Can you use floating disk as a weapon?

[Thetad]

So, I'm currently having this argument with one of my players about the spell floating disk. He says it should be able to do damage because it is a force and Newton's law says that summoning it in the mouth of a creature should be able to explode its head. I say that it cannot because the spell has no listed weight and its definition explicitly states its use of following the caster and carrying things only and nothing about damage.

Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?

[Mastikator]

Magnets exert force and do not cause people's heads to explode, the Earth exerts force and does not cause people's heads to explode. Either way the type of force a floating disk exerts, it should not be sufficient to explode a head.
Since placing too much weight on a floating disk causes it to dissipate you could very easily argue that summoning a floating disk inside someone's head will make them dizzy but also destroy the disk.

I'd probably apply a "Daze" status effect on the target, and whack the player with a newspaper.

[Crake]

tell the player that if one of it's uses was to be summoned inside a creatures head (which he has no line of sight nor effect to anyway) then it would be stated in it's spell description.

[Thetad]

tell the player that if one of it's uses was to be summoned inside a creatures head (which he has no line of sight nor effect to anyway) then it would be stated in it's spell description.

I have told him about its listed uses, and his argument basically devolves into "the rules don't say I can't use it as a weapon."

[holywhippet]

The rules don't say you can't spontaneously spawn a posse of pit fiends at the player characters location either. Feel free to remind the player of this fact.

[Threadnaught]

I have told him about its listed uses, and his argument basically devolves into "the rules don't say I can't use it as a weapon."

The rules don't say you can't instantly wipe out his character's existence and force him to reroll every time he comes out with stupid crap that every sane DM ever would shoot down. :smallwink:

Edit: And no, you can't Summon inside another creature. This was a nerf added because of Create Water being used to drown enemies.

If a Spell specifically allows it, however, as in the description saying it does. Then you can.

[Thetad]

I have made an argument along those lines, and he replied that there are also no rules to using a dead body as a weapon, but that it's still possible. When I told him that a body could be used as an improvised weapon, he insisted that the disk shouls be one as well.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I have told him about its listed uses, and his argument basically devolves into "the rules don't say I can't use it as a weapon."

Mechanically, 3.5 is a rules-permissive game, and generally the rules have to say you can do something.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I have made an argument along those lines, and he replied that there are also no rules to using a dead body as a weapon, but that it's still possible. When I told him that a body could be used as an improvised weapon, he insisted that the disk shouls be one as well.

It's not possible to swing the disk in any way.

[Fax Celestis]

I have made an argument along those lines, and he replied that there are also no rules to using a dead body as a weapon, but that it's still possible. When I told him that a body could be used as an improvised weapon, he insisted that the disk shouls be one as well.

A corpse is an object, and you can wield it as an improvised weapon (1d4 damage, -4 atk rolls).

You could in theory do the same with the disk. Tell him to enjoy his 1d4 damage at -4 atk.

[Threadnaught]

I have made an argument along those lines, and he replied that there are also no rules to using a dead body as a weapon

If he is wiped from existence, there is no body.


The second he tries this in game *blip* he loses that character permanently and not one NPC remembers him.

[Necroticplague]

Short Version? No.

Long version? No. It not saying you can't doesn't mean you can.

Longer version? No. The rules in dnd are permissive. By default, you are capable of doing nothing. However, a rule allows you to do something. Thus, rules for actions, rules for attacks, rules for rolls, rules for casting, rules for attacking. Thus, if the rules don't say you can do something, then you can't do it. Thus, the fact the disk spell offers no indication it can be used as a weapon means it can't.

Now, he could attempt to resort to using it as an improvised weapon. As per the complete warrior rules, it would be a large, broad object that weighs 0 pounds. So its 2 handed, 1d4 damage, -4 to-hit, provides +1 sheild bonus. In addition, he is not entirely right about it being a force. It is an object made out of force, not a force itself. Its the same substance walls of force, magic missiles, force dragons, and riverine object are made of. It is no more capable of being created in an enemy than a wall of force, since both are made of the same thing.

[Thetad]

So, I got back to him and told him pretty much everything all of you told me, and he said that just because there is no listed weight for the disk doesn't mean that it doesn't weigh anything. I told him that if the disk had a weight it would have been written one, and then he asked for a stat block of a tree with weight, because if the rules don't say trees have weight then they shouldn't if the disk doesn't, in his mind.

Also, he demanded a rules explanation saying that force is different between magic and real life physics, as he's not quite convinced.

[AvatarVecna]

The character has neither line of sight nor line of effect to the target's insides, which he would need to pull off something like this. Your player is trying to rules-lawyer a utility spell into having a combat effect, because he noticed it gives no save and no SR. As DM, you could tell him that using the spell in a way it's not intended to be used (which this most certainly would be) is something you'll allow, but it will call for a save and SR; if they argue that the rules say it has no save and no SR, you tell them that's because there's no combat effect normally and that the only reason it does is DM fiat on behalf of the player.

I've played games where something like this would be totally acceptable, and any player attempting it would work with the DM to make their spells more versatile; the point was that everyone had fun. I've played games where RAW was absolute, and cheese was rampant. Your player is just trying to pull a munchkin, but instead of using an existing loophole in the rules, they're resorting to making up new loopholes.

Short version: either the spell has no save, no SR, and no combat effect, or it has a combat effect with a save and SR with all three existing by DM fiat; sit your player down and explain why he can't have his cake and eat it, too.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

So, I got back to him and told him pretty much everything all of you told me, and he said that just because there is no listed weight for the disk doesn't mean that it doesn't weigh anything. I told him that if the disk had a weight it would have been written one, and then he asked for a stat block of a tree with weight, because if the rules don't say trees have weight then they shouldn't if the disk doesn't, in his mind.

Also, he demanded a rules explanation saying that force is different between magic and real life physics, as he's not quite convinced.

Ask him what he hopes to get out of this, and why it matters so much to him.

This is entirely an out of character problem that won't be resolved by any rule in any book published, to my mind.

[Feint's End]

No this doesn't work at all but honestly?
....
...
.....

Some people you just cannot discuss with. Just tell him you won't allow it and that is the last word. If he has a problem with that he can feel free to play some other place. Believe me ... it's not worth the brain cells you lose argueing about it.

[AvatarVecna]

So, I got back to him and told him pretty much everything all of you told me, and he said that just because there is no listed weight for the disk doesn't mean that it doesn't weigh anything. I told him that if the disk had a weight it would have been written one, and then he asked for a stat block of a tree with weight, because if the rules don't say trees have weight then they shouldn't if the disk doesn't, in his mind.

Also, he demanded a rules explanation saying that force is different between magic and real life physics, as he's not quite convinced.

He wants to bring RL physics into D&D?

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/624_351/images/live/p0/0y/p3/p00yp3yx.jpg

Physically speaking, giants are impossible: the humanoid form only works up to about 7-8 ft tall; taller than that, and the body starts breaking down, simply because the weight the bones are capable of carrying is far outstripped by the amount of weight they need to carry, because body proportions must be maintained.

A properly optimized Master Thrower can draw and throw up to maybe 30 daggers in a round.

A properly optimized Hulking Hurler can pick up a small mountain (despite the many laws of physics that say this wouldn't work), throw it at an army, and kill one dude.

Create Object creates matter; impossible, according to physics.

Teleport crosses a distance in literally no time, therefore traveling at infinite speed, which is impossible according to the known laws of physics.

A Fighter 20 optimized for bow combat can shoot twice this far (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N07x9Z6VPW4), about this fast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g) (he did 10 in 4.5, but would then need to draw 10 more arrows; in-game, this is equivalent to a full round action), with a level of accuracy that the Mythbusters deemed impossible.

Point all of these out to him, and then ask him what he thinks RL physics matters in game. This is fantasy, with magic and monsters; as the DM, arbiter of the rules, and director of the in-game universe, you shouldn't have to spend too long explaining to him why the laws of magic make the laws of physics sit down and shut up in-game; if he wants to try and enforce the laws of reality onto the game world, show him GURPS.

But seriously, this is an out-of-character problem. It's not going to be solved with an argument of the rules.

[Dalebert]

He wants to bring RL physics into D&D?

Seems like a good chunk of the threads here are founded on somehow trying to mix physics and magic. Magic, almost by definition, cheats physics. This is why when a spell says it does X, it does exactly X and nothing more. You can't really have your cake and eat it too. Things get really wonky really fast if you say "I want to cheat science for my benefit" but at the same time say "I want to exploit science for my benefit".

I admit those silly threads can be a lot of fun though. Sometimes it makes more sense to discuss like with spells that are clearly intended to have very broad utility like shrink item or unseen servant. They've left SO much open to interpretation.

[Necroticplague]

So, I got back to him and told him pretty much everything all of you told me, and he said that just because there is no listed weight for the disk doesn't mean that it doesn't weigh anything. I told him that if the disk had a weight it would have been written one, and then he asked for a stat block of a tree with weight, because if the rules don't say trees have weight then they shouldn't if the disk doesn't, in his mind.

Also, he demanded a rules explanation saying that force is different between magic and real life physics, as he's not quite convinced.

Again, "it doesn't say it doesn't" doesn't work as game logic. It doesn't list a weight, so it doesn't have one.

Point to "wall of force", and the first sentence of floating disk that uses it as if it was describing the composition of the disk. Point out how this is a logical impossibility in real life because force is not a substance. That would be like "wall of Magnetism", or "wall of Heavy". Also, point to Force Dragon, which are physical creatures made out of force.

And if he's going to provide a specific rules citation for everything, require the same of him. Ask him "where does it say summoning something in its mouth makes its head explode?"

The problem seems to be not with the actual rules, but that he's trying to be a bit of a munchkin (in fact, arguing this kinda stuff is one of the biggest signs). No matter how much evidence you bring, he'll just shift goalposts, so you're only real response is to point to rule zero and say "I'm ruling on this situation, it doesn't work."

Or say "O.k., you win, it works." And then, your next encounter 1-shots him with that trick. "Now see how balanced things are when we start making up rules?"

Also, does anyone else think this is oddly similar to the thread about headshots a month or two ago? Enough that it might be the same guy?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Just de-escalate and try to get to the actual root of the problem, which almost certainly isn't that he wants more physics in his game.

[morkendi]

Plus the disk can not be more than 3 feet off ground and i think more than 5 feet behind caster. Most creatures head would be more than 3 feet of ground. It states if you exceed these limits, it winks out of existence. So he wouldn't be able to summon it high enough and he would have to be in treat range to even try to cast it.

[Necroticplague]

Plus the disk can not be more than 3 feet off ground and i think more than 5 feet behind caster. Most creatures head would be more than 3 feet of ground. It states if you exceed these limits, it winks out of existence. So he wouldn't be able to summon it high enough and he would have to be in treat range to even try to cast it.

It can be more than 5 feet away, it moves at an increment of 5 feet away and has a range of Close.

[Studoku]

The rules don't say you can't instantly wipe out his character's existence and force him to reroll every time he comes out with stupid crap that every sane DM ever would shoot down. :smallwink:

Edit: And no, you can't Summon inside another creature. This was a nerf added because of Create Water being used to drown enemies.

If a Spell specifically allows it, however, as in the description saying it does. Then you can.
Well technically rule 0 says that...

[Tohsaka Rin]

Just tell the player there isn't enough room inside something's mouth for the disc to be manifested.

...What? Enlarge has that as a clause, doesn't it?

More importantly, ask the player what point is there in playing a game where you can one-shot whatever you like? If that doesn't give them pause, ask them if they really think they'd be the first caster to ever think of such a thing, and if they want to play in a world where that sort of crap happens.

Because I know I wouldn't, and I frequently played in games where a flight of adult red dragons would show up any time the DM felt like it.

...It sucked.

[Shoat]

Teach that player the golden rule of why powergaming is a bad idea:
Everyone plays by the same rules. Anything you abuse, your enemies will abuse as well. And they'll do it better.


There will always be NPCs who are able to do the exact same stuff players can, but they always out-number the PCs, are higher-level than the PCs and have more knowledge of the world than the PCs.
So if something feels like it'd be bull**** if used against you (like a level 1 non-damaging utility spell insta-killing people), don't tempt your DM by arguing in it's favor, otherwise your next encounter is a band of 15 level 1 wizards&sorcerers floating disc-ing you to hell.

[jedipotter]

I have told him about its listed uses, and his argument basically devolves into "the rules don't say I can't use it as a weapon."

Ah, I love this type of thread....

Now my answer is simple. In my game, what I say is supreme. I'd say ''no'', and if the player had any other problem, they they would be told to leave the game. Nice. Easy. Simple.




Some people you just cannot discuss with.

Too True.

[Bronk]

Well, I think the original post had a good point... there is no damage listed. Since the PC wouldn't have line of sight or line of effect to the inside of a closed mouth, there's room for the DM to play around a bit. If all the relevant factors for casting the spell somehow came about (the proper range, height, and so on):

First, you could have it appear in its mouth, but only the edge, like a dog catching a frisbee.

Or second, you could have it expand inside the mouth, causing the creatures cheeks to comically expand like a chipmunk.

Silly, but it could be used as a distraction...

[nedz]

There are ways to weaponise this spell, if you are creative, but of itself it is not a weapon.

Just get him to watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA) — it seems to be what he actually wants here.

[Scorponok]

If you're an evil DM, you'll allow him to use it easily to kill someone then in the next couple of minutes, have an NPC do it to his character.