I'm terrible at math and so am looking for some assistance with geometry.
Still here? Great.
Igneogenesous from page 26 of Rage of Elements says the following:
At level 7 and again at level 10 I can add an additional 5 foot cube of contiguous space, but am still limited to a single object.
So if I'm level 10 I have three 5 foot cubes of space to work with. I want to create as large of a spherical boulder as I can to roll down a steep hill into my enemy's encampment.
How big a sphere can I get given the above limitations? It's definitely not 375 cubic feet worth I'm certain.
Thank you for any help you can provide.
Bonus brownie points if you can also estimate the weight of such a boulder.
Is it 3 cubes total or a 3 x 3 (9 total cubes) of volume?
Regardless to figure out the maximum size sphere you could create it would be half the total length of your cubes * 5 ft gives the radius of your sphere.
So if it 9 total cubes, i.e. 15ft wide, you can have 7.5 radius sphere. The volume of that sphere is 4/3*π*r^3. You can substitute 3.14 for π. For our theoretical 9 cube sphere you have your 7.5ft radius which translates to 1767 ft^3. Depending on the exact kind of stone density varies, but somewhere around 150 lb/ft^3 is reasonable. So that works out to about 280,000 lbs.
Course, none of that really matters in game terms.
Since I'm less certain if you actually get 9 cubes, for comparison 1 5ft cube would fit a sphere of 2.5 ft radius. It would have a volume of 65.5 ft^3, and weight about 10,000 lbs.
If you only get exactly 3 cubes, without doing some weird overlap that I'm sure doesn't make sense, it would make more sense to create a cylinder of stone rather than a sphere because you would need at least 4 cubes to create the sphere. Assuming 3 cubes in a line you have a radius of 2.5ft and 15ft long. Volume is 294.5 ft^3 and weight of 37500 lbs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are limited to 3 cubes that are adjacent to each other, then the largest sphere you can create is still going to be a 5 foot diameter sphere. No orientation of cubes is going to have more than 5 feet on its shortest direction.
Creating a cylinder like Claxon suggests would be a better idea.
For 3 5ft^3 cubes:
(5*5*5*3)^(1/3)=~7.2 ft^3
About the weight it depends on the density of the stone used. An average stone would be around 2.6 g/cc or 162.3 pounds/ft3
So 162.3*7.2=~ 1168.56pounds
5*5*5 would give you the volume of one cube, which is 125ft^3. Multiply by 3 and you get 3 cubes worth of volume. I don't know why you're multiplying by a power of 1/3, that doesn't turn it into a sphere or anything else that I can think of. To me, your math doesn't make any sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making an object with the same volume as a number of 5 foot cubes isn't what the spell allows.
Whatever object you create has to fit within the bounds of the 5 foot cubes area of the spell. You can rearrange the cubes how you want, but the object has to fit inside the area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't require the cubes to be aligned to the battle grid.
But even without that restriction, 3 cubes will always have at least one direction that has a width of 5 feet.
I know with 6 cubes it would be possible to get a larger sphere than 5 foot diameter. Put 4 of the cubes into a 2x2 square, then put one cube above the center of the 2x2 area and one cube below the center. That should allow a sphere with diameter approximately 7.07 feet.
It might be possible with similar tactics if you have 5 cubes to get some configuration that allows larger than 5 feet.
I believe the best way to do this this in stages. You're going to want to make a 15' diameter sphere, with 9 separate 1 hour applications of igneogenesis (so basically a day's work). Start with the top, then put the middle layer underneath, and so on.
I'm pretty sure that "fuse separate pieces of stone together" is something the geokineticist can just do.
that's why i said that it depends on how freeform you allow the narrative areas to be.
your hard line seems to be "have to be grid defined dimensions but not necessarily on an actual grid" mine is a bit more free "if you create volume, then has to be equal volume"
I don't personally think that interpretation is valid.
Because for instance you couldn't take the volume of one cube (125 ft^3) and turn it into a sphere by taking the cube root. Taking the cube root (like you did) just gives you the length of one edge of a cube equivalent in size.
If you want to figure out what radius/diameter sphere has an equivalent volume you have have to solve a sphere's volume equation backwards. In this case it's (3/4*V*1/π) = r. So a sphere of 3.1 ft radius (6.2ft diameter, larger than one 5ft and thus not fitting in your cube) has the same volume as your 5ft cube.
If you could take the volume of 3 cubes (375 ft^3) and make an equivalent sphere it would be about 4.5ft in radius (9ft diameter). So your 7.2 number is still incorrect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the spell insists on three contiguous 5x5x5 cubes that fit into a three-dimensional grid, then the cubes fit together into a line or an L. Either way, the shape is flat, only 5-feet high. So the biggest sphere that would fit inside can be at most 5-feet tall, the same sphere that could fit into a single 5x5x5 cube.
If the spell allows the three cubes to shift from the grid, such as a T formation, we still cannot expand all three dimensions at once with only three cubes. So we would still be limited to a 5-foot-diameter sphere.
The volume of a 5-foot-diameter sphere is (4/3)(pi)(5 feet/2)^3 = 65 cubic feet. Granite has a density of 168 pounds per cubic foot, so a sphere of granite would weight 10,920 pounds or 5.46 tons. That is 4953 kilograms. Quartz is less dense, at only 145 pounds per cubic foot, so that would be 9,425 pounds. For a denser rock, we can go with Fayalite, a major component of common olivine rock, at 274 pounds per cubic foot. A 5-foot sphere of fayalite would weigh 17,810 pounds.
If we could combine the three 5x5x5 cubes into one cube with three times the volume, then the sphere inside that cube would also have three times the volume and three times the weight. Its diameter would be 5 feet times the cube root of 3, which is 7.2 feet.
I recommend creating a single stone object that looks like three balls lined up in a row, barely attached where they touch. As it rolls down the steep hill, it will break apart into three spheres.
Bonus brownie points if you can also estimate the weight of such a boulder.
Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids... no wait, Bulk is for pathfinder: what is this weight you are talking about?
If we could combine the three 5x5x5 cubes into one cube with three times the volume, then the sphere inside that cube would also have three times the volume and three times the weight. Its diameter would be 5 feet times the cube root of 3, which is 7.2 feet.
But what's the point of figuring out the length of a cube with an equivalent volume?
To me it makes much more sense to calculate a sphere of equivalent volume to the 3 cubes. I feel like the 7.2ft cube is red herring. Pathfinder has 5ft cubes, talking about other size cubes doesn't really make sense at all IMO.
that's why i said that it depends on how freeform you allow the narrative areas to be.
your hard line seems to be "have to be grid defined dimensions but not necessarily on an actual grid" mine is a bit more free "if you create volume, then has to be equal volume"
I haven't seen the actual rules for Igneogenesous. I'm just going off of what Ravingdork posted.
Which is that the effect increases in increments of 5 foot cubes. So yeah, I am considering that to be discrete 5 foot cubes that have to be arranged in some fashion. Not just the volume of 5 foot cubes mashed into whatever blob shape that you want. Because that would cause all sorts of shenanigans about allowing really long thin poles and stuff like that. The area description is intended to be a bounding box - not an amount of volume that you can play with like putty.
But what's the point of figuring out the length of a cube with an equivalent volume?
I can see that as being an alternative (though harder to calculate) method of giving a similar linear volume increase of the size of this created object.
The effect gives 125 cubic feet of space and it has to be arranged into a cube. That means a cube 5 feet on a side.
Then the increased effect would add another 125 cubic feet to the area of the effect, but it still has to be in a cube. So with one increase, that would be a cube with sides of length cubeRoot(250) or approximately 6.3 feet on a side. With a third increment it would be cubeRoot(375) or approximately 7.2 on a side.
I just feel like the 7.2 ft cube is nonsense as creating a 7.2ft cube would actually require (4) 5ft in Pathfinder terms instead of the 3 you are given.
At least with the other method you're conserving volume (though it also ends up with a sphere of 4.5 ft radius so also requires 4 cubes).
I guess ultimately deciding you can freely rearrange cube space into whatever increments you want feels more wrong to me than deciding the spell grants you a volume and figuring out what size sphere that equals.
A cylinder had occurred to me, but I wanted to have some chance of pushing it of off the top of the hill.
I know with 6 cubes it would be possible to get a larger sphere than 5 foot diameter.
Alas! That is not possible before 19th level!
Just for kicks, what would be the size of that sphere, given you had 6 cubes to work with?
Bonus brownie points if you can also estimate the weight of such a boulder.Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids... no wait, Bulk is for pathfinder: what is this weight you are talking about?
If we know the dimensions and weight of a given object, it gives the GM a pretty good starting point for estimating bulk.
A cylinder had occurred to me, but I wanted to have some chance of pushing it of off the top of the hill.
I know with 6 cubes it would be possible to get a larger sphere than 5 foot diameter.Alas! That is not possible before 19th level!
Just for kicks, what would be the size of that sphere, given you had 6 cubes to work with?
If we know the dimensions and weight of a given object, it gives the GM a pretty good starting point for estimating bulk.Bonus brownie points if you can also estimate the weight of such a boulder.Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids... no wait, Bulk is for pathfinder: what is this weight you are talking about?
And what exactly do you gain by knowing the objects bulk? What practical use does the size/bulk actually have? At the end of the day, it'll be pure, 100% houseruling on it's affect: I mean, even if you figured out the angle of decent, coefficient of friction [including relative humidity and frequency of vibration] and the density vs mass vs volume of that particular type of stone and its velocity, to figure out a final Kinetic energy [K.E. = 1/2 m v2] of impact... You STILL end up with a DM shrugging and making a total 100% guesstimate.
And what exactly do you gain by knowing the object's bulk?
A good time. ;P
And what exactly do you gain by knowing the object's bulk?A good time. ;P
Well, I can't recall a time 'bulk' and 'a good time' ever intersected in a PF2 game.
venn diagram of fun and bulk: OO
Honestly, if I was the GM and a player did something like this I'd probably just look for some effect in the game that did something similar and use that as a guide.
End results is your going to end up with something that does appropriate damage for the level and number of actions it took to generate the effect.
In reality even a 5ft diameter sphere hitting someone (weight 10,000) would crush any part that was hit, and if that included the head or torso that person is definitely dead. But Pathfinder is not a game of reality, so your 10th level character that can generate this effect is going to get an appropriate amount of damage for a 10th level character. Not an instant kill or destruction of object.
I just feel like the 7.2 ft cube is nonsense as creating a 7.2ft cube would actually require (4) 5ft in Pathfinder terms instead of the 3 you are given.
At least with the other method you're conserving volume (though it also ends up with a sphere of 4.5 ft radius so also requires 4 cubes).
I guess ultimately deciding you can freely rearrange cube space into whatever increments you want feels more wrong to me than deciding the spell grants you a volume and figuring out what size sphere that equals.
Sometimes the demands of rigor and the demands of gameplay are in conflict. Limiting the Igneogenesous object to three cubes on the grid creates clarity, but it imposes the map grid on the imaginary world of Golarion. Golarion does not have an actual map grid on it; rather, that is a convention to keep track of locations of miniatures on a playmat or tokens on a VTT.
If Ravingdork were one of my players and his 10th-level character wanted to create a big sphere with Igneogenesous, then I would bend the rules and allow a 7.2-foot-diameter sphere. I have a rigorous argument about thrice the volume of a 5-foot-diameter sphere to shut down any arguments about making the sphere bigger than that, so I would maintian clear rules.
Sometimes, restrictions designed to prevent unrealistic situations are too abstract and create unrealistic situations by themselves. Thus, we GMs apply discretion.
I did do something like that in Assault on Longshadow. The party was supposed to repair the stone walls of Longshadow by hiring workmen and making their own Crafting checks to see how well the workmen performed. Instead, the two primal casters came up with a quicker repair using the workmen to clear debris in front of the walls and then casting Wall of Stone to make a fresh facade for the wall. I pointed out that the Wall of Stone would be separate from the original stone wall and thus their structural strengths would not combine. So they proposed fusing the two walls together with Shape Stone.
Wall of Stone creates a 20-foot-high 120-foot-long wall; however, Shape Stone is limited to a 10-foot cube. Thus, they would need 24 Shape Stone spells for each Wall of Stone in order to shape and meld stone in a gap only a few inches deep. I declared that in this case they could stretch out the 10-foot cube to 120 feet long, but it would narrow down to a width of 10 inches. Thus, they would need only two Shape Stome spells for each Wall of Stone.
And what exactly do you gain by knowing the object's bulk?A good time. ;P
As a GM, I have to figure out how much damage the spherical boulder would deal to the targets at the bottom of the hill. I had to figure this out in Assault on Longshadow when the players found a natural boulder to roll down a ravine into an enemy army (I used the suggested damage for a simple hazard of the party's level). Would Ravingdork's spherical boulder be capable of breaking down the wall of a building? Sure, because it outweighs the wall.
Just for kicks, what would be the size of that sphere, given you had 6 cubes to work with?
In the arrangement that I described earlier with the 4 cubes in the center with one cube above and one cube below - and assuming that I am envisioning this correctly - then I think that the shortest diameter points will be from the center of the bottom edges of the upper cube to the opposite center of the top edges of the lower cube. That would be a 5 foot horizontal distance and a 5 foot vertical distance between those two points.
A bit of pythagorean theorem later gives a diameter of this sphere at 7.07 feet, or 3.53 foot radius. Which gives a volume of about 184.25 cubic feet.
As a GM, I have to figure out how much damage the spherical boulder would deal to the targets at the bottom of the hill. I had to figure this out in Assault on Longshadow when the players found a natural boulder to roll down a ravine into an enemy army (I used the suggested damage for a simple hazard of the party's level). Would Ravingdork's spherical boulder be capable of breaking down the wall of a building? Sure, because it outweighs the wall.
Sure, but did you have to math it out?
Just cuz I like math: The average weight of a sandstone boulder is approximately 150 pounds per cubic foot. So cubic feet [length x width x height] x150 [and /2000 for tons]. This means a 2x2x2 boulder is 1200 lbs, a 3x3x3 boulder is 4320 lbs and a 4x4x4 boulder is 10240 lbs.
A bit of Pythagorean theorem later gives a diameter of this sphere at 7.07 feet, or 3.53 foot radius. Which gives a volume of about 184.25 cubic feet.
27637.5 lbs for sandstone.
EDIT: we can actually work it out before we make a sphere by just working out how much each '5 block is: 5x5x5x150 is 18750 lbs, so three are 56250 lbs. That should also be the weight of the sphere.
As a GM, I have to figure out how much damage the spherical boulder would deal to the targets at the bottom of the hill. I had to figure this out in Assault on Longshadow when the players found a natural boulder to roll down a ravine into an enemy army (I used the suggested damage for a simple hazard of the party's level). Would Ravingdork's spherical boulder be capable of breaking down the wall of a building? Sure, because it outweighs the wall.Sure, but did you have to math it out?
My initial analysis of the natural boulder was to ask, "What would be the most fun?" I could have claimed that the boulder was immovable. The boulder was a token I had added along with some bushes for the PCs to hide behind, so it was literally movable, but I could have said it was wedged in place too firmly. Instead, I let them make Crafting checks to alter its foundation to roll downward upon a solid push. I needed enough damage to be worth the effort and not so much damage to trivialize the battle. Table 2–16: Offense in the Building Hazards section of the Gamemastery Guide had the appropriate damage numbers, so I did not have to calculate them myself. And I used the Crafting DC of the PCs for the basic Reflex save. Thus, I used game balance math rather than real physics math.
Ultimately, I don't imagine moving weight would be a big issue for a kineticist.
You could use impulses to construct a heavy stone lever device underneath it, then drop an even bigger rock on the far end causing the boulder to "pop into gear."
Or just raise a stone slope underneath it and let gravity do its thing.
Lots of options (for a kineticist).
Thus, I used game balance math rather than real physics math.
I figured as much, which is good. I think the majority of DM's would go with what feels right and seems balanced.
Ultimately, I don't imagine moving weight would be a big issue for a kineticist.
You could use impulses to construct a heavy stone lever device underneath it, then drop an even bigger rock on the far end causing the boulder to "pop into gear."
Or just raise a stone slope underneath it and let gravity do its thing.
Lots of options (for a kineticist).
Getting it moving isn't the issue as much as keeping it moving and how fast it rolls: heck, trees, natural ruts, rocks ect. might even have it roll off at an angle and miss the target all together if you set up far enough away to build up substantial speed and all kinds of conditions can slow it down [a 10 ton rock might just sink into normal soil as it rolls for insance]. Beter to go with "What would be the most fun?" like Mathmuse did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 15 feet wide cylindrical boulder going down like a steamroller is a fun idea indeed. Being something that a kineticist could do again and again, I agree that the best way to handle that is mimicking a similar level effect, or balance will be thrown out of the window forever.
A 15 feet wide cylindrical boulder going down like a steamroller is a fun idea indeed. Being something that a kineticist could do again and again, I agree that the best way to handle that is mimicking a similar level effect, or balance will be thrown out of the window forever.
I would probably build it as a Hazard of a level appropriate to the character level of the Kineticist creating it. That would give me the save/attack roll values and damage amounts appropriate to be balanced for the encounter.
Completely unrelated, but I can't see the thread title without thinking of the Boulder Seed bomb and how hilarious it is. Definitely need to pick that one up when my Bomber hits 12th...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The moral of the story is to camp on top of the hill, not at the bottom.
*Researches Draw the Lightning*
The moral of the story is to camp on top of the hill, not at the bottom.
For real.
|
Why are we assuming Sandstone? If I understand correctly this just magically poofs it into existance so why not use another common earth mineral that is/can be described as stone?
If you're really trying to game it up use Galena for near maximum weight/bulk or if you're looking for a spectacular finish create this out of Obsidian so that when it hits something solid it explodes into a wall of razor-sharp shards.
Why are we assuming Sandstone?
I happened to know the weight for sandstone per cubic foot. Feel free to plug in another stones weight if you want.
I really see no reason you couldn't make the entire boulder out of uraninite/pitchblende.
I really see no reason you couldn't make the entire boulder out of uraninite/pitchblende.
Osmium is the densest naturally occurring element, being 1410 lbs per cubic foot and is naturally volatile creating osmium tetroxide vapor that is extremely toxic.
I really see no reason you couldn't make the entire boulder out of uraninite/pitchblende.Why not just pure sodium? And drop it in a lake? Or is it considered a metal?
Pure sodium isn't naturally occurring, is light enough that it could float in water [assuming you can prevent an explosion], is soft and creates flammable hydrogen and caustic sodium hydroxide just from the water in the air. Seems like a hard sell IMO.
PS: and yes, it's a metal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "Salt bomb" would be a fun higher level Water/Metal composite.
My mental image is a rotating shell of water, around a shell of rust rotating the other way, encasing a core of cesium (which is liquid at room temperature and explodes even more violently than sodium when exposed to water.)
which is liquid at room temperature
Depends on your room temp: its melting point is 83.3 °F and room temperature normally thought of as around 20–22 °C (68–72 °F) [NA and Europe] and even warmer places like Nigeria show a comfortable room temperature range of 79–82 °F which is under its melt point.
explodes even more violently than sodium when exposed to water
It's the reverse actually because caesium explodes instantly upon contact with water, leaving little time for hydrogen to accumulate and the amount of hydrogen produced affects he explosion as it's the fuel for it: hence the caesium explosion will be more powerful.
I found this in online searching.
Wait. Dedicated aquakineticists can't make salt water???