Singularity Bomb with Telekinesis (is this rules legal?)


Rules Questions


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Telekinesis says the following:

You can hurl one object or creature per caster level (maximum 15) that are within range and all within 10 feet of each other toward any target within 10 feet per level of all the objects. You can hurl up to a total weight of 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level).

You must succeed on attack rolls (one per creature or object thrown) to hit the target with the items, using your base attack bonus + your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer). Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus; note that arrows or bolts deal damage as daggers of their size when used in this manner). Other objects cause damage ranging from 1 point per 25 pounds (for less dangerous objects) to 1d6 points of damage per 25 pounds (for hard, dense objects). Objects and creatures that miss their target land in a square adjacent to the target.

Now, can I target several different creatures with this spell, and have them all hurled at the same point in space, thereby causing all the targets to collide with all other targets of this spell? If so, does the damage multiply?

Say for example, I target 4 heavily armed and armored halfling knights and hurl them all towards each other. At approximately 75 lb. each they would each normally take 3d6 damage. However, since every halfling is slamming into every other halfing, they would instead each take 12d6 damage, right?

If I did this with 5 halfling knights, they would each take 15d6 damage.

I call it the "singularity bomb" as they are all getting pulled toward the same point of space only to get crushed into something no longer recognizable.

Does this seem like a legal interpretation of the spell to you? Why or why not?

The Exchange

I... don't know. You know what I think would be cool? To hurl a 375 pound vat of alchemist's fire at someone. 15d6 damage to the glass container and the target, container breaks and the alchemist's fire completely covers the target, then ignites.[/useless addition]

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
However, since every halfling is slamming into every other halfing, they would instead each take 12d6 damage, right?

I would say no. However, I can't quote any rules from the book to support that answer (nor do I have any desire to). My objection to allowing this would be based strictly on that fact that it would annoy me for a player to try this because it seems rules-bendy.

-Skeld


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You have to declare the target that you are targeting with your manipulated objects. That target is what would be taking the damage from the thrown object if you hit.

If you were throwing creatures, they only take damage from the spell if thrown against a solid object.

However throwing them into the air (or roof) would be perfectly legal. No collision damage (unless hitting th roof), but the subsequent falling damage is real enough.

Of note, I don't consider living bodies or armor to be particularly dense so I probably wouldn't assign them a 1d6 per 25 pounds. But that is at the GMs discresion.

Shadow Lodge

An attack roll needs a target. You cannot attack something which does not exist. What is the AC of nothing?

Since I don't like to tell my players "You can't do that" I would just calculate the total damage once and divide it by the number of recipients since the damage is spread over multiple objects.

Keep in mind a halfling even in plate mail is squishier than a stone or a spear and won't be doing the 1d6/ 25 lbs.


Firstly, they all get Will saves.

Secondly, i don't think people are 'hard, dense objects'. That's a DM call right there. Personally, i'd say 1d3 per 25 lbs. Especially when a wall would do 1d6 per 10ft thrown.

The last problem with this is that it doesn't say that the 'Violent Thrust' can be in different directions. It implies that all creatures and objects are thrust in the same direction.

So basically...it's down to RAI.

Shadow Lodge

Tanis wrote:

Firstly, they all get Will saves.

Secondly, i don't think people are 'hard, dense objects'. That's a DM call right there. Personally, i'd say 1d3 per 25 lbs. Especially when a wall would do 1d6 per 10ft thrown.

The last problem with this is that it doesn't say that the 'Violent Thrust' can be in different directions. It implies that all creatures and objects are thrust in the same direction.

So basically...it's down to RAI.

Well it does say thrust at a single target. I think the idea is the target is in the center of the circle.

If you can get 5 fighters to fail their will saves a vastly better spell to hit them with would be confusion or fear which would essentially end the fight and be much more fun to watch.


Not to bring too much physics into this but at a high level two object of the same mass slamming into each other receive exactly the same damage as a single object of that mass slamming into an immovable object.

The real world correlation is two identical cars driving into each other at 50 MPH receive the same force in damage as one of those cars driving into a solid wall at 50 MPH. Now if you have a 10 ton train at 50 MPH impacting a car traveling at 50 MPH, then the car will receive more damage and the train less.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Thazar wrote:
Not to bring too much physics into this but at a high level two object of the same mass slamming into each other receive exactly the same damage as a single object of that mass slamming into an immovable object.

That doesn't sound right to me. Isn't speed/velocity also a big factor when it comes to determining damage potential? That's why bullets do so much damage despite their low mass--they hit with far more kinetic force and do lots of damage due to their high speed.

In other words, I think two cars slamming into one another head on would each take more damage then one of them slamming into a stationary object.


Ravingdork wrote:
Thazar wrote:
Not to bring too much physics into this but at a high level two object of the same mass slamming into each other receive exactly the same damage as a single object of that mass slamming into an immovable object.

That doesn't sound right to me. Isn't speed/velocity also a big factor when it comes to determining damage potential? That's why bullets do so much damage despite their low mass--they hit with far more kinetic force and do lots of damage due to their high speed.

In other words, I think two cars slamming into one another head on would each take more damage then one of them slamming into a stationary object.

Mythbusters two weeks ago - A car slamming into another car traveling towards it at the same speed is identical to slamming into a brick wall at that speed. Newton's First Law, I believe, is responsible.


Yup, hence the train example, it has far greater momentum than the car. While the bullet has high velocity its surface area is tiny, so the pressure exerted on the place it hits is far more penetrating and powerful, similar force on a wider object would do less damage as it would spread it around more.

Pressure = Force/Area


Why are people so quick to say no? Four targets in a 10' cluster who ALL failed their save take 12d6 damage from a 12th level caster. How is this bad? Each sucessful Will save reduces the damage by 3d6 to the remaining targets. Oh yeah, and they have to be small.

Two medium sized rogues probably don't weigh more than 150lbs each. Even if one of them makes their save they both might take 6d6 each. Again, how is this bad? Why would anyone argue this in game? It doesn't even nearly break the game.

Grand Lodge

Deleted as I missed part of the spell description invalidating my comment.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
0gre wrote:

*snip*

You cannot attack something which does not exist. What is the AC of nothing?
*snip*

Very zen.

Once a monk can hit that AC though, they achieve perfect harmony and oneness with the universe.


Ravingdork wrote:

Telekinesis says the following:

You can hurl one object or creature per caster level (maximum 15) that are within range and all within 10 feet of each other toward any target within 10 feet per level of all the objects. You can hurl up to a total weight of 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level).

You must succeed on attack rolls (one per creature or object thrown) to hit the target with the items, using your base attack bonus + your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer). Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus; note that arrows or bolts deal damage as daggers of their size when used in this manner). Other objects cause damage ranging from 1 point per 25 pounds (for less dangerous objects) to 1d6 points of damage per 25 pounds (for hard, dense objects). Objects and creatures that miss their target land in a square adjacent to the target.

Now, can I target several different creatures with this spell, and have them all hurled at the same point in space, thereby causing all the targets to collide with all other targets of this spell? If so, does the damage multiply?

Say for example, I target 4 heavily armed and armored halfling knights and hurl them all towards each other. At approximately 75 lb. each they would each normally take 3d6 damage. However, since every halfling is slamming into every other halfing, they would instead each take 12d6 damage, right?

If I did this with 5 halfling knights, they would each take 15d6 damage.

I call it the "singularity bomb" as they are all getting pulled toward the same point of space only to get crushed into something no longer recognizable.

Does this seem like a legal interpretation of the spell to you? Why or why not?

It would be up to the DM to determine if anyone got hit more than once. It might be rules legal, but I don't think that is the intent. It is a cool idea though.


Hexcaliber wrote:

Why are people so quick to say no? Four targets in a 10' cluster who ALL failed their save take 12d6 damage from a 12th level caster. How is this bad? Each sucessful Will save reduces the damage by 3d6 to the remaining targets. Oh yeah, and they have to be small.

Two medium sized rogues probably don't weigh more than 150lbs each. Even if one of them makes their save they both might take 6d6 each. Again, how is this bad? Why would anyone argue this in game? It doesn't even nearly break the game.

Many DM's would also do this to the players to keep the field level. Sometimes "no" is a players best friend whether they know it or not.


Ravingdork wrote:
In other words, I think two cars slamming into one another head on would each take more damage then one of them slamming into a stationary object.

Mythbusters just busted this one. Two cars impacting each other going the same speed take exactly as much damage as one car impacting an imovable object.

Physics wise, the deceleration from X to 0 in time Y is what the force of impact is. As long as all objects of equal weight are decelarating from X to 0 in time Y, they all take the same damage, regardless if they collide into each other or not.


Another thing to consider is that they could target a space. That space would have AC 10 and be extremely easy to hit. So I would say "yes" since that affect isn't entirely game breaking and would look really cool.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
In other words, I think two cars slamming into one another head on would each take more damage then one of them slamming into a stationary object.

Mythbusters just busted this one. Two cars impacting each other going the same speed take exactly as much damage as one car impacting an imovable object.

Physics wise, the deceleration from X to 0 in time Y is what the force of impact is. As long as all objects of equal weight are decelarating from X to 0 in time Y, they all take the same damage, regardless if they collide into each other or not.

Typically Mythbusters. They simplify things for the audience and in the process of simplifying, they get the physics halfway wrong. Hitting a wall is fundamentally different from hitting another car, because the wall will not give way. By this same flawed logic, hitting a stationary car head on is just as bad as hitting a brick wall, but that is not the case.

Yes, for someone inside the car, the 2 collisions are identical, because all you have to worry about from inside the car is surviving the deceleration from 50 to 0 without going through the front windshield. Go, go modern safety features. That doesn't really apply in this case, because last time I checked, full plate does not come equipped with seatbelts and airbags.

In terms of damage taken by the car, a head on collision between 2 cars is still much worse. Cars are designed to disperse a lot of kinetic energy away from the passengers(crumple zones, steel frames around the passengers, etc), especially in the front end, and a head on collision between 2 cars has 4 time as much energy to disperse. In this case, each car has twice as much energy to disperse resulting in more compression to the front end than if the car had hit a stationary wall.

I would say that a collision between multiple people in via telekinesis would double the damage for the first 2 people to reach the middle, after that, everyone else would be hitting a stationary clump of people.

As for how "hard" a person in full plate is. Considering that full plate is often designed to be used offensively as well as defensively, It doesn't have very much give to it. I would say any full-body rigid metal armor(full plate, splint mail) is hard enough to get the full 1d6. Flexible metal full body armor(chainmail, scalemail) would be 1d4, while any leather armor or cloth armor would be 1d3.

Note this is the damage done to the other person, because full plate also pads and protects you from the actual collision. If someone in full plate slammed into someone in normal clothing, the person in full plate would take 6d3 while the person in normal clothes would take 6d6.

Shadow Lodge

Charender wrote:
As for how "hard" a person in full plate is. Considering that full plate is often designed to be used offensively as well as defensively, It doesn't have very much give to it. I would say any full-body rigid metal armor(full plate, splint mail) is hard enough to get the full 1d6. Flexible metal full body armor(chainmail, scalemail) would be 1d4, while any leather armor or cloth armor would be 1d3.

It's not just hardness but density. "(for hard, dense objects)." Density of a person is very low compared to that of a stone. Consider your bullet analogy earlier, that 75 lbs of halfling is going to impact over a much greater area than the impact area of a stone. It also has floppy bits like arms and legs that would add little to the overall damage because they would hit outside the primary impact area with very little force.

Shadow Lodge

Hexcaliber wrote:
Why are people so quick to say no? Four targets in a 10' cluster who ALL failed their save take 12d6 damage from a 12th level caster. How is this bad? Each sucessful Will save reduces the damage by 3d6 to the remaining targets. Oh yeah, and they have to be small.

Because it ignores the rules of the game AND basic physics at the same time?

I figure you can only ignore one of those at a time.


I'm pretty sure the two cars are dispersing twice as much energy as one car, not four times as much. Energy is directly proportional to mass and velocity should be measured based on the road since we're assuming an inelastic collision.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
AvalonXQ wrote:
I'm pretty sure the two cars are dispersing twice as much energy as one car, not four times as much.

Only if they both have the same mass & velocity. ;)

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hexcaliber wrote:
Why are people so quick to say no?

I'm quick to say no because, as I said earlier, it seems rule-bendy. Honestly, if a 12th level caster wants to do 12d6-ish damage to 4 targets within a 10' cluster, he probably has some tool in his toolbox that actually deals that type of damage to targets in that situation without having to go to the effort that using telekinesis in the way requires.

Besides, wouldn't this be akin to arguing that falling characters take double damage because hit the ground, but the ground also hits them?

-Skeld


0gre wrote:
Hexcaliber wrote:
Why are people so quick to say no? Four targets in a 10' cluster who ALL failed their save take 12d6 damage from a 12th level caster. How is this bad? Each sucessful Will save reduces the damage by 3d6 to the remaining targets. Oh yeah, and they have to be small.

Because it ignores the rules of the game AND basic physics at the same time?

I figure you can only ignore one of those at a time.

Additionally, name another spell that does 3d6 to a target.... or if there are two targets they both take 6d6... or if the are three targets they all take 9d6... four targets all take 12d6... etc.

In the first example of how the spell is written the total possible damage the spell can do is 18 points. In the example as given the total possible damage is 288 (48d6). If they were each targeted properly and hurled against a wall they should each take 3d6 each for a max of 72 points.

Finally, Telekinesis is a fifth level spell. Reverse Gravity is a seventh level spell and is probably more appropriate for the effect that is being described where many people fall to a single point.


Ravingdork wrote:

Telekinesis says the following:

You can hurl one object or creature per caster level (maximum 15) that are within range and all within 10 feet of each other toward any target within 10 feet per level of all the objects. You can hurl up to a total weight of 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level).

You must succeed on attack rolls (one per creature or object thrown) to hit the target with the items, using your base attack bonus + your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer). Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus; note that arrows or bolts deal damage as daggers of their size when used in this manner). Other objects cause damage ranging from 1 point per 25 pounds (for less dangerous objects) to 1d6 points of damage per 25 pounds (for hard, dense objects). Objects and creatures that miss their target land in a square adjacent to the target.

Now, can I target several different creatures with this spell, and have them all hurled at the same point in space, thereby causing all the targets to collide with all other targets of this spell? If so, does the damage multiply?

Say for example, I target 4 heavily armed and armored halfling knights and hurl them all towards each other. At approximately 75 lb. each they would each normally take 3d6 damage. However, since every halfling is slamming into every other halfing, they would instead each take 12d6 damage, right?

If I did this with 5 halfling knights, they would each take 15d6 damage.

I call it the "singularity bomb" as they are all getting pulled toward the same point of space only to get crushed into something no longer recognizable.

Does this seem like a legal interpretation of the spell to you? Why or why not?

The one part of the spell you forgot to mention is:

If a telekinesed creature is hurled against a solid surface, it takes damage as if it had fallen 10 feet (1d6 points).

Instead of looking at it as each halfling having an object slammed into it, I'd look at it as each halfling being slammed into a solid object. Therefore, I would rule that slamming into each other counts as slamming into a solid object and everyone takes 1d6 damage. However, I'd also rule that they were all prone (which is probably a bigger bonus than just straight damage).

TK wasn't designed as a "throw someone against something to deal lots of damage" spell. You can't even throw someone straight up until you reach the capstone ability of the Master of the Unseen Hand 3.5 PrC.


Charender wrote:
stuff

Actually, just about everything you said is incorrect.

In Physics, forces are what matter. Newton: for every action there is an opposite reaction.

If you hit a solid object of infinite density at velocity X, you will take damage. That is because you are going from velocity X to 0 in time Y (conserving your mass Z).

If you collide with an identical "you" traveling in the opposite direction at velocity X you will take the SAME DAMAGE you would have if you hit our infinitely dense wall. That is because, and look carefully at the formula, you are going from velocity X to 0 in time Y (conserving your mass Z). In fact, BOTH of the "you's" are taking that same damage.

If an object gives, it increases time Y. If one object weight more and causes the other object to move back, it also increases tine Y AND changes the force the first object encountered (it's own plys the additional required to make it move backwards). That is not the reaction described in the OP, however.

As to actually using the spell in the way described, the correct physics solution is that the damage the spell describes is the MAXIMUM damage that can be dealt at any specific mass. This is ONLY achieved when the collision is head-on.

Take the following: Two 3d6 masses are headed at each other using telekenesis. If they collide head-on, both take 3d6. If they do not, then the result is somewhere LESS than or equal to 3d6.

Also: Two masses, one 3d6 and the other 2d6, are headed at each other using telekenesis. If the collide head-on, the heavier mass takes 2d6 and the lighter mass takes 3d6. BUT, if they do not collide head-on, the damage will be LESS than or equal to the maximum.

Basically, if you are nice, you rule that everyone's weight is about the same (or that the difference in weight is made up for by the difference in velocity, which is not correct per the spell, but whatever), and everyons being thrown together takes the rated damage for their mass as if they collided with an immobile object (damage per the spell). It is not possible under conventional physics to get a result of MORE damage under these circumstances.


Charender wrote:
Typically Mythbusters. They simplify things for the audience and in the process of simplifying, they get the physics halfway wrong.

BTW, this is kind of an insulting statement, considering I brought up Mythbusters. It is a sideways attempt to counter an argument from authority by questioning the authority. Specifically, it implies that I am NOT able to understand the physics behind the experiment and that I can ONLY understand their "simplified" version, which is quite incorrect.

I hope my previous post demonstrated I have a very firm grasp of the physics underlying the concept.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Charender wrote:
Typically Mythbusters. They simplify things for the audience and in the process of simplifying, they get the physics halfway wrong.

BTW, this is kind of an insulting statement, considering I brought up Mythbusters. It is a sideways attempt to counter an argument from authority by questioning the authority. Specifically, it implies that I am NOT able to understand the physics behind the experiment and that I can ONLY understand their "simplified" version, which is quite incorrect.

I hope my previous post demonstrated I have a very firm grasp of the physics underlying the concept.

You will have to excuse me if I don't quote Mythbusters as a source on my next thesis.

The show is entertainment, and they do simplify things. While their conclusion is perfectly valid for the case of passengers inside 2 cars colliding, it doesn't hold for much outside of that fairly narrow case.

If a guy on a motorcycle hits a wall at 50 mph, and experiences the same level of deceleration as the person inside the car, do they take the same amount of damage? Hell no.

It is not about deceleration, it is about dissipation of kinetic energy.

Even that is an oversimplification. In truth it is most likely some combination of the 2. Internal organ damage is primarily due to deceleration putting pressure on internal organs. Bruises and broken bones are due to kinetic energy energy dissipation from the actual impact.

But feel free to discount everything I have to say. Mythbusters said you can.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Charender wrote:
stuff

Actually, just about everything you said is incorrect.

The only thing I got wrong is the total amount of kinetic energy. I would have to go dig up a textbook to remember what I am missing, because I get a different amount of KE depending on which frame of reference I use, and I am not sure which is the right frame of reference to use.

I am sure that there is at least twice as much kinetic energy is the 2 car collision. That the KE gets evenly distributed between the cars is controlled in the experiment design. Absent that control, the results of the experiment change.

Mirror, Mirror wrote:


In Physics, forces are what matter. Newton: for every action there is an opposite reaction.

If you hit a solid object of infinite density at velocity X, you will take damage. That is because you are going from velocity X to 0 in time Y (conserving your mass Z).

If you collide with an identical "you" traveling in the opposite direction at velocity X you will take the SAME DAMAGE you would have if you hit our infinitely dense wall. That is because, and look carefully at the formula, you are going from velocity X to 0 in time Y (conserving your mass Z). In fact, BOTH of the "you's" are taking that same damage.

If an object gives, it increases time Y. If one object weight more and causes the other object to move back, it also increases tine Y AND changes the force the first object encountered (it's own plys the additional required to make it move backwards). That is not the reaction described in the OP, however.

As to actually using the spell in the way described, the correct physics solution is that the damage the spell describes is the MAXIMUM damage that can be dealt at any specific mass. This is ONLY achieved when the collision is head-on.

Take the following: Two 3d6 masses are headed at each other using telekenesis. If they collide head-on, both take 3d6. If they do not, then the result is somewhere LESS than or equal to 3d6.

Also: Two masses, one 3d6 and the other 2d6, are headed at each other using telekenesis. If the collide head-on, the heavier mass takes 2d6 and the lighter mass takes 3d6. BUT, if they do not collide head-on, the damage will be LESS than or equal to the maximum.

Basically, if you are nice, you rule that everyone's weight is about the same (or that the difference in weight is made up for by the difference in velocity, which is not correct per the spell, but whatever), and everyons being thrown together takes the rated damage for their mass as if they collided with an immobile object (damage per the spell). It is not possible under conventional physics to get a result of MORE damage under these circumstances.

So if a 3d6 clay collides with 3d6 ball of steel of the same mass, the steel takes 3d6 damage, and the clay takes 3d6 damage? In my world, the clay would take 6d6 damage and the steel would take no damage.

A 1g bullet hits a 50kg person, the bullet takes 50,000 times the damage of the person?

If a yielding surface collides with an unyielding surface, then the yielding surface absorbs most of the kinetic energy and thus takes most of the damage.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Re: The two cars problem.

Two identical cars striking one another take the same damage as a car hitting an immovable wall. Yes, there is twice as much energy in two cars going 50 mph as one car moving 50 mph. There's also twice as much car to absorb it, so the damage to each car is the same. If the wall being hit is not actually immovable and indestructible, then any damage suffered by the wall is that much less energy the car has to absorb (so we mean a solid, reinforced cinderblock wall, not a brick privacy fence.)

Crash testing is conducted using this assumption, so I think its safe to say that automotive engineers (who presumably know some physics) agree.


Charender wrote:
So if a 3d6 clay collides with 3d6 ball of steel of the same mass, the steel takes 3d6 damage, and the clay takes 3d6 damage? In my world, the clay would take 6d6 damage and the steel would take no damage.

In fact, the answer is likely YES.

If 3d6 of clay collides with 3d6 of steel, both objects take damage. Steel may have a greater hardness that minimizes the damage (10 is pretty good), but the FORCE is equal. This holds only because the force is already STATED to be equal (3d6). Masses and velocities may be different, but the "3d6 force" that each object possesses are equal.

Now, where this falls is where the transfer of energy is UNEQUAL. This is the case in penetration, where an object passes through another. That, however, is not the OP's case. In penetration, the material being penetrated is not transfering as much energy (kinda) as the penetrating object. This is where surface area and tension come into play. The forces on the objects are still in play, but another factor is brought in. If this were NOT the case, then there would NOT be an "equal and opposite reaction", which would violate Newton's first law.

I say "kinda" because the issue has more to do with the ability of an object to resist a force than it's ability to deal force back. Think about pushing a piece of tissue paper in mid-air. Physics apply, but not quite intuitively. The best example is where two SIMILAR substances coillide, like two bodies. In any case, it is absolutely impossible for two 3d6 forces to collide and deal 6d6 force to only one of the objects.

That is the way it works in a world of Newtonian Physics. Your world may vary, of course, by DM fiat, but that does not in any way alter this fact.


Charender wrote:
But feel free to discount everything I have to say. Mythbusters said you can.

Actually, it's not Mythbusters. I could say my college physics professor said I can, but I got permission long before him.

My 9th grade science teacher, teaching Applied Physics, said I could. And I do. And I did!


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Charender wrote:
So if a 3d6 clay collides with 3d6 ball of steel of the same mass, the steel takes 3d6 damage, and the clay takes 3d6 damage? In my world, the clay would take 6d6 damage and the steel would take no damage.

In fact, the answer is likely YES.

If 3d6 of clay collides with 3d6 of steel, both objects take damage. Steel may have a greater hardness that minimizes the damage (10 is pretty good), but the FORCE is equal. This holds only because the force is already STATED to be equal (3d6). Masses and velocities may be different, but the "3d6 force" that each object possesses are equal.

Now, where this falls is where the transfer of energy is UNEQUAL. This is the case in penetration, where an object passes through another. That, however, is not the OP's case. In penetration, the material being penetrated is not transfering as much energy (kinda) as the penetrating object. This is where surface area and tension come into play. The forces on the objects are still in play, but another factor is brought in. If this were NOT the case, then there would NOT be an "equal and opposite reaction", which would violate Newton's first law.

I say "kinda" because the issue has more to do with the ability of an object to resist a force than it's ability to deal force back. Think about pushing a piece of tissue paper in mid-air. Physics apply, but not quite intuitively. The best example is where two SIMILAR substances coillide, like two bodies. In any case, it is absolutely impossible for two 3d6 forces to collide and deal 6d6 force to only one of the objects.

That is the way it works in a world of Newtonian Physics. Your world may vary, of course, by DM fiat, but that does not in any way alter this fact.

Ok, lets make it all about the force, since you can't even get that right.

The amount of force directed into each object is directly proportional to the deceleration. The deceleration is dependent on change in velocity and the duration of the deceleration. The change in velocity is purely based on the momentums involved in the collision. That much you have right.

The distance of deceleration is related to the hardness of the materials involved. The harder the materials, the less give they have, and the shorter the deceleration time and distance.

Imagine is one of the cars was a solid steel frame car constructed during the 60s and the other one is brand new(complete with airbags, crumple zones, etc). In this case, the newer car would sustain more damage, and both passengers would sustain more internal injures due to the shorter deceleration distance.

Even if retrofitted with modern airbags and seatbelts, 2 cars from the 60s would do the same amount of damage to each other, but would cause more damage to the passengers, because their frames are not designed to crumple causing both passengers to experience a higher amount of deceleration from having a much shorter deceleration distance and thus shorter deceleration time.

Momentum and kinetic energy are conserved in a collision, damage is not. The impulse function of the applied force to the person in each case can be very different even when the momentums and kinetic energies are the same. The peak of the impulse function and the location it gets applied to are what determines injuries sustained in a collision.


Charender wrote:

The distance of deceleration is related to the hardness of the materials involved. The harder the materials, the less give they have, and the shorter the deceleration time and distance.

Imagine is one of the cars was a solid steel frame car constructed during the 60s and the other one is brand new(complete with airbags, crumple zones, etc). In this case, the newer car would sustain more damage, and both passengers would sustain more internal injures due to the shorter deceleration distance.

Momentum and kinetic energy are conserved in a collision, plastic deformation is not.

Actually, the distance of decelleration is related to the forces involved. High-hardness low-velocity low-mass objects will still be stopped quickly, while a low-hardness high-velocity high-mass object may achieve penetration. Force is both a component of mass and velocity.

Now, where one car is solid steel and the other is fiberglass, the masses are different, so if the velocities are the same, the force of the steel car is greater than the force of the fiberglass car. Meaning the object with the larger force (steel) deals MORE damage to the object with less force (fiberglass). It still does take SOME damage, though (the force of the fiberglass car). Which is EXACTLY what I said above.

So, yes, the newer car WOULD sustain more damage than the older car.

Now, if you want to expand the problem, imagine two cars crashing head-on. One was traveling at velocity X with mass Y, the other was traveling at velocity 2X with mass 0.5Y.

You tell me, who takes more damage.

Charender wrote:
Ok, lets make it all about the force, since you can't even get that right.

And buddy, that's MY line...


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Charender wrote:

The distance of deceleration is related to the hardness of the materials involved. The harder the materials, the less give they have, and the shorter the deceleration time and distance.

Imagine is one of the cars was a solid steel frame car constructed during the 60s and the other one is brand new(complete with airbags, crumple zones, etc). In this case, the newer car would sustain more damage, and both passengers would sustain more internal injures due to the shorter deceleration distance.

Momentum and kinetic energy are conserved in a collision, plastic deformation is not.

Actually, the distance of decelleration is related to the forces involved. High-hardness low-velocity low-mass objects will still be stopped quickly, while a low-hardness high-velocity high-mass object may achieve penetration. Force is both a component of mass and velocity.

Now, where one car is solid steel and the other is fiberglass, the masses are different, so if the velocities are the same, the force of the steel car is greater than the force of the fiberglass car. Meaning the object with the larger force (steel) deals MORE damage to the object with less force (fiberglass). It still does take SOME damage, though (the force of the fiberglass car). Which is EXACTLY what I said above.

So, yes, the newer car WOULD sustain more damage than the older car.

Now, if you want to expand the problem, imagine two cars crashing head-on. One was traveling at velocity X with mass Y, the other was traveling at velocity 2X with mass 0.5Y.

You tell me, who takes more damage.

I can tell you that there is 1.5YX^2 Kinetic energy total to be dissipated, but there is not enough information to say which object takes more damage.

The damage that each car sustains depends on the elastic/plastic deformation curves of each car, and is not solely dependant on the mass or velocity of each car. Elastic deformation defines how much each material acts like a perfect spring. The plastic deformation curves define how the material behaves once it has stretched beyond the point where it can spring back into shape. The 2 properties together would be roughly the same as the hardness of the material in game terms.

Damage via external plastic deformation depends on the hardness of the materials of each object and the total about of kinetic energy absorbed. In short, the total energy is split between the 2 objects, and the soft object will take more damage than a harder object.

Internal sheering damage happens when the internal parts of an object try to keep moving forward when the container they are in stops. The level of internal sheering that happens depends on the deceleration experienced by each object. This is a function of the change in velocity and the stopping distance. Stopping distance is based on the hardness curves as well. In short, 2 hard objects colliding will experience a higher internal sheering forces 2 soft objects colliding. These sheering forces are what cause a lot of internal bleeding.

Would your rather get hit in the face with a nerf foam ball that has some lead in the middle or a hollow steel sphere of the same size and weight?

Both collisions have the same momentum and kinetic energy, but the nerf ball will do less damage, because it deforms more during impact and thus spreads the energy transfer over a longer duration doing less damage. This longer duration results in the maximum force experienced being lower.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

The far bigger question with trying this is that you have to throw EACH creature at *AN* object. You cannot throw a creature at SEVERAL objects. Just as the game-verse is broken up into 5-foot squares, so too is it made up of discrete "creatures" and "objects."

So you can't throw anything at "a point in space" and have them all meet in the middle. You have to throw each one at a THING. Also, because the game rules work sequentially you have to resolve the throwing of one creature at a time.

You throw halfling A at halfling B.

Halfling B is now right next to halfling A, so throwing them together will do no damage, so you throw him at halfling C.

Rinse, repeat until you run out of halflings (or kobolds or goblins). You game-mechanically throw them in connect-the-dots fashion, point to point.

You *could* throw each one at a location, but they'll hit nothing and do no damage to anything.

You could also throw ALL of your extra halflings at halfling A, which is the best way to do the most damage to a single target, and that would be perfectly legit.

FWIW, I don't think I'd consider armored peeps as "hard, dense" objects even if they were in plate mail. More likely you'll be throwing soft bodies, maybe in some kind of flexible armor (leather/hide/chain), just cuz so many more creatures wear those kinds of armor, so you'd be looking at a lot less than 1d6 per 10 feet, but that part is a judgment call.


All,

Lets keep this polite and avoid any personal attacks please. :)

Two things to keep in mind.

Using an analogy of a car crash is a simplification that DOES NOT EXIST in D&D or Pathfinder folks. Saying the passenger of a car takes more internal injuries then a person on a motorcycle is not the point of the original question for two reasons. One - We are not asking if the guy in armor is taking more or less damage then the unarmored person. In this game we do not break out damage to a person and his gear. We also do not break out damage to a sword cut to the liver over the little toe. Damage is damage. And two - you have to look at the force absorbed by all objects involved in the collision. In pathfinder that package is called a PC or NPC or Monster and is measured in HP. In our lame attempt at providing a simple example it is spread out in bent steel, injured crash test dummies, and high tech gismo's designed to lessen injury. (Seat belts, crumple zones, air bags.)

My point originally was that I did not believe the spell would work as the OP was suggesting from both a game mechanics as well as logical point of view. If a DM wants to allow it that is fine, but it would fall under the realm of a house rule in my opinion. The spell the OP described could also be a fine custom spell that the DM and player work out the specifics on to put the damage and targets in line other spells of that level. (In a D20 Modern game I had, our players eventually found alien tech that gave them a "singularity grenade" that did 15D6 Damage and "Bull Rushed" everyone and everything in a 20' radius into one central square.)

Again, it's a game and have fun folks. This is not rocket science... and imagination, not reality, should take priority as long as everyone is having fun.


A further point about the Mythbusters's episode:

Jamie (of the walrus mustache) originally believed that two objects striking each other in a 50 mph head on collision was the equivalent of a single object striking a barrier at 100 mph. That was, IIRC, the point of the episode. After conducting the experiments, he realized he was wrong. Amazingly, in this day and age, he was happy to do so. It's a shame more people can't do that.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Mynameisjake wrote:

A further point about the Mythbusters's episode:

Jamie (of the walrus mustache) originally believed that two objects striking each other in a 50 mph head on collision was the equivalent of a single object striking a barrier at 100 mph. That was, IIRC, the point of the episode. After conducting the experiments, he realized he was wrong. Amazingly, in this day and age, he was happy to do so. It's a shame more people can't do that.

I want to see if its the same as striking a stopped car at 100 mph (as opposed to an immovable wall).

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Ross Byers wrote:
I want to see if its the same as striking a stopped car at 100 mph (as opposed to an immovable wall).

I'd predict not quite the same thing, but close in terms of damage inflicted. I'd actual expect a bit less damage, since I think the vehicle doing the impact is going to get deflected and retain a lot of its initial kinetic energy.

The conclusion of the episode is very easy to reach if you work the vectors on paper, even though lots of people don't believe it :) First learned that problem in 11th grade, I think.

I think they saved that last test for yet another revisited episode.


Ok have not seen the mythbuster one however I do have a bit of experience here

I do know a 85 t-bird hitting a tree at 58 MPH will stop the car dead with enough impact to send the drive shaft though the passenger seat

I also know the effect on a 03 senata traveling at 62 MPH T-boning a 98 Olds traveling at 104 MPH. The Senata gets gets 7 feet from impact, While the Olds traveled 1'027 feet from impact sideways

So it kinda was like hitting a wall to be honest. And in the 2nd case the car doing the hitting{the senata} did dead stop , while the one hit got pushes sideways a long way

I don't know how they tested by Ill tell ya this the 2nd impact was hella worse then the first one ever dreamed of being.


Charender wrote:


The only thing I got wrong is the total amount of kinetic energy. I would have to go dig up a textbook to remember what I am missing, because I get a different amount of KE depending on which frame of reference I use, and I am not sure which is the right frame of reference to use.

All frames of reference are "right". Ignoring the speed of light, the concept of relativity still holds in Newtonian mechanics.

I'm assuming the two frames of reference you are referring to are that which is fixed to the ground, and that which is fixed to a car (i.e. moving at a velocity v). For clarity let E be the kinetic energy of one car in the former frame of reference.

Yes, in the latter frame of reference the system will start with 4*E kinetic energy, but also in that frame of reference, both cars will be moving away from the origin at the velocity v and thus have 2*E kinetic energy. Thus the total work done remains the same (2*E).

***

To try to put an end to this awful discussion: just sum the total damage done by each victim and divy it up based on who's squishier. This is how it works in real life (quite literally if you assume energy = damage), and it makes sense in-game.

Liberty's Edge

This may help determine the damage if people can agree on the force being applied during the "singularity" formation...


I don't really care too much about objects taking damage IRL, but I will re-iterate that the following statements are impossible via Newtonian Physics:

Ravingdork wrote:
Say for example, I target 4 heavily armed and armored halfling knights and hurl them all towards each other. At approximately 75 lb. each they would each normally take 3d6 damage. However, since every halfling is slamming into every other halfing, they would instead each take 12d6 damage, right?
Charender wrote:
I would say that a collision between multiple people in via telekinesis would double the damage for the first 2 people to reach the middle, after that, everyone else would be hitting a stationary clump of people.

Now, to say that something takes "3d6" damage is NOT to say that damage is equivelant to both objects. Obviously doing 3d6 to a steel object with hardness 10 and 20hp is but a scratch, while dealing 3d6 to an empty glass vial with hardness 3 and 2hp will completly destroy it. That is not the point at all. The fact is that both objects took EXACTLY THE SAME DAMAGE (3d6). The effects may differ wildly, but the actual DAMAGE being done, damage being a game mechanic and a static function, is identical.

If the spell says that the object deals 3d6 damage when hurled, that is what it deals. A singularity effect does not multiply the damage dealt AT ALL. That would be a violation of the Law of Thermodynamics. Now, can some spell be created that does just that? Of course, that's magic! This, however, is "objects being hurled at each other". That clearly falls under the jurisdiction of physical laws.

In any event, I would not allow a damage multiplier to work as described in the quotes. If it were possible to be done, we would collide particles together at relativistic speeds IRL and create energy equal to double the required amount to accelerate the particles in the first place. Literally, we would have "Light Reactors". Since the concept involves a violation of Conservation of Energy, I think we should all safely assume it will not work that way at much lower speeds.


Here's a suggestion. Instead of arguing about this here, why don't we shoot this thread to the Mythbusters site so they can do an episode where they toss armored Buster Jr.'s at each other to see how much damage they actually take.

Because short of someone actually trying it out, this isn't something that we're going to solve.


Firest wrote:

Here's a suggestion. Instead of arguing about this here, why don't we shoot this thread to the Mythbusters site so they can do an episode where they toss armored Buster Jr.'s at each other to see how much damage they actually take.

Because short of someone actually trying it out, this isn't something that we're going to solve.

+1

Also, the spell as written only does 10d6, not 12. I missed the part about a TKed person only taken 1d6 when thrown at something. Which means Cone of Cold is better (12d6 and a 60' cone). Mostly because CoC can affect large targets while TK cannot (unless a bunch of small guys are hurled at a large guy).

Finally, do what you all want. I'm allowing this is my game and I suggest the rest of you do the same. I prefer to nurture creativity instead of stifling it.

Good day to you.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

On the physics side you should look at the equations for inelastic collisions. The objects in question will deform and take damage rather than bouncing apart like billiard balls.

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2) vf

With the final velocity you can then see how much kinetic energy was absorbed by the objects

Ke = .5mv^2

In this case the v in question is change in speed.

As far as spells go I don't see any problem with a level 5 spell that requires multiple to-hit rolls can do 15d6 to multiple targets.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Singularity Bomb with Telekinesis (is this rules legal?) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.