Those of you who insist on realism in your games, are you going to let any human who gets to a 125 ft land speed with the Run feat run on water?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's what I think.

I shouldn't have to look up Neutonian Fluids to play f~&$ing DnD

Liberty's Edge

Cavall wrote:

Here's what I think.

I shouldn't have to look up Neutonian Fluids to play f$@%ing DnD

I nominate this for the best and most honest post in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, feed me, I live on the souls of the catfolk slain by these conversations about combinations of rule and physics.

.

If you were to try this a catgirl could work. The sprinter racial trait, Scaled Fist Monk 1 / Bloodrager 1 / Feyspeaker Druid 1 with the feats Dragon Style (b), Catfolk Exemplar, and Fleet, and the spell Cheetah's Sprint. A speed of 65 when running multiplied by 10 by the spell makes 650' and you can ignore difficult terrain. It costs her a spell each round though.


Pizza Lord wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Wikipedia wrote:
Barefoot skiing is water skiing behind a motorboat without the use of water skis, commonly referred to as "barefooting". Barefooting requires the skier to travel at higher speeds than conventional water skiing (30-45mph/50-70kmh). The necessary speed required to keep the skier upright varies by the weight of the barefooter and can be approximated by the following formula: (W / 10) + 20, where W is the skier's weight in pounds and the result is in miles per hour. It is an act performed in show skiing, and on its own.

Yes, but we can also agree that skiing is not the same as walking/running. It is one thing to just maintain an angle or plane to counteract the downward drag of water, especially when your momentum and propulsion are being supplied externally, than it is to be 'running' where you must constantly be pressing into and against the tension of the water's surface enough to propel yourself but not enough that you just press right into it like postholing through deep snow.

It's like the difference between the speed and effort for a rock to skip across water as opposed to if it rolled into the water and tried to roll across the surface at the same speed.

That's the source of the speed needed? Won't work--that's assuming the feet are in basically constant contact with the water and has nothing to do with surface tension anyway--it's a matter of inertia. A runner has a much shorter contact period with the water and thus needs a lot more speed.

That being said, the Mythbusters successfully had someone run in place on water by lowering their weight. Unfortunately, I can't find anything with Google saying how much they had to lower it.


For those that are interested, the level of resistance offered by the water against shear force, which would bend or break the surface increases linearly with the amount of force applied to it.
The force applied is mass (of the person) x acceleration (of the water from rest to sufficient velocity to allow the runner's weight and speed to be maintained) and the area of water affected is the contact area (e.g the foot)

So for a given contact area and mass, once a minimum speed is reached whereby the runner is able to be supported by the surface, a higher running speed will create a smaller deflection as the level of resistance per unit area increases.

Taking a common example. A diver dives into some water and belly flops on their second dive. In both cases their mass and speed are the same when they contact the water. But in the first example the contact area is so small that their is insufficient resistance to support the diver's mass and they enter the water. In the second, the contact area is sufficiently large for the water's resistance to support the diver's mass so they stop on the surface (almost). Then they accelerate at the speed of gravity into the water as their new speed is insufficient to generate enough resistance on the water's surface to support their mass.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Pizza Lord wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Wikipedia wrote:
Barefoot skiing is water skiing behind a motorboat without the use of water skis, commonly referred to as "barefooting". Barefooting requires the skier to travel at higher speeds than conventional water skiing (30-45mph/50-70kmh). The necessary speed required to keep the skier upright varies by the weight of the barefooter and can be approximated by the following formula: (W / 10) + 20, where W is the skier's weight in pounds and the result is in miles per hour. It is an act performed in show skiing, and on its own.

Yes, but we can also agree that skiing is not the same as walking/running. It is one thing to just maintain an angle or plane to counteract the downward drag of water, especially when your momentum and propulsion are being supplied externally, than it is to be 'running' where you must constantly be pressing into and against the tension of the water's surface enough to propel yourself but not enough that you just press right into it like postholing through deep snow.

It's like the difference between the speed and effort for a rock to skip across water as opposed to if it rolled into the water and tried to roll across the surface at the same speed.

That's the source of the speed needed? Won't work--that's assuming the feet are in basically constant contact with the water and has nothing to do with surface tension anyway--it's a matter of inertia. A runner has a much shorter contact period with the water and thus needs a lot more speed.

That being said, the Mythbusters successfully had someone run in place on water by lowering their weight. Unfortunately, I can't find anything with Google saying how much they had to lower it.

This is the reference:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Your feet have to hit the water at 67mph

https://www.outsideonline.com/1783941/could-humans-run-water


Diego Rossi wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Pizza Lord wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Wikipedia wrote:
Barefoot skiing is water skiing behind a motorboat without the use of water skis, commonly referred to as "barefooting". Barefooting requires the skier to travel at higher speeds than conventional water skiing (30-45mph/50-70kmh). The necessary speed required to keep the skier upright varies by the weight of the barefooter and can be approximated by the following formula: (W / 10) + 20, where W is the skier's weight in pounds and the result is in miles per hour. It is an act performed in show skiing, and on its own.

Yes, but we can also agree that skiing is not the same as walking/running. It is one thing to just maintain an angle or plane to counteract the downward drag of water, especially when your momentum and propulsion are being supplied externally, than it is to be 'running' where you must constantly be pressing into and against the tension of the water's surface enough to propel yourself but not enough that you just press right into it like postholing through deep snow.

It's like the difference between the speed and effort for a rock to skip across water as opposed to if it rolled into the water and tried to roll across the surface at the same speed.

That's the source of the speed needed? Won't work--that's assuming the feet are in basically constant contact with the water and has nothing to do with surface tension anyway--it's a matter of inertia. A runner has a much shorter contact period with the water and thus needs a lot more speed.

That being said, the Mythbusters successfully had someone run in place on water by lowering their weight. Unfortunately, I can't find anything with Google saying how much they had to lower it.

This is the reference:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Your feet have to hit the water at 67mph

https://www.outsideonline.com/1783941/could-humans-run-water

But your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you are running. Thus this number has no relevance.


Loren Pechtel wrote:

But your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you are running. Thus this number has no relevance.

Then post the physics yourself or walk off.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:

But your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you are running. Thus this number has no relevance.

Then post the physics yourself or walk off.

I fail to see the need for this attitude. I do however believe that the impact speed of the foot with the ground does not necessarily equal forward speed of the body.

Scarab Sages

Diego Rossi wrote:
Kayerloth wrote:

"You can’t run across difficult terrain or if you can’t see where you’re going."

Oh pure nonsense ... if you're doing 'realism'. I've seen plenty of horror movies where the latest about to be victim has gone shooting off across the room in a terrified run. Light levels clearly do not prevent your from running, the rules prevent you from Running.

Please turn on your sarcasm meters.

First, we are speaking of what can be done in the game, so yes, what matter is what the rules allow you to do.

Second, horror movies as an example of what can be done? LOL.
Are you aware that those "dark" rooms in movies aren't "dark" at all? There is enough light to shoot a film, and that means that the level of illumination in the room is, in game terms, at least dim light.
In real life, you can run in a dark building, but the chances to trip on something or finding a wall with your face is extremely high.
In game the light level below dim light is darkness, as in pitch-black, where "creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded". Try running indoor at night with all the windows covered by drawn curtains and see how it ends.
Actually, more probably, you will feel how it hurt, as you will not see anything.

First off let me clarify I'm not disputing your point just pedantic clarifying that normally at night its pretty easy to see in a building these day's due to light polution so I would class that as dim light. I'd say more outside the city wood/plain for proper darkness comparison.


Java Man wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:

But your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you are running. Thus this number has no relevance.

Then post the physics yourself or walk off.
I fail to see the need for this attitude. I do however believe that the impact speed of the foot with the ground does not necessarily equal forward speed of the body.

Its the discussion equivalence of "Nuh-UHN". "Your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you're running"....Proof or gtfo don't just drop assertions and swan off like you've made a relevant point.


Well, if I jog in place my feet hit the ground much faster than my forward speed.

Proof.

Next?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Then post the physics yourself or walk off.

How? If his feet aren't hitting hard enough, then he is sinking and cannot walk at all. :-)

/cevah


Ryan Freire wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:

But your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you are running. Thus this number has no relevance.

Then post the physics yourself or walk off.
I fail to see the need for this attitude. I do however believe that the impact speed of the foot with the ground does not necessarily equal forward speed of the body.
Its the discussion equivalence of "Nuh-UHN". "Your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you're running"....Proof or gtfo don't just drop assertions and swan off like you've made a relevant point.

Actually your feet must hit the ground at approximately the speed you are running. Before the foot hits the ground you are moving at speed x and the ground is not moving. When contact is made it will be at the vector created by horizontal velocity plus vertical velocity adjusted by the speed of the leg motion which will be negative compared to the velocity of the direction of travel, because the leg is being moved forward.


Try this, delicately step forward in a long stride, now rapidly move your torso forward with tbe stride from your hind leg. At the last second slow the movement of the forward moving leg.

We have all kinds of different instantaneous velocities here, of which the only one that matters is how fast your foot is striking the ground. As the horizontal component of that velocity approaches zero it's relation to the forward velocity of the body disapears.

There are many examples I can give to show that average forward speed does not always equal foot impact speed, do we need more?


Java Man wrote:

Try this, delicately step forward in a long stride, now rapidly move your torso forward with tbe stride from your hind leg. At the last second slow the movement of the forward moving leg.

We have all kinds of different instantaneous velocities here, of which the only one that matters is how fast your foot is striking the ground. As the horizontal component of that velocity approaches zero it's relation to the forward velocity of the body disapears.

There are many examples I can give to show that average forward speed does not always equal foot impact speed, do we need more?

And this relates to running how exactly?


There are many examples of when foot speed =/= forward speed, why should running be a special case where it is?

And even in the case where average foot speed = average forward speed, is instantaneous foot speed equal or greater than forward speed?

(Note: I have no issues at all with a game ruling based on no science at all that says "at speed X you can run on water, just enjoying the diacussion.)


MY DARK POWERS GROWWWWWW


How does foot size relate to how fast you need to go? If you double foot size what's the effect on how fast you need to go?

And how fast would you need to go if under a Reduce Person spell?

And why does a foggy memory of watching Jackie Chan trot across water in some gigantic shoes come to mind?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This thread is awesome. It’s like an outtake from an episode of the Big Bang Theory.


Cevah wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Then post the physics yourself or walk off.

How? If his feet aren't hitting hard enough, then he is sinking and cannot walk at all. :-)

/cevah

This is quality content and this forum would be better if we all followed Cevah's example.


Kayerloth wrote:
How does foot size relate to how fast you need to go? If you double foot size what's the effect on how fast you need to go?

Really not sure, certainly twice the area of water would be resisting the force applied by the foot so half the force per unit area would be required. How this translates to an appropriate vector that supports the mass of the runner and in particular the acceleration and contact time I have no idea. I suspect that the isn't half as fast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This troll thread started awful, plunged into unnecessarily combative, and just kept on going until it became hilarious. I hope you're happy, OP.


Alright, I've done a bit of digging, but it's mostly full 1-20 builds that far surpass the 125' base move speed (+run feat) that don't always give a level breakdown.

What's the lowest level someone thinks they can get there?

What's the lowest level without a spell/magic item?

A multi-level Barb/Cleric(Travel)/Monk dip with the run feat and a handful of fleet selections?

Maybe use the barbarian rage power to get 6x speed, meaning we're only looking at 100(and a bit)'/round?

I'm not really worried about characters that can do this for 1 round, or even a handful. If you can't do it consistently, who cares?

Seems 9th level might be a reasonable level to see this come online this with a hell of an investment...

DalmarWolf wrote:
This?

Hell, if that's how you want to build your character, good luck getting to that level and, if you do, run across all the water you want.

You'll be dead soon anyway.


As above, for 1 round/a handful of rounds,

Quote:
If you were to try this a catgirl could work. The sprinter racial trait, Scaled Fist Monk 1 / Bloodrager 1 / Feyspeaker Druid 1 with the feats Dragon Style (b), Catfolk Exemplar, and Fleet, and the spell Cheetah's Sprint. A speed of 65 when running multiplied by 10 by the spell makes 650' and you can ignore difficult terrain. It costs her a spell each round though.

Consistently is a much bigger ask. For that you need another 60' and most of the other bonuses are enhancement so wouldn't stack, or a polymorph effect which could just as easily be something with a swim or fly speed anyway. Anything requiring barbarian rage has a duration in rounds.

A sprinter catfolk warrior poet samurai 3 / black powder vaulter gunslinger 1 / (bloodrager or barbarian) 1 / road keeper druid (travel domain) 1 taking the catfolk exemplar and fleet feats could do it with the longstrider spell up, until they run out of ammo anyway. A less specialised character isn't going to hit that speed before double-digit levels.


A Warrior Poet 3/ Shaman (Flame Spirit) 1/ (Bloodrager or Barbarian) 1/ Plains Druid (travel domain) 1/ Oracle (Hermit or Metal mystery) 1

Wouldn't need ammunition, but you are also relying on magic.

* Note: I think it should be allowed maybe with an Acrobatics check as you need good balance and a proper way to hit the water.

* P.S. Also, I believe that up to 5th lv, things should be relatively realistic. But beyond that it should become increasingly more bizarre, weird, fun, and/or legendary.


avr wrote:

As above, for 1 round/a handful of rounds,

<snip quote>
Consistently is a much bigger ask. For that you need another 60' and most of the other bonuses are enhancement so wouldn't stack, or a polymorph effect which could just as easily be something with a swim or fly speed anyway. Anything requiring barbarian rage has a duration in rounds.
<snip>

Bear in mind that running also has a limited duration.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:

But your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you are running. Thus this number has no relevance.

Then post the physics yourself or walk off.
I fail to see the need for this attitude. I do however believe that the impact speed of the foot with the ground does not necessarily equal forward speed of the body.
Its the discussion equivalence of "Nuh-UHN". "Your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you're running"....Proof or gtfo don't just drop assertions and swan off like you've made a relevant point.

It should be obvious. Your running speed is horizontal. Your feet are coming down vertically. Horizontal velocity is not vertical velocity.

If you want more than that, fast sprinters can exceed 20 mph. Try running into something at 20 mph and you're hurt. Yet sprinters don't break anything when their feet come down.


You don't need to be going fast to break something.

At 0 mph, you can still break wind. :-)

/cevah


And ironically, if the paladin just tries to walk on water, she falls.

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Those of you who insist on realism in your games, are you going to let any human who gets to a 125 ft land speed with the Run feat run on water? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.