Physics and spells

[Preston27]

I made a thread earlier about how my DM was interpreting create pit and grease. In both examples, he wanted to give large creatures who weren't completely in the 10x10 areas a bonus to the save because only one foot was on the affected area. He kept talking about physics when explaining the reasoning for this, and my argument was that physics don't really apply, especially when considering spells.

My question is this: should real world physics apply when it comes to spells?

[David Thomassen]

Not always, some spells work against physics. Plus the GM is always correct within the game.

I would have pointed out that the create pit spell has a 5' lip around the edge of the 10'x10' pit, making it an 20'x20' effect.

[Richard Leonhart]

my first answer would be "no"
but thinking about it a second I would say "of course not"
you could however argue that the answer could be expressed like this or this .

[Preston27]

David Thomassen wrote:

Not always, some spells work against physics. Plus the GM is always correct within the game.

I would have pointed out that the create pit spell has a 5' lip around the edge of the 10'x10' pit, making it an 20'x20' effect.

Of course the DM has final say, I dropped any argument during the game and discussed it with him after. I did point out the lip, though.

[W E Ray]

Real world physics DO NOT apply to SP, SU and EX abilities.

Not only are the vast majority of gamers not physicists and thus not qualified to argue how the laws of physics do or do not work with absolute credibility, but mostly because this is a game dependent on Balance within spell level.

A DM or Player should never make or propose a ruling based on the laws of physics.

Instead DMs and Players should make or propose a ruling based on the implication of "power" based on the spell level in order to keep game balance.

It does not matter what a grease, fireball or disintigrate spell would do "according to the laws of physics" -- it matters only that they are 1st, 3rd and 6th level spells and what they can or cannot do balanced with other 1st, 3rd and 6th level spells.

The DM can adjuticate that his Large creature would get a bonus being only 1/2 in the area of effect, and that seems reasonably balanced, but not because of physics.

[Alexander Kilcoyne]

I DM'ed for a group made up mostly of physicists in my uni years a couple of years ago.

I was forced to ban physics from my DND.

[Kalyth]

I think natural laws and physics should be part of the equation but not the end all be all.

If something doesnt make realistic sense (a dragon fiting in a belt pouch) then by all means DM adjudicate and make a call. Magic is magic and twists the natural laws and such but common sense needs to apply as well.

Also as mentioned earlier the level of the spell should be taken into account as well.

I think you DM is well within his right to give a creature a bonus if the creature was large and only partially in the area of effect. Would it have been the same call I made, maybe not.

[W E Ray]

Kalyth wrote:

If something (doesn't) make realistic sense (a dragon fiting in a belt pouch)....

But we have rules for that: A creature can squeeze through an opening at what, half speed?, that is one Size Category smaller. So a Large creature could squeeze through a Medium opening but a Gargantuan Dragon could not squeeze through a Diminutive belt pouch.

In many cases the rules are designed with physics and common sense in mind. (Check out Skip Williams' article on cover vs concealment in KQ1)
In some cases the rules are designed to keep game balance. (Grease vs Fireball vs Disintigrate)
In some cases the rules are designed to keep the game moving at a certain pace. (Um, HIT POINTS --the stupidest thing EVER, but it's fun!)

Kalyth wrote:

I think (your) DM is well within his right to give a creature a bonus if the creature was large and only partially in the area of effect.

I agree 100%.

I'm just firm in my position that it has nothing to do with physics.

EDIT: "that it SHOULD have nothing to do with physics.

[wraithstrike]

Preston27 wrote:

I made a thread earlier about how my DM was interpreting create pit and grease. In both examples, he wanted to give large creatures who weren't completely in the 10x10 areas a bonus to the save because only one foot was on the affected area. He kept talking about physics when explaining the reasoning for this, and my argument was that physics don't really apply, especially when considering spells.

My question is this: should real world physics apply when it comes to spells?

No. If it did the puny(by comparison) shield the melee types use would have no bearing on defense when a monster swung at him. The monster(huge and larger) would most likely break his shield arm, and probably the shield also. Even the large ones would knock him down, most likely.

[JustABill]

Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:

I DM'ed for a group made up mostly of physicists in my uni years a couple of years ago.

I was forced to ban physics from my DND.

And then the characters all floated away... (there being no gravity)

[David Thomassen]

The Earth sucks - Narrativium takes care of the rest.

[Alexander Kilcoyne]

JustABill wrote:

Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:

I DM'ed for a group made up mostly of physicists in my uni years a couple of years ago.

I was forced to ban physics from my DND.

And then the characters all floated away... (there being no gravity)

To be clear, my ban was for using physics as a way to debate rules and spell effects (as well as the commoner railgun)...

[Klebert L. Hall]

Do not mix!.

Of course, your local GM sets the rules, up to the point where nobody will play in his games anymore, since they are arbitrary and confusing.
-Kle.

[mcbobbo]

Yeah, real world physics and gaming don't seem to mix. But there is another way to look at it:

The thing described happens. The physics make sense, but the book didn't explain it right. Just imagine the necessary physics-related compensations take place and are magically written back into your rulebook.

:)