# Thread: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

1. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Jack_Simth
Right. And while the air resistance on the baseball and the lead ball will be about the same (I'm discounting the impact of surface differences, for now), the lead ball will have more mass, and so the force from air resistance will produce less deceleration on it.
True, but this effect is marginal over any likely catapult range.

2. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Jack_Simth is right (which is fortunate for me, as it makes me right too). You can probably make a golf ball shaped lead ball the same size as a baseball, and it'd have better aerodynamic qualities than a baseball. This is assuming I'm picturing the right thing - it's leather, white and nicely round? That nobbly spheroid thing is what you call a football, right?
Baseball isn't really big where I'm from.

Consider it as a matter of energy, nedz. The air resistance takes energy to overcome. The greater the resistance, the more energy it costs, and the faster you go (all things being equal) the greater the resistance. A lead ball has the greater momentum at the same speed as the baseball, and therefore more energy to give before it stops moving forward - at which point it falls straight down at the farthest it's going to go. This of course assumes you're angling for maximum distance in your throwing/shooting/firing (and not, say, shooting traight up, in which case the lighter object has a definite advantage in how far it travels).

So the basball shaped lump of lead has a momentum equal to X energy units, and the baseball has Y units. X > Y (energy being momentum, and momentum being mass*velocity, velocity being equal but the lead having the greater mass). After flying a certain equal distance, they will (if we assume equal aerodynamic qualities) have lost energy Equal to Y. Y-Y=0. That's as far as the baseball goes. But X-Y>0, so there's still some speed in the lead ball after travelling that far. So it's gonna go farther.

3. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by nedz
True, but this effect is marginal over any likely catapult range.
I don't have enough physics background to give solid numbers on the ratio, but it will be there. Probably a few percentage points, at least.

4. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by nedz
True, but this effect is marginal over any likely catapult range.
The physics I believe remain the same, at least if you're angling for maximum distance.

5. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by hymer
*snip*
The reason why i brought up the Osmium Elemental, is that the Osmium elemental is five times (5.022x actually) as dense as the Titanium elemental. While i wont go find the math, the Elementals, when brought upto the same speed, would resultantly fly much farther then the Titanium Elemental. I cant say by how much 5x the innertia would make on the actual distance thrown though.

i would estimate the osmium elemental would weigh 120 tons, while the Titanium elemental would weigh 23.89 tons.

6. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Yeah, sorry. Saw physics, couldn't help myself. I'll be quiet now.

7. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by toapat
The reason why i brought up the Osmium Elemental, is that the Osmium elemental is five times (5.022x actually) as dense as the Titanium elemental. While i wont go find the math, the Elementals, when brought upto the same speed, would resultantly fly much farther then the Titanium Elemental. I cant say by how much 5x the innertia would make on the actual distance thrown though.

i would estimate the osmium elemental would weigh 120 tons, while the Titanium elemental would weigh 23.89 tons.
Yeah, but the problem with this idea is, they would have to build a catapult capable of flinging a 5x heavier object at the same velocity as the much lighter one. It would suck as catapult ammo as it wouldnt go very far. On the other hand, if you say, summoned it in midair while riding that bitchin undead dragon and let it fall, it would cause some freaking MASSIVE impact damage

8. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Traab
Yeah, but the problem with this idea is, they would have to build a catapult capable of flinging a 5x heavier object at the same velocity as the much lighter one. It would suck as catapult ammo as it wouldnt go very far. On the other hand, if you say, summoned it in midair while riding that bitchin undead dragon and let it fall, it would cause some freaking MASSIVE impact damage
Doesn't work. Per the Conjuration School Description:
Originally Posted by SRD
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

9. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Jack_Simth
Doesn't work. Per the Conjuration School Description:
Hmm, I just know there is a loophole of some sort. What is the carrying capacity of an undead dragon? Could you buff it up to the point where it would be capable of supporting the weight of this thing?

10. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Traab
Hmm, I just know there is a loophole of some sort. What is the carrying capacity of an undead dragon? Could you buff it up to the point where it would be capable of supporting the weight of this thing?
no, im pretty sure that a dragon doesnt qualify as a surface for summoning. even then, their light load is too low for a 120 ton elemental

11. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Place a pair of immovable rods in the air. Place an adamantine sheet between them. Summon elemental. Deactivate one of the rods.

12. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Ksheep
Place a pair of immovable rods in the air. Place an adamantine sheet between them. Summon elemental. Deactivate one of the rods.
An Immovable Rod will not support an unlimited amount of weight:
Originally Posted by SRD
This rod is a flat iron bar with a small button on one end. When the button is pushed (a move action), the rod does not move from where it is, even if staying in place defies gravity. Thus, the owner can lift or place the rod wherever he wishes, push the button, and let go. Several immovable rods can even make a ladder when used together (although only two are needed). An immovable rod can support up to 8,000 pounds before falling to the ground. If a creature pushes against an immovable rod, it must make a DC 30 Strength check to move the rod up to 10 feet in a single round.
Two of them will only get you 8 tons, not the 120 you're after.

You might, however, cast Resilient Sphere on your familiar, summon the beast on top of that, have your familiar get out of the way (perhaps via a Cape of the Mountebank?), and then dismiss the sphere.

Of course, with that, you're probably better off using Wall of Iron. No house rules involved, the wall is most definitely an object, and you can use it to buy stuff after.

13. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Just noticed this in the Arms and Equipment Guide - the Gnome Crossbow Sight (because apparently mere humans could never figure out how to build a crossbow sight - thanks Wotco) allows you to treat targets as if they were two range increments closer, but has no effect within the first two increments. That means that if you're firing a heavy crossbow (120 foot increments) at a target who's 200 feet away, you take a bigger to-hit penalty (-4 for two range increments) than if they're 300 feet away. (-2 for 1 effective range increment). Yes, if you want to have an easier time shooting someone, you have to get further away from them.

14. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Traab
Is this going to turn into titanium elementals? Heh, I just keep getting flashbacks to redcloak and his mocking of people for sticking to the classic elements when there is a very large table to draw from.
Just for the record: What Redcloak pulls of is what is called a semantic fallacy (and I'm pretty sure this was intended by Rich).
Those go like this:
"Bob is a dumb ox."
"All oxen have horns."
-> "Bob has horns."

The elements on the periodic table are given this name because of certain resemblence to the classical elements of various cultures (most prominently greek and chinese). You could say the elements of the periodic table are the stuff the world is made from.
But it is just a superficial resemblence, enough to justify the name, but not more. The elements in pre-sokratic philosophy for example fulfill a vastly different "role". They range into the metaphysical, wheras the periodic table is firmly grounded in the physical.

Thus, having "elementals" (the creature) made from elements of the periodic table is the result of a semantic fallacy.

15. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Zombimode
Just for the record: What Redcloak pulls of is what is called a semantic fallacy (and I'm pretty sure this was intended by Rich).
Those go like this:
"Bob is a dumb ox."
"All oxen have horns."
-> "Bob has horns."

The elements on the periodic table are given this name because of certain resemblence to the classical elements of various cultures (most prominently greek and chinese). You could say the elements of the periodic table are the stuff the world is made from.
But it is just a superficial resemblence, enough to justify the name, but not more. The elements in pre-sokratic philosophy for example fulfill a vastly different "role". They range into the metaphysical, wheras the periodic table is firmly grounded in the physical.

Thus, having "elementals" (the creature) made from elements of the periodic table is the result of a semantic fallacy.
Third rule of humor, if you have to explain the joke, its not funny anymore.

16. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by willpell
Just noticed this in the Arms and Equipment Guide - the Gnome Crossbow Sight (because apparently mere humans could never figure out how to build a crossbow sight - thanks Wotco) allows you to treat targets as if they were two range increments closer, but has no effect within the first two increments. That means that if you're firing a heavy crossbow (120 foot increments) at a target who's 200 feet away, you take a bigger to-hit penalty (-4 for two range increments) than if they're 300 feet away. (-2 for 1 effective range increment). Yes, if you want to have an easier time shooting someone, you have to get further away from them.
Have you ever tried to shoot a rifle with a scope at something too close for the scope. It's a huge pain. You've either got to try and use the scope anyway, and not be exactly certain what it is you're looking at, or you have to try and use the iron-sights instead, which may or may not be doable depending on how the scope is mounted.

I honestly think it would've been more accurate to reality for the shooter to take an extra penalty for the scope within the first two range increments, since there's almost no way the scope doesn't interfere with lining up a shot when the target's too close.

17. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
Have you ever tried to shoot a rifle with a scope at something too close for the scope. It's a huge pain. You've either got to try and use the scope anyway, and not be exactly certain what it is you're looking at, or you have to try and use the iron-sights instead, which may or may not be doable depending on how the scope is mounted.

I honestly think it would've been more accurate to reality for the shooter to take an extra penalty for the scope within the first two range increments, since there's almost no way the scope doesn't interfere with lining up a shot when the target's too close.

Easier Explaination:

The Scope is a recent enough development that they havent noticed that they need Ironsights at 10:30 to allow for close range combat use.

18. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
Have you ever tried to shoot a rifle with a scope at something too close for the scope. It's a huge pain. You've either got to try and use the scope anyway, and not be exactly certain what it is you're looking at, or you have to try and use the iron-sights instead, which may or may not be doable depending on how the scope is mounted.

I honestly think it would've been more accurate to reality for the shooter to take an extra penalty for the scope within the first two range increments, since there's almost no way the scope doesn't interfere with lining up a shot when the target's too close.
i know what you mean. Some call it 'hair in the scope'. that means that you are so close that you can only see the fur of the animal, and not the whole animal, making it extremely hard to aim for the vitals.

however. i personally consider this a myth. It might happen with very high magnification 20x or more and very close ranges, like 20 yards, but in general it does not happen.
Even with a 9x scope you can hit targets at 600 yards, and still get see the whole target at 35 yards.
With a 4x scope you can see targets out to 400 with confidence and still get a close shot at 10 yards.

19. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

It's not just that. If you're using a scope, and you go off target a bit, refinding the target is much more difficult at close range, because your vision is so focused.

20. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Dysfunctional Rule: Animals don't have homes.

I can't find an animal that has ranks in survival. DC to avoid getting lost is 15. Without taking wis modifier into consideration, they spend 3 days out of 4 looking for their nest/den/whatever.

21. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Okay, i have just finished reading the entire thread, but there might be things that I have missed.
Anyway: How come there's no mention of Iron Heart Surge?
>IRON HEART SURGE
>Iron Heart
>Prerequisite: One Iron Heart maneuver
>Initiation Action: 1 standard action
>Range: Personal
>Target: You
>Duration: See text
Your fighting spirit, dedication, and training allow you to overcome almost anything to defeat your enemies. When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds. That effect ends immediately. You also surge with confidence and vengeance against your enemies, gaining a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls until the end of your next turn.
Edit: Emphasis mine.
Note that the effect ends. No, it's not "you are no longer affected by it", it's "the effect has ended". The intent was probably to get rid of a slow spell or something similar, but the wording is ... let's say abusable.
Fear aura? Duration is more than one round=IHS. The fear aura is now gone. Rain gives you a penalty to Spot. Iron heart surge the rain away.
Gravity is listed down as a planar trait that has an effect on all creatures within the plane. You can use IHS to eradicate gravity from the plane.

22. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by mattie_p
Dysfunctional Rule: Animals don't have homes.

I can't find an animal that has ranks in survival. DC to avoid getting lost is 15. Without taking wis modifier into consideration, they spend 3 days out of 4 looking for their nest/den/whatever.
Did you forget racial bonuses to tracking? They just track themselves back to home.
Riding dogs (+5 track) and Wolves (+5 track) for two have it.

Bears and Cats have no racial bonus (so +1 track), cats and bears must get lost a lot.

23. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by mattie_p
I can't find an animal that has ranks in survival. DC to avoid getting lost is 15. Without taking wis modifier into consideration, they spend 3 days out of 4 looking for their nest/den/whatever.
I would think that so long as you didn't wander too far from your den or nest that Spot (if you're high enough) or Track by Scent (at ground level) could get you home. Plus if you wander around in the same seven or eight square miles long enough (say from infancy to adulthood) you would know the area well enough to not become lost in it.

24. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Starbuck_II
Did you forget racial bonuses to tracking? They just track themselves back to home.
Riding dogs (+5 track) and Wolves (+5 track) for two have it.

Bears and Cats have no racial bonus (so +1 track), cats and bears must get lost a lot.
That is tracking by scent. Even so, it is a +4, so half the time they can smell themselves home? They other half they are still lost, apparently.

Also, DC 15 to avoid natural hazards (which includes predators), so most animals get eaten 3 days out of 4 (unless they get lost instead).

Originally Posted by Telok
Plus if you wander around in the same seven or eight square miles long enough (say from infancy to adulthood) you would know the area well enough to not become lost in it.
That is knowledge:local, knowledge:geography or knowledge:nature. No animals have ranks in those either.

25. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by mattie_p
Also, DC 15 to avoid natural hazards (which includes predators), so most animals get eaten 3 days out of 4 (unless they get lost instead).
Failing a DC15 check doesn't mean you immediately get eaten by a wolf. A natural hazard might be a slippery ravine, a rapid or deep river, a bog or swamp, and so on - nothing that's immediately and unavoidably fatal. Even if they do meet a predator, there's no guarantee it will sense them, or be interested in attacking them, or that it will catch them.

26. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Flickerdart
Failing a DC15 check doesn't mean you immediately get eaten by a wolf. A natural hazard might be a slippery ravine, a rapid or deep river, a bog or swamp, and so on - nothing that's immediately and unavoidably fatal. Even if they do meet a predator, there's no guarantee it will sense them, or be interested in attacking them, or that it will catch them.
That's true. Knowing how borked spot checks are, predators can't see anything either, and with everything at the same speed, can't catch them.

Still can only find their home on a good day though (for most).

27. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

They also can't find food, right?

28. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

They can take 10 to feed themselves if they have a positive or neutral Wisdom modifier, barring difficult conditions that make the check difficult.

29. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by Scizor
Okay, i have just finished reading the entire thread, but there might be things that I have missed.
Anyway: How come there's no mention of Iron Heart Surge?
I've tried to post Iron Heart Surge in this thread, and then IHS ended the effect of me posting in the thread. Honestly, that should have been on page 1.

30. ## Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

Originally Posted by mattie_p
Dysfunctional Rule: Animals don't have homes.

I can't find an animal that has ranks in survival. DC to avoid getting lost is 15. Without taking wis modifier into consideration, they spend 3 days out of 4 looking for their nest/den/whatever.
You are allowed to change the skill point allocations. So they could spend a skill point and learn to read.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•