Questions of D&D (LoE problems)

[archangel.arcanis]

I wanted to address this really quick. You are partly correct. You can't really apply real world physics like that in many cases because it would break down and the game would be unplayable. For instance using an immovable rod would rip your arm out of socket due to the planet rotating around the sun a thousands of miles an hour, and that is assuming your hand lets go under the forces.

that actually makes a ton of assumptions that aren't really borne out at all.

How so? If we must assume the real world physics comes into play then until explicitly changed by something within the game it would have to work that way. Sure you could have a setting where the planet was stationary and the sun went around it, but that is a product of the setting which falls under the exception he mentioned. If there is another way that we are supposed to assume that day/nigh and season come about then i'm all ears but once you default to real world physics you have to take all of the consequence that come along with it until the game contradicts them.

In most cases simply applying an accurate real world solution is not practical or simplifying, a simplified and adapted real world solution can normally work though. This is because D&D isn't a simulation it is a game. The game can't handle every possible scenario and we typically use the real world to fill in the gaps. At that point it is us making house rules in conjunction with the DM and other players.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

You're assuming that it's immovable in a specific inertial reference frame.  The rod says jack shit about what it's immovable relative to.

[archangel.arcanis]

You're assuming that it's immovable in a specific inertial reference frame.  The rod says jack shit about what it's immovable relative to.

So we are both correct and both wrong since either case is just as valid. Sounds like using real world physics doesn't work in game. Who would have thought that case could come up?  Sounds like the DM of whatever game that is used in needs to supplement the rules and give it a frame of reference.

[spacemonkey555]

Yey another tard that wants to break the rules without reading them, or by just ignoring key points, for the sake of trolling/argument.
"No my magical item isn't an object!"

Yay, ad hominem attacks. I can do it too: fuck you.

You can argue that 2 sections of wall of force separated by 100 yards by an effect from an object aren't broken by that object (even while they're being joined by that object) but I don't think anyone will care what you come up with. Have fun.

Except they aren't separated by 100 yards as far as the wall is concerned. That's what the gate does. The gate doesn't move shit, it creates a wormhole physically linking two points of space. Or do you really believe that sticking your head through a gate would decapitate you?

Also, you fail at realizing a word can have more than one definition. Seeking a solution to contrived problems in an obsolete collaborative storytelling system is not logical. The problems will obviously remain unsolved, except in a real game, where the dm will solve them for you. Sure, its a logical conundrum, but that doesn't mean its logical or productive to try to solve it on a practical optimization board.

Yes, logic has a few different definitions. The problem is, none of them are what you're blathering on about. Please, just stop going on about logic. You clearly don't understand what it means.

so.... you're angry that someone is trying to use the simple common english definition of logic that 90% of humanity would use rather than the random rare crap they teach 3 out of 100 college students? Aww.. how cute... well explain how you can draw a valid conclusion from a set of premises that will always be logically true, when one of the premises is that the premises will be altered arbitrarily by a third party each time your inference is considered.

premises:
the dm is always right, as he is the final arbiter of what occurs (arbitrary interpretation by a third party, with the intent of story continuation)
unless otherwise specified, d&d uses real world physics (but every outside case will break real world physics in a poorly defined way)
a wall of force will end if the surface is broken by any object (is it broken if it's no longer an uninterrupted line in normal space? fairly obvious)
a magical item is an object

You are ignoring the first and fourth premise to draw an unsound conclusion based on your interpretation of the third premise, and are assuming that everyone will always apply the same fail logic as you (that is the op's goal, a CORRECT answer, not just an answer that works for his game). I merely want semantic validity, for the most common assumptions, you want to state absolutes. You can't state logical absolutes when the premises require arbitrary interpretation by a third party. Its (trollface) illogical

Also, I wouldn't mind being decapitated by a pair of ring gates, but Id definitely be decapitated, for a short while at least. Logically, I'm still joined and whole, but logically I'm also decapitated, since the effect of the ring gate is to separate my head from my body in normal space. Isn't magic fun?

[The_Mad_Linguist]

You're assuming that it's immovable in a specific inertial reference frame.  The rod says jack shit about what it's immovable relative to.

So we are both correct and both wrong since either case is just as valid. Sounds like using real world physics doesn't work in game. Who would have thought that case could come up?  Sounds like the DM of whatever game that is used in needs to supplement the rules and give it a frame of reference.

Well, trying to use physics just doesn't go at all, full stop.  There's no such thing as a physics-based "preferred reference frame", so physics just doesn't give any answer.  At all.

[Echoes]

so.... you're angry that someone is trying to use the simple common english definition of logic that 90% of humanity would use rather than the random rare crap they teach 3 out of 100 college students? Aww.. how cute... well explain how you can draw a valid conclusion from a set of premises that will always be logically true, when one of the premises is that the premises will be altered arbitrarily by a third party each time your inference is considered.

Yes, I would like people to use the actual definition of the word, rather than their retarded "interpretation". I feel the same way about the word theory, only more so, because lots delusional people misunderstand theory and try to write fucking laws based on that. And that's scary.

premises:
the dm is always right, as he is the final arbiter of what occurs (arbitrary interpretation by a third party, with the intent of story continuation)
unless otherwise specified, d&d uses real world physics (but every outside case will break real world physics in a poorly defined way)
a wall of force will end if the surface is broken by any object (is it broken if it's no longer an uninterrupted line in normal space? fairly obvious)
a magical item is an object

You are ignoring the first and fourth premise to draw an unsound conclusion based on your interpretation of the third premise, and are assuming that everyone will always apply the same fail logic as you (that is the op's goal, a CORRECT answer, not just an answer that works for his game). I merely want semantic validity, for the most common assumptions, you want to state absolutes. You can't state logical absolutes when the premises require arbitrary interpretation by a third party. Its (trollface) illogical

The first premise is irrelevant. The fact that the DM may ignore the logical outcome of a rules interaction for the sake of story doesn't magically make the logical outcome illogical.

Your third premise is flawed because you don't understand how wormholes (which is what a gate is) work. I recommend you go read up on it, or for a more visual presentation, go play Portal or watch videos of it.

Also, I wouldn't mind being decapitated by a pair of ring gates, but Id definitely be decapitated, for a short while at least. Logically, I'm still joined and whole, but logically I'm also decapitated, since the effect of the ring gate is to separate my head from my body in normal space. Isn't magic fun?

In every way that is relevant, your head is still attached to your body. The fact that you are using a wormhole to bridge the distance doesn't affect that. For you (which is the only frame of reference that matters in this case), you are always whole. If gates moved shit, you'd be correct, but they don't. You are making the claim that a doorway physically moves you, and it doesn't.

[spacemonkey555]

so.... you're angry that someone is trying to use the simple common english definition of logic that 90% of humanity would use rather than the random rare crap they teach 3 out of 100 college students? Aww.. how cute... well explain how you can draw a valid conclusion from a set of premises that will always be logically true, when one of the premises is that the premises will be altered arbitrarily by a third party each time your inference is considered.

Yes, I would like people to use the actual definition of the word, rather than their retarded "interpretation". I feel the same way about the word theory, only more so, because lots delusional people misunderstand theory and try to write fucking laws based on that. And that's scary.

premises:
the dm is always right, as he is the final arbiter of what occurs (arbitrary interpretation by a third party, with the intent of story continuation)
unless otherwise specified, d&d uses real world physics (but every outside case will break real world physics in a poorly defined way)
a wall of force will end if the surface is broken by any object (is it broken if it's no longer an uninterrupted line in normal space? fairly obvious)
a magical item is an object

You are ignoring the first and fourth premise to draw an unsound conclusion based on your interpretation of the third premise, and are assuming that everyone will always apply the same fail logic as you (that is the op's goal, a CORRECT answer, not just an answer that works for his game). I merely want semantic validity, for the most common assumptions, you want to state absolutes. You can't state logical absolutes when the premises require arbitrary interpretation by a third party. Its (trollface) illogical

The first premise is irrelevant. The fact that the DM may ignore the logical outcome of a rules interaction for the sake of story doesn't magically make the logical outcome illogical.

Your third premise is flawed because you don't understand how wormholes (which is what a gate is) work. I recommend you go read up on it, or for a more visual presentation, go play Portal or watch videos of it.

Also, I wouldn't mind being decapitated by a pair of ring gates, but Id definitely be decapitated, for a short while at least. Logically, I'm still joined and whole, but logically I'm also decapitated, since the effect of the ring gate is to separate my head from my body in normal space. Isn't magic fun?

In every way that is relevant, your head is still attached to your body. The fact that you are using a wormhole to bridge the distance doesn't affect that. For you (which is the only frame of reference that matters in this case), you are always whole. If gates moved shit, you'd be correct, but they don't. You are making the claim that a doorway physically moves you, and it doesn't.

AGAIN, with the failing to understand that there are multiple definitions of half the words in the english language. You don't get to delete definitions you aren't comfortable with, sorry.

The first premise is the most relevant, because d&d requires interpretation, it isn't robust enough for exact raw play. Or do you stick your friend's head in a bucket of water and try to drown him when he's injured and you're afraid he won't make it?

 I know exactly how 'portals' work (noone actually wants to travel thru a wormhole as they're posited to work) and if they aren't separating 2 halves of an object as it travels thru then they aren't doing anything at all. They may also be joining the object, but if there's no separation in an external frame of reference then there's no point. The dm can decide for himself how he wants to see it, as is intended.

Not really much point to arguing with a person who doesn't understand that a person who has their head separated from their body is in fact decapitated, even if the object that does the job does no harm. Also not much point in arguing with someone who only accepts one possible definition of every word in the english language, and then fails at applying their own definition.

[Amechra]

But it isn't separate from the body; think of it more as pinching space together and poking your head through.

[spacemonkey555]

This is why magic needs adjudicating. This is why we appoint a dm.

I know I'm sticking a bodypart thru a portal and that it will remain attached to me, even while it does something productive 100 yards away. I also now that if the portal doesn't separate my bodypart from me by that distance of 100 yards, it isn't doing its job, and my bodypart can't be doing something 100 yards away. It can't happen in the real world, we don't need any rules for the situation. With magic, it can happen easily, and the results need to be decided by one person quickly instead of a 3 hour debate.

[snakeman830]

Portals fold space like you can fold cloth.  Your bodyparts are covering no distance at all, despite the fact your hand is waaaaaayyy over there.  It only appears as though they are.  They are not seperated in any sense of the word, they just appear that way.

[spacemonkey555]

Portals fold space like you can fold cloth.  Your bodyparts are covering no distance at all, despite the fact your hand is waaaaaayyy over there.  It only appears as though they are.  They are not seperated in any sense of the word, they just appear that way.

I understand this, which is why I wouldn't mind sticking my head through one. The issue is that real life physics doesn't allow for it, and d&d mechanics weren't built for it. If you and your animal companion are holding hands through a ring gate, can you share spells 10 miles from one another? Per raw, perhaps, per rai, no. A wall of force is intended to end if an object breaks the plane. This is an attempt to break the plane without breaking the plane, which belongs in theoretical optimization.

The main issue is that its another attempt to break the game without understanding the rules. You can't put a wall of force through a ring gate anyways, and a wall of force cant move, so even if your dm let you put a corner through (ignoring that walls of force aren't affected by spells like gate) he couldn't let you move the wall of force around by wiggling the other end of the ring gate without breaking yet another rule (walls of force cant move). So how many rules do yall need to break in order to have a point? Tell you what, I'll give you that the portal doesn't break the plane (I disagree, but I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone at this point. Now you're only breaking 2 rules. You moved a spell effect that per raw can't be moved, and you're applying a spell effect that per raw can't be applied.

[Echoes]

AGAIN, with the failing to understand that there are multiple definitions of half the words in the english language. You don't get to delete definitions you aren't comfortable with, sorry.

None of the definitions of logic in the dictionary have anything to do with your argument. That's why you're wrong. You don't get to make up definitions so you can win arguments online, sorry.

The first premise is the most relevant, because d&d requires interpretation, it isn't robust enough for exact raw play. Or do you stick your friend's head in a bucket of water and try to drown him when he's injured and you're afraid he won't make it?

Wow, can you not read or are you really stupid enough to try that tactic? You claimed "well explain how you can draw a valid conclusion from a set of premises that will always be logically true, when one of the premises is that the premises will be altered arbitrarily by a third party each time your inference is considered." This is a false premise, because deriving logical outcomes from rules interactions does not require a DM. If the DM chooses to take another route, that's their prerogative, but it doesn't change what the logical outcome is.

I know exactly how 'portals' work (noone actually wants to travel thru a wormhole as they're posited to work) and if they aren't separating 2 halves of an object as it travels thru then they aren't doing anything at all. They may also be joining the object, but if there's no separation in an external frame of reference then there's no point. The dm can decide for himself how he wants to see it, as is intended.

Buhwhat? No separation in an external frame of reference? Of course, from an outside perspective, the whatever is separated. No one is disputing that. It's the fact that, from the object's perspective (which is the only one that matters), there is no separation that you've failed to grasp.

Not really much point to arguing with a person who doesn't understand that a person who has their head separated from their body is in fact decapitated, even if the object that does the job does no harm. Also not much point in arguing with someone who only accepts one possible definition of every word in the english language, and then fails at applying their own definition.

Pfft, tell me about it. I don't even know why I continue arguing with someone like that, but here I am. Guess I'm just a glutton for punishment. Or maybe I'm bored.

Portals fold space like you can fold cloth.  Your bodyparts are covering no distance at all, despite the fact your hand is waaaaaayyy over there.  It only appears as though they are.  They are not seperated in any sense of the word, they just appear that way.

I understand this, which is why I wouldn't mind sticking my head through one. The issue is that real life physics doesn't allow for it, and d&d mechanics weren't built for it. If you and your animal companion are holding hands through a ring gate, can you share spells 10 miles from one another? Per raw, perhaps, per rai, no. A wall of force is intended to end if an object breaks the plane. This is an attempt to break the plane without breaking the plane, which belongs in theoretical optimization.

Funny how you pulled the designer's intent out of your ass there, considering there's nothing in the text to support your interpretation. By the rules, you totally can share spells with your animal companion through a portal; you are adjacent to them thanks to the gate. This is what you keep failing to grasp: gates don't move things. They juxtapose two points in space, allowing objects to co-exist simultaneously at those two points because, for all intents and purposes, they are the same point in space. You aren't breaking the wall, because it is always whole relative to the rest of the wall.

The main issue is that its another attempt to break the game without understanding the rules. You can't put a wall of force through a ring gate anyways, and a wall of force cant move, so even if your dm let you put a corner through (ignoring that walls of force aren't affected by spells like gate) he couldn't let you move the wall of force around by wiggling the other end of the ring gate without breaking yet another rule (walls of force cant move). So how many rules do yall need to break in order to have a point? Tell you what, I'll give you that the portal doesn't break the plane (I disagree, but I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone at this point. Now you're only breaking 2 rules. You moved a spell effect that per raw can't be moved, and you're applying a spell effect that per raw can't be applied.

Again, gates don't move things. A wall of force that is put through a gate is always stationary. The fact that you can change the points in space being juxtaposed doesn't move the wall.

As to not being affected by the gate spell, you're pulling some mental acrobatics there. I cast gate, and then my buddy casts a wall of force through the gate. You're telling me ... what, that the effect fizzles? Ok, let's go with your Olympic gymnast interpretation. Free-standing planar portals exist. It's not a spell effect, so you can absolutely stick a wall of force through one and get the exact same effect. Or just make a bigger ring gate, that works too.

@Thread; Please, anyone else: am I off my rocker? It's just been spacemonkey arguing with me so far. If others feel I'm wrong, please, speak up. I'm curious as to where the majority stand on this.

[spacemonkey555]

Since you're raging so hard, I'll concede that you're correct on all counts and just generally a better person, if you'll agree to one thing. Do the rules as written for wall of force clearly state that the effect cannot be broken by an object without failing, cannot move, and cannot be affected by most spells? (going on the srd, a friend has my phb)

If you say yes but, you're special in one kind of way, if you say no because, you're special.. well really in that exact same way. But I'll let you be right, and win an argument on the internet.

[Amechra]

I will officially close this thread.


HITLER



That is all.

[spacemonkey555]

I will officially close this thread.


HITLER



That is all.

in after a Godwin's law /fail

[Echoes]

Since you're raging so hard, I'll concede that you're correct on all counts and just generally a better person, if you'll agree to one thing. Do the rules as written for wall of force clearly state that the effect cannot be broken by an object without failing, cannot move, and cannot be affected by most spells? (going on the srd, a friend has my phb)

If you say yes but, you're special in one kind of way, if you say no because, you're special.. well really in that exact same way. But I'll let you be right, and win an argument on the internet.

Oh, my. You seem to have discovered an unbeatable strategy never before conceived of in the history of pointless Internet arguments. Whatever am I to do? If I go either way, a stranger on the Internet will make insinuations regarding my mental faculties. How shall I respond?

Oh, right, snark seems to work. To humor you so that you can feel that you "predicted" me, I will agree that the spell states all of those things, and that all of those things are irrelevant. Of course, you will yet again fail to grasp why that is so, and I am frankly tired of explaining it. Everyone else has heard it and can make up their own minds on who they think is right, so really it's irrelevant. I just love getting the last word, since you so graciously conceded (and even acknowledged my superiority, which is a pleasurable stroke of the ego, I must say).

[spacemonkey555]

Well I guess that's that.
Wall of force can't be affected by gate, but it can be put through a gate.
Wall of force can't be moved, but it can be moved.

You win, theres nothing left to discuss rationally. You don't understand enough of the english language for me to convince you of anything, and that pretty much makes you invincible in an argument.

[Echoes]

Well I guess that's that.
Wall of force can't be affected by gate, but it can be put through a gate.
Wall of force can't be moved, but it can be moved.

You win, theres nothing left to discuss rationally. You don't understand enough of the english language for me to convince you of anything, and that pretty much makes you invincible in an argument.

Wow, that response has actually rendered me speechless. I can't come up with a response to top that. I doff my hat to you, sir.

Also,

Yes! I am in-VIN-cible!

[snakeman830]

Wall of Force: Cannot be moved.
Active Ring Gates I don't believe are mobile either, although I could very well be wrong.  The SRD says nothing either way.

This tells me that there is no way to put any amount of a Wall of Force through a Ring Gate unless you can move the active Ring Gate.  The Ring is too small to cast Wall of Force through, but it could indeed be put over one corner.  I'm not sure what you could manage to do with a piece that's roughly 1 foot on each leg of the triangle, but this part would probably work for having one corner wayyyy over there, if and only if the Ring can move while active.  If it's put over the corner, then activated, the Wall would remain exactly where it was before.  For that matter, you probably couldn't activate the Ring when it's over the Wall anyway, since there is something sticking through the ring.

Now, if a Gate spell were cast, you could indeed cast Wall of Force so part of it lay on each of the connected planes.  However, again, casting the Wall, then the Gate would not accomplish anything.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Active ring gates can be moved freely.