lets destroy the sun

[dascarletm]

Really you should invest heavily in the Complete Scoundrel, and trick Pelor into destroying the sun.

Immediately become the god of trickery.

[Slipperychicken]

Burn the sky! Move your entire civilisation under ground powered by the thermal energy their bodies produce as they lie trapped in their cocoons.

Only then can you have the cool sundark goggles.

"We do not know who struck first, us, or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky"


That might be the best option. You don't need to destroy the sun when you can block it. Kicking up enough dust (or igniting the atmosphere) shouldn't be too much of an issue.

Destroying the sun also has the problem of quickly making the world uninhabitable, even for Underdark denizens, because the planet will become far too cold to support life.

[TypoNinja]

But the OP's requirement was :-

Void Disciple can arguably be used to grant Epic feats. We might have a winner.


Darksun's history explicitly calls out their casters tapping the sun for power, and changing its life cycle, blue to yellow to red. Figure out how to Defile and hope for brown dwarf. Or just go all the way till its dead.

[Kelb_Panthera]

"We do not know who struck first, us, or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky"


That might be the best option. You don't need to destroy the sun when you can block it. Kicking up enough dust (or igniting the atmosphere) shouldn't be too much of an issue.

Destroying the sun also has the problem of quickly making the world uninhabitable, even for Underdark denizens, because the planet will become far too cold to support life.

Most of the interior of an earth-like planet is molten rock. Even without the sun you'll have a supply of heat for a pretty good while. The surface will become pretty worthless pretty quick. It's a good thing the underdark doesn't conform to RL ecology.

[darni]

Let's assume you can get in range to cast spells on the sun (some others have made you suggestions there, which might need some ruling by your DM). I have the following ideas (they don't get rid of the sun, but the effect might be useful):

• Cast "darkness" on the sun: I'm assuming the sun counts as an D&D "object". The effect of this will be somewhat strange; the sun will be dark (and as any dark object at that distance, invisible). However I don't think this spells stops a strong light source from spilling outside, so perhaps sunshine still works and cat shadows, even if you stop seeing the sun.
• Cast "light" on the sun: On a silly RAW-reading of the rules, you can say that the sun will start glowing as a torch, which at that distance is nowhere bright enough to be seen :)
• I'm not sure what the range is, but casting "antipathy" on the sun could get interesting too... do it 9 times, 1 for each alignment.

In general, any spell targetable to "an object" without size limit could do seriously crazy stuff.

[Axier]

Let's assume you can get in range to cast spells on the sun (some others have made you suggestions there, which might need some ruling by your DM). I have the following ideas (they don't get rid of the sun, but the effect might be useful):

• Cast "darkness" on the sun: I'm assuming the sun counts as an D&D "object". The effect of this will be somewhat strange; the sun will be dark (and as any dark object at that distance, invisible). However I don't think this spells stops a strong light source from spilling outside, so perhaps sunshine still works and cat shadows, even if you stop seeing the sun.
• Cast "light" on the sun: On a silly RAW-reading of the rules, you can say that the sun will start glowing as a torch, which at that distance is nowhere bright enough to be seen :)
• I'm not sure what the range is, but casting "antipathy" on the sun could get interesting too... do it 9 times, 1 for each alignment.

In general, any spell targetable to "an object" without size limit could do seriously crazy stuff.

If you tone down the light level of the sun, I donth think you are actually affecting the amount of heat that is being produced. THIS would be pretty frickin cool. Also, it would take care of the problems!

[Andreaz]

If you tone down the light level of the sun, I donth think you are actually affecting the amount of heat that is being produced. THIS would be pretty frickin cool. Also, it would take care of the problems!

The heat produced by the sun arrives exclusively in the form of radiation (visible light, UV, IR, probably some x rays too). The actual temperature of the sun does not arrive here in any form.

[nedz]

The heat produced by the sun arrives exclusively in the form of radiation (visible light, UV, IR, probably some x rays too). The actual temperature of the sun does not arrive here in any form.

Well temperature is a measure of heat, so I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Also heat can travel by radiation.
There is also the Solar wind (No not an outsider whose been on the beans) which is mainly plasma remnants from a corona discharge. I'm not sure what temperature this is at when it arrives, but it starts off quite warm.

[Dr Bwaa]

you could go one level in archmage and get True Creation as a SLA to make a box of electrons with no space between each of the particles, inside the sun.

*math*

Spoiler

Show

That cube holds 5x5x5 feet, or 125 feet³. One foot ~= 0.3048 meters, so the volume of the cube in meters is about 125 f³ x (0.3048 m/f)³ ~= 3.5396 m³.
Now, the upper limit on the radius of an electron is 10^(-22) m (this depends on who you ask. Obviously there is some question of whether or not you can actually measure this radius. Hush. Since things in D&D occupy 3-space in cube form, I will simplify the calculations by assuming the electron is a cube with radius 10^(-22) m, which is to say a cube of side-length 2 x 10^(-22) m.
Given this, an electron occupies the following volume with our D&D approximation: (2 x 10^(-22) m)³ = 8 x 10^(-66) m³.
We now have enough to do our calculation, which is simple enough: we divide the cube's volume by the electron's volume to get the number of electrons we've created: (3.5396 m³)/(8 x 10^(-66) m³) = 4.4245 x 10^65 electrons.
Note that this number (which because of our D&D "physics" is actually much less than the actual number of spheres you can fit in this cube) is completely ridiculous. For comparison, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be only a few powers of 10 more than this (somewhere kind of around 10^75).
The charge on a single electron is -1.602 x 10^(-19) Coulombs. Multiply this by the number of electrons you've just made, and you get a total charge of 2.836 x 10^48 C. We need to know more about the environment (and how the particles interact, as Urpriest noted) to know more, but that much charge is outrageous.
The mass involved here is also stupidly huge. Even though each electron has almost negligible mass (about 9.109 x 10^(-31) kg), the sheer number you're dealing with means this cube weighs about 4.03 x 10^35 kg. Compare: the sun weighs about 2 x 10^30 kg. Whoops. The Chandrasekhar Limit (above which point this pile of electrons would become a black hole) is about 1.4 solar masses. This box, then, obviously becomes a black hole (in fact, it becomes Supermassive, with almost 150,000 solar masses). In case you are reluctant to believe this based on a Limit you've never heard of...
The escape velocity from a planet with raduis r and mass m is v = √(2Gm/r). In this case, m = 4 x 10^35 kg, and r = 0.762 m. The gravitational constant, G, is 6.673 x 10^(-11) m³/(kg s²). So the escape velocity from our box is
v = √((2 x (6.673 x 10^(-11) m^3/(kg x s^2)) (4 x 10^35 kg))/0.762 m)
ve = 8.37 x 10^12 m/s. The speed of light e = 2.998 x 10^8 m/s. You got yourself a black hole. 'Gratz.
Finally, there is some chance that the actual volume of an electron is 0 (or infinitely small, at any rate). In this case you would almost certainly destroy the whole plane, because you would never "fill" your cube with electrons, but would rather dump infinite mass (and charge, but I'm not sure that would matter at that point) into your little box. Bye-bye, everything. Hope you cast that as an Astral Projection from a protected demiplane. Maybe that would even save you.

Only problem is not destroying everything else

Cite your sources, sir.

On topic, I feel like you should be able to hack Control Weather to effectively block out the sun. After all, actually destroying it (as someone else pointed out) does sound like the sort of thing that would cause some pretty serious problems (like no longer having an orbit or, in fact, any significant source of heat--in fact, you'd better leave enough of a hole in your weather control to allow some light in unless you want to rule over GlacierWorld).

[Zubrowka74]

Concerning the arrow trick : Did I miss something or didn't you take into account the range of the bow ? Also, the heat of the sun would detroy said arrow before it even reaches it.

Concerning the weather solution : In RL, humanity has been sort of trying to block out the sun since the begining of modern industrialisation. About 150 years in and we only have the ozone layer hole and some degree of greenhous effect. I guess trying harder you might succeed. Nuclear Winter would be one solution, or something similar. I'm thinking massive volanic erruption here. Greenhouse effect would maintain some of the heat. But as previously mentioned, this could be undone by a wizard. Or it's kobold familiar.

[Axier]

The heat produced by the sun arrives exclusively in the form of radiation (visible light, UV, IR, probably some x rays too). The actual temperature of the sun does not arrive here in any form.

Yes, but magical alteration of visible light is different from actually changing the light's output.

Im pretty sure that the magic is dimming the visible light something like a "filter" on a camera, but not affecting the actual radiation.

[Andreaz]

Yes, but magical alteration of visible light is different from actually changing the light's output.

Im pretty sure that the magic is dimming the visible light something like a "filter" on a camera, but not affecting the actual radiation.

Visible light IS the light's output.

[Axier]

Visible light IS the light's output.

I understand that, but its kinda like magic is blocking out its view, but not its existance.

Its still radiating at its normal wavelength, but it is being magically encased in some kind of unrealistic darkening agent that obfuscates it.

Im not arguing with logic, Im arguing with "A wizard did it.", because if you can reduce radiation with a spell that affects visible light levels, it gets into a whole lot of unconventional abuses if you use actual physics for spells at a low level that makes simple changes.

I would like to reference the theory of the nuclear fission capabilities of prestidigitation... Whether they pan out well or not, its best to just avoid the contemplation completely.

Something like this, at the end of the day, is kinda up to the DM... The ramifications of altering the visible light output of the sun depends on how magic affects something like that.

Although, we would only loose a little more than half of the energy we get going by your concept. Who wants to play a campagin in the Ice Age!

[Andreaz]

You'll have dissociate light with energy, which is an entirely new premise.

Are we going to do that? Because if we do that, every single electromagnetic wave ever (x rays, for example, as well as radio, microwaves and so on) stop transporting energy.
It's an even grosser violation of everything, and one I'm not willing to cross until we get the OP telling us that it's how the game will use it.

[Axier]

You'll have dissociate light with energy, which is an entirely new premise.

Are we going to do that? Because if we do that, every single electromagnetic wave ever (x rays, for example, as well as radio, microwaves and so on) stop transporting energy.
It's an even grosser violation of everything, and one I'm not willing to cross until we get the OP telling us that it's how the game will use it.

Like I mentioned, strange, shadowy particulate that obfuscates light without altering its energy output.

I mean, unless torches don't produce heat in an area of magical darkness...

I dont know, I just think that magical darkness can be disassociated with energy alteration, otherwise, a darkness spell could invariably kill portions of the elemental plane of fire.

Also, if you cast light on a stone, how would you hold it if it where producing the heat of the torch it is also making the same light as.

[Dr Bwaa]

You'll have dissociate light with energy, which is an entirely new premise.

Are we going to do that? Because if we do that, every single electromagnetic wave ever (x rays, for example, as well as radio, microwaves and so on) stop transporting energy.
It's an even grosser violation of everything, and one I'm not willing to cross until we get the OP telling us that it's how the game will use it.

Too late.

The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat

We're already well past the bounds of sanity as soon as we made a spell that creates light (energy) without creating heat (energy).

[Andreaz]

Too late.



We're already well past the bounds of sanity as soon as we made a spell that creates light (energy) without creating heat (energy).

Absolutely not. The heat it talks about there is the heat of a flame, not the heat of its light output.
And no, one CANNOT dim a light without dropping its energy output. Light is energy!

Seriously, end of story, I'm not gonna argue that.

[Dr Bwaa]

Absolutely not. The heat it talks about there is the heat of a flame, not the heat of its light output.

I'm talking about RAW here. "The effect... creates no heat." Thus the light it produces is necessarily devoid of energy. This is hardly the strangest flagrant violation of physics in the D&D system.

Light is energy!

Seriously, end of story, I'm not gonna argue that.

Me neither, except within the confines of a game system where Magic is Real and a low-level effect can make a field from which people can escape, but light cannot.

[nedz]

We have a world where the speed of light depends upon the eyes of the observer. If the observer has low light vision, then the light goes twice as far ?

We also have vision which doesn't require any light.

And darkness which propagates just like light, only its not very dark and can actually illuminate darker rooms.

I think we can forget the laws of physics on this one.

Back on target:
can not the denizens of the underdark stoke up a volcano, or two, to dump smoke into the atmosphere and blot out the sun ?

[TypoNinja]

Concerning the arrow trick : Did I miss something or didn't you take into account the range of the bow ? Also, the heat of the sun would detroy said arrow before it even reaches it.

The Epic feat for archery (distant shot) doesn't explicitly grant you exemption from maximum range, however the RAI is pretty clear that it's supposed to be a "If you can see it you can shoot it" type of power.

Also, the heat of the sun would not destroy the arrow. Once you accelerate an object that fast it starts doing all kinds of interesting things. Since we've managed to accelerate it past the speed of light we've broken the universe, the arrow's potential energy is infinite.

[killem2]

I am not exactly following the arrow solution but wouldn't you need to lead the arrow? (sorry if that was already addressed)

[TuggyNE]

Well temperature is a measure of heat, so I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Also heat can travel by radiation.
There is also the Solar wind (No not an outsider whose been on the beans) which is mainly plasma remnants from a corona discharge. I'm not sure what temperature this is at when it arrives, but it starts off quite warm.

Heat travels by radiation generally in the form of IR (Infrared). Neither conduction nor convection are an effective means of transferring the sun's heat.

The solar wind is, for the most part, deflected by the earth's magnetic field and upper atmosphere, which means that the upper atmosphere is nicely hot (as much as 5000 F in spots), but it doesn't much affect the rest of the planet.


My favorite suggestions so far has got to be casting light; it has a nice broken symmetry with casting darkness to see better.

[Misery Esquire]

I am not exactly following the arrow solution but wouldn't you need to lead the arrow? (sorry if that was already addressed)

You just need to roll To-Hit, and the character deals with the rest.

[killem2]

You just need to roll To-Hit, and the character deals with the rest.

very true lol, I let the logic get the best of me sometimes haha

[Malroth]

Unfortuneately the Far shot trick wouldn't work because an increase in velocity is not gauranteed to increasse the damage of the shot, The best you could hope for is to add 20d6 falling damage to the normal arrow's damage roll.

[Slipperychicken]

Darkness only makes the Sun radiate shadowy illumination for 20ft. Outside of that (i.e. on Earth), the light will be visible just fine, and there would be no noticeable effect.

Darkness does not suppress heat, so the heat/energy/etc would be as normal, even inside the 20ft radius.

Darkness has a 10min/level duration. Even if it did work (which it doesn't), it would only work for about an hour or so, depending on CL.

The Sun is not considered an object for the purposes of spell targeting. This is easily extrapolated from not being able to cast Darkness on the ground (i.e. Planets, buildings, gaseous masses, etc. are not considered Objects).

[Rubik]

Use a hulking hurler to throw the moon at the planet. Avoid the parts you like. Then you'll end up with something akin to the end of the dinosaurs (if not worse). It won't be permanent, but given the timeframe it should be permanent enough.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You'll have dissociate light with energy, which is an entirely new premise.

Are we going to do that? Because if we do that, every single electromagnetic wave ever (x rays, for example, as well as radio, microwaves and so on) stop transporting energy.
It's an even grosser violation of everything, and one I'm not willing to cross until we get the OP telling us that it's how the game will use it.

Energy already has a different meaning from its scientific meaning in-game; see cold energy.

Absolutely not. The heat it talks about there is the heat of a flame, not the heat of its light output.
And no, one CANNOT dim a light without dropping its energy output. Light is energy!

Seriously, end of story, I'm not gonna argue that.

I will. Light behaves as both matter and energy. It's basic unit is the photon, a strange little quantum particle that moves through space as a wave but still has mass that's effected by gravity.

[TuggyNE]

I will. Light behaves as both matter and energy. It's basic unit is the photon, a strange little quantum particle that moves through space as a wave but still has mass that's effected by gravity.

Sure, but ... what exactly are you arguing? A given photon has a certain amount of energy, which determines its wavelength; a given number of photons of a given range of frequencies has a certain brightness and carries a certain amount of energy. If you reduce the energy of the photons, it changes their wavelength (and is likely to make them shift out of e.g. the visible spectrum); if you reduce the number of photons, you reduce both brightness and energy carried (which is the usual meaning of "dimming a light"). None of what you actually said in any way argues against the quoted statements*.

I suppose you could argue that you can dim a light by increasing wavelength into the UV range so it's no longer visible light; however, that's both a questionable interpretation of "dimming light" and a dubious reading of the RAW behind e.g. darkness.


* Tangentially, this is the main reason physics and D&D don't mix very well; most people, myself included, don't really know quite enough about the bizarre interactions of actual physics to properly expound on its implications with certain assumptions changed.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sure, but ... what exactly are you arguing? A given photon has a certain amount of energy, which determines its wavelength; a given number of photons of a given range of frequencies has a certain brightness and carries a certain amount of energy. If you reduce the energy of the photons, it changes their wavelength (and is likely to make them shift out of e.g. the visible spectrum); if you reduce the number of photons, you reduce both brightness and energy carried (which is the usual meaning of "dimming a light"). None of what you actually said in any way argues against the quoted statements*.

I suppose you could argue that you can dim a light by increasing wavelength into the UV range so it's no longer visible light; however, that's both a questionable interpretation of "dimming light" and a dubious reading of the RAW behind e.g. darkness.


* Tangentially, this is the main reason physics and D&D don't mix very well; most people, myself included, don't really know quite enough about the bizarre interactions of actual physics to properly expound on its implications with certain assumptions changed.

I'm just arguing that there is a sharp departure from RL physics in D&D physics, especially as relates to magic. As you said yourself, a change in the energy of a photon can remove it from the visible spectrum either by increase or decrease, and since cold energy is a thing, then obviously energy has a different meaning in the context of a D&D universe.

Casting either light or darkness on the sun as an object could be ruled to have the desired effect. RAW doesn't swing it definitively toward correct or incorrect. Especially since the sun isn't actually defined in any sourcebook and different mythologies, cosmologies, and campaign settings can all paint a different portrait of what exactly the sun is.