D&D 5E Levitate is a save-or-die spell

[jaelis]

Can we all take a moment and laugh at ourselves? Gentle reminder that this is just a game. It is a 2nd level spell, and I doubt that we would be able to apply this level of physics when the game is a simulation of reality, reduced to have fun. At some point the simulationist has to give way to the narrativist. If a breeze pushing the ogre away is cool, it is likely to take effect.

I don't think the present discussion has much relevance to the spell, but I still like to see people the get real-world physics right

 

[Guest 6801328]

Can we all take a moment and laugh at ourselves? Gentle reminder that this is just a game. It is a 2nd level spell, and I doubt that we would be able to apply this level of physics when the game is a simulation of reality, reduced to have fun. At some point the simulationist has to give way to the narrativist. If a breeze pushing the ogre away is cool, it is likely to take effect.

Oh, I agree. But I also think it's fun to find all the ways that descriptions of magic raise unanswerable questions about physics.

(And, I have to admit, I'm curious if Max will ever say, "Ah, ok, I misunderstood and was wrong." Or if he's going to try to twist language, and keep Googling terms looking for an out, so that he never has to admit that.)

 

[keynup]

Floating in space you have zero weight.
The planet Earth is floating in space.
Therefore Mage Hand can move the planet.

 

[jaelis]

Floating in space you have zero weight.
The planet Earth is floating in space.
Therefore Mage Hand can move the planet.

Alternatively, we might assume that sometimes the rules use "weight" to refer to mass, as people often do. But that leaves it in our hands to decide when.

 

[Maxperson]

Floating in space you have zero weight.
The planet Earth is floating in space.
Therefore Mage Hand can move the planet.

It would still have to be capable of moving everything on the planet that had weight. Those things aren't going to move for free.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Alternatively, we might assume that sometimes the rules use "weight" to refer to mass, as people often do. But that leaves it in our hands to decide when.

Rule of Cool.

EDIT: And I have admit, I'm rather stunned that nasa.gov is hosting a page...even if it is intended for lay audiences and kids...that conflates the terms. Then again, I once (as a much younger man) argued with a Nobel laureate physicist about whether or not there was any such thing as centrifugal force. I'm still irked about it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It would still have to be capable of moving everything on the planet that had weight. Those things aren't going to move for free.

I guess we have our answer. (Not to the physics, but to whether Max will admit he's in over his head.)

 

[jaelis]

EDIT: And I have admit, I'm rather stunned that nasa.gov is hosting a page...even if it is intended for lay audiences and kids...that conflates the terms.

Thing is, the technical physics definitions are really different from how they are used in normal language. If you go buy 2 pounds of bananas, you really are thinking of mass. You wouldn't expect them to cost any different on an elevator moving up or down, or something. So I think NASA is just trying to use the words they way people ordinarily do, in the non-technical sense. It's only a problem when you want to talk about the technical sense and people don't realize there is a difference.

It's a common problem in physics, makes teaching it hard. The chemists make up a bunch of weird vocabulary for their stuff, but physics tends to just reuse common words.

 

[Oofta]

Thing is, the technical physics definitions are really different from how they are used in normal language. If you go buy 2 pounds of bananas, you really are thinking of mass. You wouldn't expect them to cost any different on an elevator moving up or down, or something. So I think NASA is just trying to use the words they way people ordinarily do, in the non-technical sense. It's only a problem when you want to talk about the technical sense and people don't realize there is a difference.

It's a common problem in physics, makes teaching it hard. The chemists make up a bunch of weird vocabulary for their stuff, but physics tends to just reuse common words.

The real question is how much would those bananas cost if they were being levitated.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Thing is, the technical physics definitions are really different from how they are used in normal language. If you go buy 2 pounds of bananas, you really are thinking of mass. You wouldn't expect them to cost any different on an elevator moving up or down, or something. So I think NASA is just trying to use the words they way people ordinarily do, in the non-technical sense. It's only a problem when you want to talk about the technical sense and people don't realize there is a difference.

It's a common problem in physics, makes teaching it hard. The chemists make up a bunch of weird vocabulary for their stuff, but physics tends to just reuse common words.

So true!

When I was teaching, my students thought a "hyperdrive" was an accessory for Apple computers, not something that could make your spaceship go faster than light.

Kids!