I'm not sure where you went to school, but where I went to school, the mathematical concept of increases without limit (IE: keep going left or right from zero) was called infinity. Infinity is not the 'end' of the number line, it represents that it has no ending. Same with negative infinity. Since I specified a zero point, with numbers increasing toward positive infinity and decreasing toward negative infinity (again, the concept of infinity is it is without end) means I did indeed use the number line correctly.
Also, one of the proofs you learn early on is that P(x) == (is equivalent to) P1(P2(P3(...Px(1)...))) (note, can't do subscripts here, previous reprsents P function called from 1 to X times). And again, things that are equivalent, in mathematical terms, are interchangeable.
For your charge and photon, we are dealing with some very small energy states. I grant you it's been 25 years since I was in class, but at the time, there was dispute as to whether that photon popped free instantly, or built up it's charge and then popped free. The electron then had the quanta of energy that caused it to fall to a new orbit. So it is not the case of the electron going from one quanta to another, it is the case of the electron giving off the high energy photon (transfering energy to it) then fallling to a new and more stable orbit. Perhaps in the last couple of decades it's been proven that the electron jumps to the new orbit and then releases the photon? If so, it's not really material. Because the system we are discussing is a system based off mathematics, not physics. :) Mathematically, we still use the number line at the base of all mathematical functions (at least for the most basic of them, addition/subtraction).
And, as I said before, from a simulationist stand point, the wound doesn't appear whole made in the target, the sword has to pierce him over a given period of time. That time may be a tenth of a second, but at each millisecond, the wound is in a different state, going from least wounded to most wounded at the end of the time period. In other words, the amount of damage Y is a function of time T and attack A. Any individual wound will vary based on both the amount of time passed since the beginning of the wounding and the type of wound the attack eventually inflicts. If you look at a wound that involves the first inch of the blade intersecting the chest, over the heart, and a wound involving the first 5 inches of the blade intersecting the same spot, then at some point frozen in time, both wounds have the blade 1 inch in, and thus both have, at that point, inflicted the same amount of damage (say 1 hp). However, the 5 inch wound continues on over the rest of it's time, sinking deeper, and doing more and more HP with each picosecond.
I would halve the damage under this suggestion:
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion...
That would only be if it did bludgeoning, slashing or peircing damage also. If it was only cold damage I would say nothing happened.
Well actually I would ignore the cold damage, and apply any other damage.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You're welcome QUICK RANDOM ENCOUNTER MODULE GO.Oh man, was I confused or what! Thanks for clearing that up!This isn't pokemon bro.Cold, like most energy types, should only do half damage to the wall. Only fire (and maybe sonic) would do normal damage.
Personally, I'd rule that cold damage counts as an 'ineffective weapon' against a wall of ice (yeah, it specifically refers to weapons in that section, but rationally it should also apply to energy damage too.)
A wild THREADJACK appeared!
I'm not sure where you went to school, but where I went to school, the mathematical concept of increases without limit (IE: keep going left or right from zero) was called infinity.
In my math, infinity isn't defined until you get into seriously deep stuff. 'Limit' on the other hand, is defined pretty solidly, and requires a continuous interval in order to be meaningful. Since the set of all integers contains no intervals, it doesn't have 'limits'. It is unbounded , but bounds and limits are different things.
We define the number line as negative infinity to the left, gradually increasing with each position on the line, until we reach 0 in the exact center. Then from there, numbers increase by one unit per point to positive infinity to the right end.
I'd rather define the value of a point on the line to be equal to the magnitude of displacement from an arbitrarily chosen 'zero'. Infinity isn't on the number line, not being a member of the set of all numbers.
Just because F(1)=F(G(1)), doesn't mean that F(x)=F(G(x)). (for some arbitrary F and G for which the example holds)
Even if all nonmagial phenomena are continuous, why should magical phenomena have to be? A teleporting mage travels from point A to point B without passing through the intervening space in any manner whatsoever. Why does a fireball have to heat up the air and outside of the target in order to heat the inside of the target? Why can't hit points (the magical component of animate things that determines if they stop being animate) jump once instead of 15 times when damage is done?
What if you die from something other than hit point loss?
Constitution loss?
Power Word: Kill?
Flesh to Stone, then shattered, then Stone to Flesh?
I'm sure there are several other ways to die without dealing with hit point loss.