New FAQ: What's different/added?

[Veigle]

Hmm

Simply put, in order for a Teleport (or any dimensional travel for that matter) to work, a point has to be established at the start and destination that have a 0 inertial frame of reference in that space and time. (Neither would be moving in relation to the point on that plane or point in space-time)

It could then be said to be true that your inertial reference is only in regards to the point you are teleporting from (plane shifting, Dimensional sliding, Dimension Dooring), and it is the inertial difference between you and that starting point that is transferred to you at the exit point. It could even be argued that this very nature would have to be designed into the spell, otherwise it would be impossible to travel in this manner.

Leave inertial reference as the center of the universe, solar system, or even center of planet, and you would have traveler flying off in all directions, or getting crushed flat on the ground. Have the spells kill all inertia, and you could never move through the portal. If you consider various dimensional travel magics to instantly transport you without "Moving" through a portal, but still had them remove all inertia, then you would arrive at your destination at a temperature of absolute 0. (heat is inertia)

They MUST transfer you between 2 points that move at 0 in reference to the ground, and must conserve the inertia of the traveler relative to the entry point.

Science and magic do not always agree, as the simple Psionic Expand power can attest to (some instances would require several seconds of the output of the suns energy to accomplish), but I do not believe that to be the case in regards to inertia for dimensional travel.

 

[mvincent]

If you consider various dimensional travel magics to instantly transport you without "Moving" through a portal, but still had them remove all inertia, then you would arrive at your destination at a temperature of absolute 0. (heat is inertia)

Hm... I like that explanation. Color me convinced.

 

[starwed]

Hm... I like that explanation.

It's not really a physics explanation, though! One of the most fundamental principles of physics is that there's no "absolute" reference frame. You might as well just say "its magic" and be done with it.

heat is inertia

Heat is energy; the net momentum of even an extremely hot object will still be zero in its own inertial frame.

 

[Veigle]

It's not really a physics explanation, though! One of the most fundamental principles of physics is that there's no "absolute" reference frame. You might as well just say "its magic" and be done with it.


Heat is energy; the net momentum of even an extremely hot object will still be zero in its own inertial frame.

You could say "It is just magic" and be done with it. There are far too many instances that prove that statement true. I was trying to show from a logical, not just physical reference why inertia has to be conserved, and what reference frame has to be used.

While the net momentum of an object may be 0, if we are speaking of teleporting the uncountable billions of atoms in the body, each has to be considered individually, and the momentum of each has to be conserved.

 

[glass]

The annoying contradiction is that they explicitly say magical attacks that do bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage still ignore DR, whereas Complete Psionic took great pains to detail how powers such as swarm of crystals are affected by DR...

Unfortunately they are right, in that that is what the PHB says. It might be better if the PHB didn't say it, but that is for thre errata to fix, not the FAQ.


glass.

 

[glass]

I'm happy for you. You could possibly handle all of the core rules the same way. However, in rules forums (and in games played by rules lauders), the FAQ is considered part of the rules and so matters.

In this Rules forum, the FAQ is routinely derided for its staggering inaccuracy. It is most certainly not considered 'part of the rules' by a great many here, including myself.


glass.

 

[glass]

While the net momentum of an object may be 0, if we are speaking of teleporting the uncountable billions of atoms in the body, each has to be considered individually, and the momentum of each has to be conserved.

No it doesn't. Teleport targets a creature, not individual atoms.


glass.

 

[Felix]

However, in rules forums (and in games played by rules lauders), the FAQ is considered part of the rules and so matters.

I'll add my name to the list of folks who bite their thumbs at the FAQ. The purpose of the thing is to clarify the rules, while eratta's purpose is to change them. The FAQ has a bad history of inaccurate rulings, internal contradiction and core-rule revisioning.

Even if most of the FAQ is right, the only rules you should find in it are ones clearly consistent with the core books, and this simply isn't the case.

---

Re: Teleport

Nothing in the rules suggests that the rules of physics wouldn’t continue to apply, so it appears that momentum is maintained.

Would this position be any less defensible?

Nothing in the rules suggests that the rules of physics wouldn’t would continue to apply, so it appears that momentum is not maintained.

Seriously, someone just decided that he didn't want anyone using Dimension Door to survive a fall. Lame.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Seriously?

3) If you avoid the initial attack from Black tentacles or free yourself from the grapple, the tentacles won’t attack you again.

I'm rather surprised at this one - what is wrong with it as an area denial/battlefield control spell? It was one of the 3.5 spell revisions that seemed sensible and workable, and I've not seen it cause any problems in use just as it is.

If it was changed in this way though... what would be the point of the spell?

 

[Deset Gled]

Would this position be any less defensible?

Nothing in the rules suggests that the rules of physics wouldn’t would continue to apply, so it appears that momentum is not maintained.

Seriously, someone just decided that he didn't want anyone using Dimension Door to survive a fall. Lame.

Amen to that. Actually, your re-write is much for defensible than the FAQ's. As myself and many others have noted, there is no way that physics can support the FAQ ruling without completely changing the way DD works, in most cases leading to scenarios that kill the caster.

Also, to copy-and-paste a rant of mine from the other recent thread about this...

As I've been thinking about it a bit, another really big problem that I have with the FAQ ruling is that it is trying to force momentum into a rules system that doesn't use momentum anywhere else. In D+D, character can run at full speed from a complete standstill, and stop on a dime without any effort. You can be bashed in the chest by a giant with enough force to liquify a commoner, but will not be thrown backwards (unless the giant has a special feat).

The only place that you will find any mention of the word "momentum" anywhere in D+D is, oddly enough, in relation to quicksand. The rules state "A typical patch of quicksand is 20 feet in diameter; the momentum of a charging or running character carries him or her 1d2×5 feet into the quicksand." The only place where you will find a reference to inertia is in reference to psionic powers, which are obviously not talking about normal inertia.

The FAQ entry is trying to add realism to the game by re-introducing this physical concept to the game when it doesn't exist anywhere else. This is an extremely Bad Thing (TM) for the FAQ to be doing, because it simply does not fit in with the rest of the rules. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Magic and physics don't mix.