Dandu
First Post
Yes, that is probably the best option.On the other hand, why not have the raven fly the stone at the enemy, then you command it back to size? It will still hit like a ton of bricks.
Yes, that is probably the best option.On the other hand, why not have the raven fly the stone at the enemy, then you command it back to size? It will still hit like a ton of bricks.
I don't understand what you mean by "spontaneously" in this context.Ah, yet another place where the Hamster Cannon (tm) is needed.
Conservation of momentum doesn't apply. It's magic, which involves an event that can't happen in a world where physics works: An object spontaneously gaining or losing mass.
Yes, I'd like to see the math, or, more importantly, the assumptions you used to do it.I showed the full math on this before, and can drag it up if you need me to, but I'll give you the short form: In a physics driven world, the planet rotates on its axis and orbits the sun. Adding those two velocities together (as would happen at midnight), and multiplying by 4096 (as would happen when you shrank the item to begin with) results in the boulder ne slingstone taking off at about 37% of the speed of light. Do it at noon, when the two velocities don't add together, and the take off speed will be about a third the speed of light.
So no, the stone won't lose all momentum when Shrink Item ends, any more than it would achieve solar escape velocity when it began.
Isn't it easier to achieve perpetual motion with a permanancied Gust of Wind spell?
I showed the full math on this before, and can drag it up if you need me to, but I'll give you the short form: In a physics driven world, the planet rotates on its axis and orbits the sun. Adding those two velocities together (as would happen at midnight), and multiplying by 4096 (as would happen when you shrank the item to begin with) results in the boulder ne slingstone taking off at about 37% of the speed of light. Do it at noon, when the two velocities don't add together, and the take off speed will be about a third the speed of light.
No, not right. The train "collided" with an object that had mass, and "less momentum" (i.e. was moving at a different speed). That's not the same as an object, at speed, suddenly increasing its own mass.It's been a while since I had any physics classes, but I'm going to give this a try anyway.
I don't understand what you mean by "spontaneously" in this context.
Simple thought experiment with a moving train (focusing on momentum):
A rock is is dropped straight down into one of the cars. The train as a whole has now gained mass. It will slow down. Right?
No, not right. The rock collided with an object (your hand) that was moving at a slower relative velocity. Your body then had the urge to pick up some speed, though in practice you then transferred this to the ground you were standing on. Again, no object changed its mass.Same train, only this time you grab and quickly yank out the rock. The train has lost mass. It will not move any faster as the rock is still moving forward as it is removed. Right?
Separating mass into different segments with the same motion is far different from an object picking up mass from noplace, or losing it to noplace.Yes, I'd like to see the math, or, more importantly, the assumptions you used to do it.
I have a pile of dirt. I use a shovel to remove mass from the pile, making it smaller than before. Does this make the pile of dirt move? Why must it be different [barring special help from the magic] if I use incomprehensible magic to shrink the pile?
Okay, let's look at that.Also, even if the spell somehow does something with conservation of momentum when it shrinks the item, it does not follow that the spell must transfer a potentially enormous amount of energy to the item as it grows back. That seems like an unnecessary complication, without any support whatsoever in the spell description. (Remember, once the item is restored the spell ends, so the magic has to do its thing before then.)
Zombie on a treadmill powering gears.
While I do agree with this (which is why I find these sorts of threads so tiresome), I'll also note that rulings like this ideally should have nothing to do with physics; but rather should rely solely upon what the what the DM determines is appropriate. If he wants to rule that an un-shrinked boulder loses all forward momentum, fine; he is no more or less wrong than the DM who rules the opposite. The only "complication" should be in maintaining consistency in the setting, not real world physics considerations.The "unnecessary complication" is to rule that a shrunken boulder changes speed when it grows. Magic and physics can't co-exist. Magic violates physics, pretty much every time. That's why we call it magic.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.