Search results

"Choked flow" refers to the maximum speed at which a fluid can be driven through an orifice by a pressure differential. Increasing the pressure beyond that point doesn't increase the flow rate, and the fluid is said to be "choked". In liquids, the effect is caused by cavitation--increasing the...

In the context of choked flow, there are a lot factors that go into determining how fast the liquid can go before becoming choked. Given that waterjet cutters are designed not to choke, I would assume that they can achieve higher flow rates than would be possible in the trap. (Also, critically...

In one of my 3.5 campaigns, in a tomb that the designers built to keep out tomb raiders, the funerary gifts were sealed in a partially evacuated stone chamber. The difference in air pressure made the stone door basically impossible to open by normal means. When the PCs finally just disintegrated...

Since the block is falling downwards and the displaced dead cube stuff is going upwards, the net downward momentum transfer to the structure (and the ground below) must exceed the original downward momentum of the block by some factor X. There's no reason to assume that X=2, which is what would...

This type of analysis doesn't work either, due to the issue of "choked flow". You can't simply make an opening smaller in order to increase the flow velocity arbitrarily high. I don't know enough fluid dynamics to calculate whether the flow would be choked here, but given the 99-1 ratio you've...

I do! :) If there is no way for monsters in a given locale to get food, I simply won't put monsters there that need to eat. More broadly, I won't put any monster anywhere unless there's a good reason for it to be there.

Of course, the farther it spreads the less dense the spray. Even if we assume dead cube stuff is still harmful (after being subjected to a sudden, massive pressure change no less) at some point it's going to be too finely dispersed to be dangerous. We're firmly out of the rules here, so the DM...

But not quickly. See below. Note that shorter impact times necessarily happen over shorter distances. Shorter impact distances displace less gelatinous cube material during the impact. So the higher the dynamic pressure, the smaller the quantity of cube material that will ejected by that...

I entirely agree that the errata is a useful clarification, whether or not it's functionally superfluous. Everything related to weapons and types of attacks would have benefited from being written much more clearly.

I tend to agree with your conclusion, I'm just describing both sides of the debate. Note, however, that if all attacks are weapon attacks or spell attacks, then the errata would be superfluous--unarmed strikes would be (melee) weapon attacks simply by virtue of not being spell attacks, and thus...

I believe the confusion surrounding "melee weapon attack" was conclusively resolved, but the phrase "weapon attack" is still (arguably) ambiguous. "Weapon attack" could be a superset that includes all "melee weapon attacks" and all "ranged weapon attacks" or it could mean "an attack with a...

Fixed. Something went wrong with using the Amp version, so I bypassed Amp.

All attacks do added ability modifier damage on a hit (with the exception of attacks that don't deal damage). Crawford has even clarified that alchemical items like alchemist's fire add ability modifier fire damage (which ends up being delayed until future rounds due to the special rule for...

I think we're talking about different things. You seem to be taking about a perception of lackluster caster contribution to combat. I'm asking whether anyone sees players grumble (because they don't want to be outclassed in utility) when another player brings a utility-focused (i.e...

I'm confused. My question was whether people see players complain when another player brings a utility-focused caster to the table. What does the availability of AL magic items have to do with whether or not players complain about utility-focused casters? The only items on that list with active...

Out of curiousity, how often do people actually see grumbling from the other players when someone brings a utility-focused caster to the table? In my experience, the other players are usually thrilled, because the utility caster's spells give the entire party many more strategic and tactial options.

I agree that spells will be more impactful. Just pointing out that it's possible to make a martial with a round-by-round decision tree of similar complexity to that of a wizard.

5e doesn't make it easy, but with multiclassing, feats, and careful subclass choice one can make a martial with a complex decision tree, rivalling that of a full caster. In particular, any martial with 3+ levels of Thief and a large supply of consumables (oil, alchemist's fire, caltrops, acid...

If your casters aren't casting out-of-combat utility spells at your table, then why do the players of martial classes feel left behind in utility?

Yes, my homebrew world is full of "bigger fish" NPCs and some of them are so "big" as to be practically unbeatable in combat. That doesn't mean the PCs can't choose to oppose such creatures, but victory (if any) isn't going to be through traditional combat. (I imagine the strategies with the...