-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nedz
The
Parad Lingam is possibly an
amalgam, which are fairly easy to make. The stated percentages sound dubious however.
Yeah, the percentages did sound fairly high, and since I can't find any independent research on it, I have to stick with what the makers say. However, it does sound like it could be an amalgam. I'm just curious, as they say that the process to make it involves mixing the mercury with a selection of herbs (they won't say which), might it be metals in the leaves that the mercury is binding to (possibly copper)?
EDIT: (Yeah, I really need to stop with all these edits right after posting something) I found a discussion that furthers the amalgam theory: a video of someone placing gold leaf onto a lingam pendant, and the gold "disappears", or more likely becomes part of the amalgam. Furthermore, mercury-gold amalgam does appear as a dull silver color, so the lingam could possibly be that as well.
Anyway, back on the original topic, I'd say that a mercury-gold amalgam wall would be pretty bad, as inhaling or ingesting either of them isn't good for your health.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ksheep
Just claim that it's either
mercury chloride or
Parad Lingam (although there is some debate as to whether the later is actually mercury, as the technique for making it isn't known outside of India).
EDIT:
Found a site detailing a lingam a bit better (although it's still fairly fuzzy on specifics)
The internet suggests that may not be pure solid mercury. For one, that's impossible at superzero (positive is too mainstream of a word) temperatures. By my estimates, if it's a sphere two feet across, it ought to weigh about 1600 kilos. The density of solid mercury obviously varies with temperature, but at -38.85°C it's 14.19g/cc, according to this article; a few other sources also give numbers (both experimental and theoretical) around 14.2g/cc. A sphere (that looks roughly spherical, right?) with a radius of 30cm has a volume of 113,097cc, so its mass would be about 1605kg. Assuming that water is around 15°C (fair for a shaded stone pool, right?), its density would probably still be upwards of 13.8g/cc if it were still solid...so if that ball is only 680 kilos, there's no way it's pure solid mercury (not to mention that pure mercury can't be solid at 15°C). Even if it were a clear glass ball of liquid mercury (more plausible), it would still weigh about 1530kg...
Sorry, can't help being skeptical about things.
The density should be about 6g/cc. So it's not steel or zinc (877kg, or 807kg). I can't think of a silvery metal with that density off the top of my head and I'm already procrastinating on my actual chem homework.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
stuff
Wizard did it. It's alchemy science.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
The internet suggests that may not be pure solid mercury. For one, that's impossible at superzero (positive is too mainstream of a word) temperatures. By my estimates, if it's a sphere two feet across, it ought to weigh about 1600 kilos. The density of solid mercury obviously varies with temperature, but at -38.85°C it's 14.19g/cc, according to
this article; a few other sources also give numbers (both experimental and theoretical) around 14.2g/cc. A sphere (that looks roughly spherical, right?) with a radius of 30cm has a volume of 113,097cc, so its mass would be about 1605kg. Assuming that water is around 15°C (fair for a shaded stone pool, right?), its density would probably still be upwards of 13.8g/cc if it were still solid...so if that ball is only 680 kilos, there's no way it's pure solid mercury (not to mention that pure mercury can't be solid at 15°C). Even if it were a clear glass ball of liquid mercury (more plausible), it would still weigh about 1530kg...
Sorry, can't help being skeptical about things.
The density should be about 6g/cc. So it's not steel or zinc (877kg, or 807kg). I can't think of a silvery metal with that density off the top of my head and I'm already procrastinating on my actual chem homework.
Yeah, I myself am fairly skeptical about it, but since Telok was talking about using a wall of Mercury, except that it wouldn't then be solid, this came to mind. Besides, this is D&D we're talking about, a world of fantasy and magic. Might as well have some pseudo-science thrown in :P
If you'll look above, nedz and I decided it is probably an amalgam of mercury and a less dense metal, possibly copper. As for the size and weight, yeah, that doesn't quite sit right any way you look at it, unless it's hollow.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ksheep
Yeah, I myself am fairly skeptical about it, but since Telok was talking about using a wall of Mercury, except that it wouldn't then be solid, this came to mind. Besides, this is D&D we're talking about, a world of fantasy and magic. Might as well have some pseudo-science thrown in :P
If you'll look above, nedz and I decided it is probably an amalgam of mercury and a less dense metal, possibly copper. As for the size and weight, yeah, that doesn't quite sit right any way you look at it, unless it's hollow.
An amalgam of gold and mercury (RE: your last post) wouldn't work, way too dense.
Likewise, an amalgam of copper and mercury would be too dense. The density of copper on its own is about 9g/cc. I don't think that combining a metal with density 14g/cc and a metal with density 9g/cc could yield a metal with density 6g/cc. I'm not up on alloys and amalgams, though.
It's possible their numbers are way off, or they're using something completely non-mercury. Oh hey, I just remembered--gallium is a liquid at just above room temperature (29.77°C), which is probably Indian room temperature if my Indian friends describe the heat at all accurately. And the density would be right, 5.91g/cc as a solid at room temperature. (Though it's apparently denser as a liquid at its melting point, like water...so it's possible that it would be a wee bit less dense in a pool of cool water. Still, about the 6g/cc I estimated. Perfect.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
It's possible their numbers are way off, or they're using something completely non-mercury. Oh hey, I just remembered--gallium is a liquid at just above room temperature (29.77°C), which is probably Indian room temperature if my Indian friends describe the heat at all accurately. And the density would be right, 5.91g/cc as a solid at room temperature. (Though it's apparently denser as a liquid at its melting point, like water...so it's possible that it would be a wee bit less dense in a pool of cool water. Still, about the 6g/cc I estimated. Perfect.
That… that just might work. Of course, now I have to ask how many souvenir lingams are actually made as a mercury amalgam, and how many are just Gallium? It probably wouldn't be too difficult to convince someone off the street that the liquid metal you're working with is Mercury which you make it, then sell it as though it were this über-rare solid mercury pendant.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ksheep
That… that just might work. Of course, now I have to ask how many souvenir lingams are actually made as a mercury amalgam, and how many are just Gallium? It probably wouldn't be too difficult to convince someone off the street that the liquid metal you're working with is Mercury which you make it, then sell it as though it were this über-rare solid mercury pendant.
Well, there's still the issue that gallium is liquid at 30°C. So if you cooled it somehow and then a person wore it as a pendant it would start dripping. Could be a gallium alloy? I have no idea about any of those. The mercury amalgam idea seems implausible to me, because the densities would probably be too high for the mass of that ball. Unless that number is way off. Still, even a mercury-copper amalgam wouldn't be all that cheap...
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ksheep
I found a discussion that furthers the amalgam theory: a video of someone placing gold leaf onto a lingam pendant, and the gold "disappears", or more likely becomes part of the amalgam. Furthermore, mercury-gold amalgam does appear as a dull silver color, so the lingam could possibly be that as well.
If it was mercury, then you might expect the gold to be recruited.
Mercury will form amalgams with almost any metal, it could just be sodium or potassium from the plant matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
Sorry, can't help being skeptical about things.
Apology not required, scepticism is a good thing you can't have enough of.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
On the pendant "absorbing" gold leaf--that particular pendant is likely an amalgam of mercury. It's beginning to seem more like the mass (or dimensions) of that lingam that site gave was way off, which is a better explanation than that it's some form of gallium. Though I'd rather it be gallium, it's less toxic, though harder to work with in some ways.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
Average rolls for 2d10 and 1d20 are very different. 11 vs 10.5.
More to the point, "average" isn't applicable to 1d20 results; 10.5 is the median result, but not actually possible to roll. Every number from 1 to 20 is equally probable (in theory; in practice the dice hate you), but a 2d10 roll has 100 possible outputs, and a LOT of those outputs total 11 (exactly how many I don't recall, but it's well more than 5). 2d10 will almost never result in 20 or 2, and it literally never results in 1, while 1d20 (again theoretically) produces each of those results 5% of the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nedz
Apology not required, scepticism is a good thing you can't have enough of.
I don't believe you; you can't possibly really be saying that, it must be some kind of trick. :smallamused:
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
You all lost me long ago, what do mercury amalgams have to do with dysfunctional D&D rules?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
More to the point, "average" isn't applicable to 1d20 results; 10.5 is the median result, but not actually possible to roll.
Depends. If you're trying to figure out how many rolls it will take to reach a cumulative, say 1000, the mean is very useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nedz
Apology not required, scepticism is a good thing you can't have enough of.
I'm skeptical of this proposition. :smalltongue:
I really am, but it sounded like a fun way to phrase it.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
More to the point, "average" isn't applicable to 1d20 results; 10.5 is the median result, but not actually possible to roll. Every number from 1 to 20 is equally probable (in theory; in practice the dice hate you), but a 2d10 roll has 100 possible outputs, and a LOT of those outputs total 11 (exactly how many I don't recall, but it's well more than 5). 2d10 will almost never result in 20 or 2, and it literally never results in 1, while 1d20 (again theoretically) produces each of those results 5% of the time.
Well, yes, but if you roll a d20 a zillion times, the mean of the results will be about 10.5. That's what I meant. Of course, the relative probabilities of the various results are more immediately important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Firechanter
You all lost me long ago, what do mercury amalgams have to do with dysfunctional D&D rules?
Everything. You can't have a wall of mercury unless it's about -40°C out. But you can have a wall of mercury-gold amalgam.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
More to the point, "average" isn't applicable to 1d20 results; 10.5 is the median result, but not actually possible to roll.
More usefully, it's also the mean. Meaning (pun unintended) that as the number of rolls you make, n, approaches infinity, the total cumulative result will approach 10.5n.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
Every number from 1 to 20 is equally probable (in theory; in practice the dice hate you), but a 2d10 roll has 100 possible outputs, and a LOT of those outputs total 11 (exactly how many I don't recall, but it's well more than 5). 2d10 will almost never result in 20 or 2, and it literally never results in 1, while 1d20 (again theoretically) produces each of those results 5% of the time.
Exactly 10 of the outputs total 11: 1+10, 2+9, 3+8, 4+7, 5+6, 6+5, 7+4, 8+3, 9+2, 10+1. You have a 10% chance of rolling exactly 11 on 2d10.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heliomance
More usefully, it's also the mean. Meaning (pun unintended) that as the number of rolls you make, n, approaches infinity, the total cumulative result will approach 10.5n.
I consider each roll individually, so a result that's impossible to roll is of little value to me.
Quote:
Exactly 10 of the outputs total 11: 1+10, 2+9, 3+8, 4+7, 5+6, 6+5, 7+4, 8+3, 9+2, 10+1. You have a 10% chance of rolling exactly 11 on 2d10.
Yes, and a 9% chance each of 10 or 12, and an 8% chance of 9 or 13, and so forth, down to a mere 1% chance of 2 or 20. Which means that not only is 11 the single likeliest result, but it's the best guess as to what your roll will be near, so it's good for eyeballing your chances. Which I consider more useful than calculating what would happen if you made an arbitrarily large number of rolls which obeyed the statistical probabilities, because as far as I'm concerned they never will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jeff the Green
I'm skeptical of this proposition. :smalltongue:
That's much the same thing I said, although I claim that my version was funnier. You are of course free to be skeptical of my claim. :smallsmile:
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Discovered a fairly minor dysfunction - according to the Animals section of the Monster Manual, the Toad (often seen as a wizard's familiar since it grants a very-handy-at-low-levels +3 HP) has no Swim speed and no ranks in Swim.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
Discovered a fairly minor dysfunction - according to the Animals section of the Monster Manual, the Toad (often seen as a wizard's familiar since it grants a very-handy-at-low-levels +3 HP) has no Swim speed and no ranks in Swim.
We all know toads hop everywhere they go, and put lily pads in convenient areas to avoid having to splash awkwardly through the water. :smallamused:
Also, Hide +21? Really? I'm gonna have to seriously contest that, on the basis of having spotted small toads surprisingly often at distances greater than 10' and with arguably no ranks in Spot.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Well the toad gets a +4 racial bonus for its coloration, puts all its 4 Skill points into knowing how to hold still and stay under cover, gets a +12 bonus for being Diminutive as per the rules on all characters' Hide checks, and has +1 for its Dexterity (why Dexterity affects Hide has never been clear to me; you'd think it'd be Concentration, governing your ability to avoid moving a muscle). +4 for the coloration and +4 each step for smallness when Hiding might be a bit much, but at least it's not +1, like what Fighters get to their attack roll with one weapon if they spend an entire Feat. Or +2, like most of the bonuses in the game, which is still not that much.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drelua
So if it just has a bead of karma, it's free? Cool, CL +4 for free.
To buy a greater strand of prayer beads missing everything but a bead of healing and a bead of blessing, the shopkeeper actually has to pay you.
Sorry if that's been mentioned already :smallsmile:
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
We all know toads hop everywhere they go, and put lily pads in convenient areas to avoid having to splash awkwardly through the water. :smallamused:
Also, Hide +21? Really? I'm gonna have to seriously contest that, on the basis of having spotted small toads surprisingly often at distances greater than 10' and with arguably no ranks in Spot.
They must not have had cover or concealment, and lacked HiPS.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Or simply wasn't trying to hide.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
We all know toads hop everywhere they go, and put lily pads in convenient areas to avoid having to splash awkwardly through the water. :smallamused:
Also, Hide +21? Really? I'm gonna have to seriously contest that, on the basis of having spotted small toads surprisingly often at distances greater than 10' and with arguably no ranks in Spot.
No, I agree, when I took Herpology, I had trouble finding frogs for the photos in my presentation. I was lucky others spotted them; I could just have low spot checks.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boci
They must not have had cover or concealment, and lacked HiPS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mystify
Or simply wasn't trying to hide.
Well, I suppose that depends. A toad sitting on similar-colored mud may not able to Hide, strictly speaking (although it's hard to spot), but a toad in water certainly has concealment, and I've been able to spot those as well. (And, of course, a toad in deep brush has total concealment and it doesn't matter.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starbuck_II
No, I agree, when I took Herpology, I had trouble finding frogs for the photos in my presentation. I was lucky others spotted them; I could just have low spot checks.
I probably have like a net +1 Spot. And it's not that +21 is necessarily vastly overestimated; it just seems to be several points too high, and I think it should be closer to +17 or perhaps even slightly lower (given that I am able to spot hiding toads rather more than 5% of the time).
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
Well, I suppose that depends. A toad sitting on similar-colored mud may not able to Hide, strictly speaking (although it's hard to spot), but a toad in water certainly has concealment, and I've been able to spot those as well. (And, of course, a toad in deep brush has total concealment and it doesn't matter.)
I probably have like a net +1 Spot. And it's not that +21 is necessarily vastly overestimated; it just seems to be several points too high, and I think it should be closer to +17 or perhaps even slightly lower (given that I am able to spot hiding toads rather more than 5% of the time).
Maybe whenever you see a toad, there are actually thousands of toads within your field of vision, but you were only able to see that one :smalltongue:
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ksheep
Maybe whenever you see a toad, there are actually thousands of toads within your field of vision, but you were only able to see that one :smalltongue:
Quote for truth!
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rockdeworld
To buy a greater strand of prayer beads missing everything but a bead of healing and a bead of blessing, the shopkeeper actually has to pay you.
Sorry if that's been mentioned already :smallsmile:
That's a typo, it got fixed in the errata/SRD.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heliomance
That's a typo, it got fixed in the errata/SRD.
So it was. My mistake :smallfrown:
In case it hasn't been mentioned:
-you can disarm opponents using light or one-handed weapons with Sleight of Hand
-you can also use it to steal equipped armor from small races (but not their weapons)
-you can't use it to steal tiny or diminutive objects
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rockdeworld
So it was. My mistake :smallfrown:
In case it hasn't been mentioned:
-you can disarm opponents using light or one-handed weapons with Sleight of Hand
-you can also use it to steal equipped armor from small races (but not their weapons)
-you can't use it to steal tiny or diminutive objects
Heh. Reminds me of Final Fantasy Tactics, where you can steal armor off a foe's body.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Because Truenamers can't catch a break even then, here's one of the feats meant for them:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tome of Magic, page 229
Focused Lexicon
...
Benefit: When you take this feat, choose a creature type (such as aberrations or monstrous humanoids). The DCs of your utterances are increased by 1 whenever you use them against creatures of the chosen type.
...
Presumably, the red bolded sentence was meant to say "The save DCs of your utterances are increased by 1," which would make Focused Lexicon merely an extremely mediocre feat. But thanks to the omission of a single word, it is instead a feat that you take in order to make your Truespeak skill checks even harder for yourself.:smallsigh:
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
I'm pretty sure we could just have a post that says "Tome of Magic" and call it a day.