hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (05/07/85)
Here's a D&D physics question for you. First, some background: How to kill a beholder: 1. Take a ballista bolt or two and have a high-level mage shrink them to crossbow bolt size. 2. Use a heavy crossbow to launch them at the beholder. 3. The beholder sees them coming, detects magic, and aims its anti- magic ray at them. 4. The shrink is dispelled, the beholder is hit by the ballista bolts which do it a world of hurt. My DM assures me that this technique, and variations on it, are the only sure method he's heard of safely killing a beholder. Flaw: The unshrunk ballista bolts have regained their full size and mass (never mind where it was) but only have the kinetic energy of an ordinary crossbow bolt. They should fall out of the air before they get to the beholder. The above, of course, assumes conservation of mass and energy. The real question is: are these and other physical properties conserved in a world where magic works? (I know this is basically up to the DM, but it seems like an interesting topic for discussion). -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/09/85)
> Here's a D&D physics question for you. First, some background: > How to kill a beholder: > 1. Take a ballista bolt or two and have a high-level mage shrink > them to crossbow bolt size. > 2. Use a heavy crossbow to launch them at the beholder. > 3. The beholder sees them coming, detects magic, and aims its anti- > magic ray at them. > 4. The shrink is dispelled, the beholder is hit by the ballista > bolts which do it a world of hurt. > My DM assures me that this technique, and variations on it, are the only > sure method he's heard of safely killing a beholder. The really simple way, if you have enough room to manuver, is to simply plunk arrows at them from 15" away or so. The poor beholder has no useful rays with ranges like that, and it can only go at 3"/rnd or so, so you have plenty of time to move a little between shots to maintain the proper range. It's always worked great for me. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "A plot to takeover CBS was pushed today by some narrow-minded, manip- ulative, right-wing, flaky conservatives who think their weirdo views aren't being handled fairly by our more liberal and intelligent news staff!"
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (Wayne A. Christopher) (05/10/85)
I think the best way is to sneak underneath one and then grab onto it somehow from the bottom... Those eye's aren't too flexible. Wayne
mike@wuphys.UUCP (Mike Jones) (05/11/85)
> Here's a D&D physics question for you. First, some background: > stuff omitted > My DM assures me that this technique, and variations on it, are the only > sure method he's heard of safely killing a beholder. > > Flaw: > The unshrunk ballista bolts have regained their full size and mass (never > mind where it was) but only have the kinetic energy of an ordinary crossbow > bolt. They should fall out of the air before they get to the beholder. > > The above, of course, assumes conservation of mass and energy. The real > question is: are these and other physical properties conserved in a world > where magic works? > > The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) First: Kinetic energy is not conserved in the "real" world. Why should it be in D&D? Second: The real kicker is in "(never mind where it was)". You postulate that mass is NOT conserved, then ask if it is. A poor question. Third: Magic need not follow the normal laws of physics. It must be internally self consistent. It is therefore much easier if it follows the (self consistant) normal physical laws. You then postulate that magic adds some currently unknown laws, or places, and try to follow the consequences logically. In this case for self consistency we check the enlarge spell and see "a hurled stone would have more mass (and be more hurtful..." That puts some interesting constraints on your physical system, but I covered that in Second. Bottom line, it should work. Make the physics agree. Mike Jones Physics Dept. Washington University ihnp4!wuphys!mike (Back to my quantum necrodynamics text).
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (05/14/85)
In article <862@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >> Here's a D&D physics question for you. First, some background: >> How to kill a beholder: >> 1. Take a ballista bolt or two and have a high-level mage shrink >> them to crossbow bolt size. >> 2. Use a heavy crossbow to launch them at the beholder. >> 3. The beholder sees them coming, detects magic, and aims its anti- >> magic ray at them. >> 4. The shrink is dispelled, the beholder is hit by the ballista >> bolts which do it a world of hurt. >> My DM assures me that this technique, and variations on it, are the only >> sure method he's heard of safely killing a beholder. > > The really simple way, if you have enough room to manuver, is to simply >plunk arrows at them from 15" away or so. The poor beholder has no useful >rays with ranges like that, and it can only go at 3"/rnd or so, so you have >plenty of time to move a little between shots to maintain the proper range. >It's always worked great for me. >-- >Jeff Sonntag >ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "A plot to takeover CBS was pushed today by some narrow-minded, manip- >ulative, right-wing, flaky conservatives who think their weirdo views aren't >being handled fairly by our more liberal and intelligent news staff!" Since I don't play standard AD&D my suggestions might not be seen as real close to the accepted standard, but I would think that any intelligent creature with the power of a Beholder would set up a situation where there would be no way for you to get close enough to shoot without it being also close enough to shoot back. Also, recall one of those eyes does telekinesis and can be used to deflect arrows, to set off traps, to manipulate weapons from a distance, etc. Actually the best way to deal with a Beholder is to use cunning, guile, and kamikaze effects. In the case of one of my own monster characters, a witch of some skill, she would write a symbol-spell equivalent to Exploding Runes with a Conditional Detonation, roll the parchment up and put it in a digestion-proof container, and feed it to a charmed orc, kobold, etc. The charmed critter would then be talked into a battle frenzy and go after the Beholder, which would kill and eat the bait. It would then explode inside the body of the Beholder, some hours later, as the protective container finally eroded away. Hutch
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/16/85)
In article <276@wuphys.UUCP> mike@wuphys.UUCP (Mike Jones) writes: >> The unshrunk ballista bolts have regained their full size and mass (never >> mind where it was) but only have the kinetic energy of an ordinary crossbow >> bolt. They should fall out of the air before they get to the beholder. >> >> The above, of course, assumes conservation of mass and energy. The real >> question is: are these and other physical properties conserved in a world >> where magic works? >> >> The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) > >First: Kinetic energy is not conserved in the "real" world. Why should it be > in D&D? > ..... >Third: Magic need not follow the normal laws of physics. It must be inter- > nally self consistent. It is therefore much easier if it follows the > (self consistant) normal physical laws.... > >Mike Jones If you want to try applying some sort of physics to the Enlarge spell, (and to other shapechanging spells), you have four choices, as I see it: 1) Conserve Velocity across shape- and size-changes. This is clearly what was intended in the AD&D joke books. But this has a *real* serious problem: let's suppose I shoot an arrow at someone, and then double all it's linear dimensions while in flight. The 8 times more massive arrow does an average of 3.5*8=28hp, enough to drop a 6HD monster. Not bad. 2) Conserve Momentum across shape- and size-changes. This is even worse, because now the small rock that I throw and reduce by 70% will be travelling at near 200mph when it hits the target. And polymorphing a charging dragon into a kobold can be humorous when the "kobold" digs into the side of a nearby hill at at least mach 1. Remember to duck. 3) Conserve Kinetic Energy across shape- and size-changes. This is appealing to me because kinetic energy is what causes damage in the absense of sharp objects. So the 2kg brick thrown at 10m/s has a K of 10J. The .5kg hardball resulting from reducing the brick will be travelling at 20m/s, and the 20kg block resulting from *enlarging* the brick will travel at 3.1m/s, and all will have a K of 10J, and all will do 1D3 damage. But if an object is thrown *over* someone and Enlarged, it could fall out of the air onto the poor slob, doing damage based on how far it fell. Fortunately, it takes a Victorian physicist (at least) to hit the target. 4) Don't conserve any of the above, and make up something for yourself. A ref. in one campaign claimed that Enlarge made things "puffy" (mass was conserved). This applied to inanimate things only, but it avoided many problems. But that didn't mean I had to like it. My character was a magician. --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{trwspp,cepu,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Q1: "The world is round. The rest is up to us." Q2: "Reason is Peace, Fanaticism is Slavery; Tolerance is Strength."
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/16/85)
In article <276@wuphys.UUCP> mike@wuphys.UUCP (Mike Jones) writes: >> The unshrunk ballista bolts have regained their full size and mass (never >> mind where it was) but only have the kinetic energy of an ordinary crossbow >> bolt. They should fall out of the air before they get to the beholder. >> >> The above, of course, assumes conservation of mass and energy. The real >> question is: are these and other physical properties conserved in a world >> where magic works? >> >> The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) >First: Kinetic energy is not conserved in the "real" world. Why should it be in > D&D? >..... >Third: Magic need not follow the normal laws of physics. It must be internally > self consistent. It is therefore much easier if it follows the (self > consistant) normal physical laws.... > >Mike Jones >Physics Dept. Washington University >ihnp4!wuphys!mike >(Back to my quantum necrodynamics text). As I see it, when deciding this issue, you have four choices: 1) Conserve velocity across shape- and size-changes. This is clearly what was intended by the AD&D joke books. But this has a *serious* problem. Suppose I shoot an arrow at some poor fool, and enlarge all the arrows linear dimensions by 100% while it's in flight. The 8 times as massive arrow now does an average of 3.5*8=26hp. Enough to drop a 6HD monster. This assumes, of course, that the damage is related linearly to mass of the weapon, which for blunt weapons is reasonable, but for arrows... 2) Conserve momentum across shape- and size-changes. This is appealing to modern physics-knowledgeable frpers, but it has even worse problems. If I throw a fastball at someone, and then Reduce it by 70% in midair, it now has 1/40th its original mass, with the same momentum. That 60mph fastball suddenly changes into a 1" diameter cannonball with a speed over mach 3. One of my magicians used to slay charging dragons by polymorphing them into kobolds, with the result that they pile into the nearby hillside at better than mach 1. The next spell my magician researched was teleport, for obvious reasons. This wouldn't be such a problem, except that even a level 1 magician can produce a 10% size change, giving 75% the original mass, and 4/3 the original speed. This is enough to start adding damage. 3) Conserve kinetic energy across shape- and size-changes. This is appealing to me, because I usually think of K as the cause of impact damage. So if I throw a 2kg brick at 10m/s at some poor slob, K=.5*2*10**2=100J. But if I reduce it to a .5kg baseball, with K=100J, its velocity is now 20m/s. And if I enlarge it to a 20kg siege rock, its velocity is now 3m/s. So the damage done by a thrown or propelled object is constant the object is in flight. It is still possible to do silly things, however, by throwing the object over the target, enlarging it, and letting it fall on the luckless slob who really should have stayed in bed that day. The damage is related to the distance it fell. But it takes a Victorian era physicist to aim the rock to hit the target with any accuracy. 4) Ignore the above, don't conserve any of them, and make up something on your own. One referee decided that Enlarge conserved mass. That would quickly run afoul of Reduce making tiny dragons that sink into the ground, but it still sounds fun. ps-For those of you who are annoyed with me for posting this twice and cancelling the first one, consider that the first version began to evolve into a new life form after I posted it. I decided euthenasia was warranted. --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ucbvax,cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: (now) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU honk,honk..beepbeepbeep..blatt..hooga--!..<screech><crunch>paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa* (looks like a 'hole lot of folks 'round here love Shiva ev'ry mornin')