do that, it's not proven, so acting like it is flat out opposes logic, for which I apologize, but as I explained in my last, less violent response to Greenfield, there are few things I simply can't help but handwave. Suspension of Disbelief is a handy tool. I just can't afford to use it very often, as my players tend ot grab onto all but the most basic premises to tear the system a new a-hole.

 

[pemerton]

I prefer to think of it as a defense mechanism against optimizer bullsh*t.

<snip>

Suspension of Disbelief is a handy tool. I just can't afford to use it very often, as my players tend ot grab onto all but the most basic premises to tear the system a new a-hole.

My own preference, for dealing with these sorts of issues, is shared genre logic at the table, supported by abstract but fairly precise guidelines for setting DCs and the mechanical scope of effects. Using [MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION]'s terminology, it is prioritising "credibility" over "realism"; and in terms of playability it leaves the details of the in-fiction narration to be fleshed out around the game mechanical resolution (so for instance, rather than calculating falling damage as per your formula, and having to incorporate additional variables for (say) thick vegetation slowing your fall as you roll down a steep slope, you work out the falling damage as per the rules and then - supposing the PC survives - narrate the presence of thick vegetation slowing the fall as a contributor to that).

But that is the 4e way, not really the 3E way. I personally would find your way a bit exhausting, but good luck with it! From your posts it seems to be working OK to date.

 

[Dozen]

I personally would find your way a bit exhausting, but good luck with it! From your posts it seems to be working OK to date.

It does! And thank you^^ Paying attention to what I say was always a big compliment for me.

My own preference, for dealing with these sorts of issues, is shared genre logic at the table, supported by abstract but fairly precise guidelines for setting DCs and the mechanical scope of effects. Using @Greenfield 's terminology, it is prioritising "credibility" over "realism"; and in terms of playability it leaves the details of the in-fiction narration to be fleshed out around the game mechanical resolution (so for instance, rather than calculating falling damage as per your formula, and having to incorporate additional variables for (say) thick vegetation slowing your fall as you roll down a steep slope, you work out the falling damage as per the rules and then - supposing the PC survives - narrate the presence of thick vegetation slowing the fall as a contributor to that).

I can see that working with the kind of players it was tailored for. I don't like that kind very much - I expect and welcome an ultimately survivalist mentality. My rules are lenient to let them play whatever they want, however they want, whereas my worlds are harsh and unforgiving to counteract their power. This allows them to optimize their style/goal/income/damage output/whatever, while the game stays intact.
They would not tolerate many agreements to prevent abuse. Hell, I don't tolerate agreements to prevent abuse. They'd either find a loophole and break everything, or get bored. I want them to be able to do things way out there for the sheer novelty of witnessing it firsthand, and I want to be able to do things way out there to prevent them from going too far. It works out very nicely.