Floating Disk ongoing debate [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Segev

2014-09-12, 03:52 PM

This is an argument based on your conclusion and circular as such.I think I see where you are coming from here, and while I understand why you think so, I disagree. I will attempt to clarify.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, what you find circular is the idea that it moving you constitutes it following you as it "moves with you." If so, it's not a logical contradiction despite it being coupled.

The indication we have for your ability to direct it is only in relation to distance, " If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you.", or in other words, the distance it follows you at, or can follow you at. No wasted words or other irreconcilable language. Further the indication of spell range creates a maximum following distance. There is no terminology that decouples the following requirement from the language of how it can be directed.
Let's just bring the full text in here (quoted from the SRD):

You create a slightly concave, circular plane of force that follows you about and carries loads for you. The disk is 3 feet in diameter and 1 inch deep at its center. It can hold 100 pounds of weight per caster level. (If used to transport a liquid, its capacity is 2 gallons.) The disk floats approximately 3 feet above the ground at all times and remains level. It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round. If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you. The disk winks out of existence when the spell duration expires. The disk also winks out if you move beyond range or try to take the disk more than 3 feet away from the surface beneath it. When the disk winks out, whatever it was supporting falls to the surface beneath it.

Let's break out the bolded parts, as I think those are the operative phrases under debate:

that follows you about
floats along horizontally within spell range
accompany you
If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you

You claim the first bullet point dominates all others, and thus if it is doing anything that cannot be construed as "follow you," it is not permitted to do that by the rules of the spell.

The remaining bullet points are not incompatible with that interpretation, however, they are utterly redundant and the third's opening phrase, "if not otherwise directed," is meaningless, because it [i]cannot be otherwise directed.

If your interpretation is accurate, the sum of those bullets is that it follows you as fast as it can, up to the limits of the spell's range, and maintains a distance of 5 ft. from you unless it cannot keep up. If it cannot keep up, it will catch up as soon as it can, and if you go too far from it by outpacing it for too long, it winks out. (That last is due to clauses not in the bullets, but it's still true.) You are unable to direct it to "move about," so that wording is strange; it should not say that. It should say "it follows as closely as it can at a rate no greater than..." rather than what it does about "moving about."

Therefore, I can only conclude that the interpretation of the RAW which allows it to be commanded to move about without having to stay near you - including being able to move arbitrarily (horizontally) within the spell's range, regardless of whether that is towards, with, or away from you - is the intention. It certainly is a valid way to read the RAW.

Given this, it can move about within range. If you are standing on it, you move with it, and it thus literally cannot move out of range.

Your interpretation requires a strange reading of "moves about," and a restrictive application of the first sentence which is not necessarily implied by the rest of the spell. Your reading is at least mostly valid, but strains the wording to restrict it in this way. Therefore, I think your reading, while potentially valid, is the one with weaker credibility and certainly less in line with the intended use of the spell.

Troacctid

2014-09-12, 04:38 PM

If you have a restrictive DM, you can always let an ally ride around on it like a sidecar. Or use Greater Floating Disk.

Brookshw

2014-09-12, 04:55 PM

I think I see where you are coming from here, and while I understand why you think so, I disagree. I will attempt to clarify.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, what you find circular is the idea that it moving you constitutes it following you as it "moves with you." If so, it's not a logical contradiction despite it being coupled. I'd be happy to elaborate

other than "stays within 5 ft.," meaningless wasted word count that is overridden by the contradictory opening sentence. This is most certainly not wasted word count as it creates a parameter for it following you. There is no contradiction unless your position is true in so much that it doesn't have to follow you. Using your conclusion as part of your argument is a strong basis for an position being circular.

In fact, "moves with you" is part of the definition of "follow," so while it seems strange to suggest that your car is "following" you to the destination to which you drive it, that is closer in definition than to claim that your car is "following" you if you remote control it to go from right next to you to 30 ft. away. First, the phrase "moves with you" if you meant it as a quote, is not actually used within the spell. I threw "follow" into google to see if it might be part of a definition and it wasn't as best I could tell though I did note: "move or travel behind". As best I can tell your application of "moves with you" is self referential to your own conclusion of how it could be moving with you by you being on it or it, possibly, being in front of you. If you're using a particular dictionary that might help explain how you've arrived at "moves with you" as part of the definition of "follow". Likewise, the bit about the car and "following" does not seem to be tied to anything other than the conclusion you've favored but not proven.

For the list I've included some comments in italics

Let's just bring the full text in here (quoted from the SRD):

Let's break out the bolded parts, as I think those are the operative phrases under debate:

that follows you about
floats along horizontally within spell range I don't think this is in contention, it follows a horizontal surface
accompany you irrelevant, this word is in relation to it's speed, not it's direction or your ability to direct it.
If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you

You claim the first bullet point dominates all others, and thus if it is doing anything that cannot be construed as "follow you," it is not permitted to do that by the rules of the spell.

The remaining bullet points are not incompatible with that interpretation, however, they are utterly redundant and the third's opening phrase, "if not otherwise directed," is meaningless, because it [i]cannot be otherwise directed. This doesn't necessarily follow. The horizontal term simply dictates how it travels in terms of three dimensional movement and is irrelevant to whether that's under you, in front of you, or behind you. Likewise it creates a restriction that it won't follow you if you decide to fly hundreds of feet up into the air. It's universally applicable and clarifies how it follows, no redundancy. Likewise, accompany you indicates that it can keep up with you meaning you won't accidentally leave it behind. No redundancy. Lastly, that you can decide the distance it follows you at is not redundant, for example it could keep it far away from a fight or out of the range of AOEs where the unattended possessions could easily be damaged (or unconcious body of a comrade who has been hurt as I've often seen). There are no redundant elements as each helps clarify the movement and provide valuable understanding.

Okay, while I'm in the process of typing this there appears to be a missing wallet crisis that requires my immediate attention so I can't reply to the rest. Remaining for our attention is that there is no indication that the ability to determine distance somehow allows a decision regarding direction. I still disagree with you on the wording but have to run. I'll post this now though in case you want to respond to anything I've mentioned thus far.

The Random NPC

2014-09-12, 05:00 PM

From this, we can discern that:
The floating disk moves within the range of the spell.
It cannot move faster than your normal speed in order to keep up with you (so you'd best take only one move action per turn).

Nothing says you can't move it however you like, as long as it stays within range (of you) and does not move faster than your normal movement speed.

If you are standing or sitting upon it (or something it supports), it can move within the spell range. That range remains "zero" while you remain standing on it, so no matter where it moves, it is within range. It can accompany you at no more than your movement speed. Since you're on it, as it moves, you move, and it is thus accompanying you.

There's nothing in the rules preventing you from being on it when you move it within the spell range, nor from it accompanying you via moving you around. And if you want to say "just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can," let me remind you that it doesn't say you can breathe while the spell is in effect, either. It doesn't need to, because there's no contradiction to how things normally work in breathing while the spell is in effect. Likewise, there's no contradiction in you being the object it moves around.

There's noting in the rule preventing you from using it as a autokilling weapon either. Just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can, you have to provide evidence for your position, and I believe you have failed to do so.

Dalebert

2014-09-12, 05:21 PM

Just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can

That's true, but "If not otherwise directed" means you can direct it to behave otherwise. How are you interpreting that phrase?

Segev

2014-09-12, 05:52 PM

There's noting in the rule preventing you from using it as a autokilling weapon either. Just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can, you have to provide evidence for your position, and I believe you have failed to do so.

It also doesn't say you can move the disk while breathing, so does that mean you can't? Provide evidence within the spell to indicate this.

"It doesn't say you can't" is a perfectly valid thing to say if that which it fails to say you can't in no way would change or add functionality. "Can move something 3 feet off the ground" is its function. You are "something." For it to be impossible for you to stand on it and cause it to move, it would need to specify that it can't move you or somesuch.

Do you contend that, because the Fly spell does not say you can't fly upside-down, but doesn't say you can, either, you can only fly in a "standing up" orientation while using the spell? Because it doesn't say you can attack while flying, you can't (since "it doesn't say you can't" isn't a valid reason). It does call out that you can charge, so is that "obviously" the only way you can attack while using the spell? It doesn't say you can't search for traps while flying, but it doesn't say you can; does that mean you can't?

Floating Disk says it allows you to move the disk around within range of the spell. It says the disk can move along with you. It does not say it only does so to follow you; it says that it follows you, then elaborates with more that it does. If you are standing on the disk, when it moves, it moves what is on it along with it (you, in this case). It never leaves the range of the spell. It moves along with you (because it's moving you on top of it). It would have to specify that you cannot do this for this not to be permitted by the wording of the spell. The only argument to the contrary is the one that says "follow" is a restrictive word, and I don't see any way to read that as accurate; if it were, there are much simpler ways to word the spell without outlining things that are NOT possible while "following." Such as "mov[ing] about...within range."

The Random NPC

2014-09-13, 05:47 AM

That's true, but "If not otherwise directed" means you can direct it to behave otherwise. How are you interpreting that phrase?

I am interpreting that phrase as that you can direct it to maintain either greater or less than a 5 foot interval. Though thinking on it more, I can see how you got your interpretation, I still believe that the follow only interpretation is the more valid one. Also I wouldn't be against someone ruling that it did work the way you think.

It also doesn't say you can move the disk while breathing, so does that mean you can't? Provide evidence within the spell to indicate this.

"It doesn't say you can't" is a perfectly valid thing to say if that which it fails to say you can't in no way would change or add functionality. "Can move something 3 feet off the ground" is its function. You are "something." For it to be impossible for you to stand on it and cause it to move, it would need to specify that it can't move you or somesuch.

Do you contend that, because the Fly spell does not say you can't fly upside-down, but doesn't say you can, either, you can only fly in a "standing up" orientation while using the spell? Because it doesn't say you can attack while flying, you can't (since "it doesn't say you can't" isn't a valid reason). It does call out that you can charge, so is that "obviously" the only way you can attack while using the spell? It doesn't say you can't search for traps while flying, but it doesn't say you can; does that mean you can't?

Floating Disk says it allows you to move the disk around within range of the spell. It says the disk can move along with you. It does not say it only does so to follow you; it says that it follows you, then elaborates with more that it does. If you are standing on the disk, when it moves, it moves what is on it along with it (you, in this case). It never leaves the range of the spell. It moves along with you (because it's moving you on top of it). It would have to specify that you cannot do this for this not to be permitted by the wording of the spell. The only argument to the contrary is the one that says "follow" is a restrictive word, and I don't see any way to read that as accurate; if it were, there are much simpler ways to word the spell without outlining things that are NOT possible while "following." Such as "mov[ing] about...within range."

I have four things to say to you.
1: I only said 2 things, saying, "it doesn't say you can't" is a poor argument, and that I believe you have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support your position.
2: I can't find that last quote in the spell at all, which description are you looking at. I'm looking at a PDF of the first printing.
3: We have two conflicting interpretations, according to my interpretation, you are adding functionality (I will admit that according to your interpretation, I'm needlessly restricting it).
4: Perhaps it's just the medium of communication, but I do not like the tone of your posts.

EDIT: As an aside, even with my interpretation, you can still do a similar thing. Climb onto your disk, then command it to maintain a 10 foot distance, it moves away from you, and since you are on it, it continues to move. Since we don't know how to control it, it may move randomly, or it may move in the shortest distance to fulfill it's objective. You may even be able to direct which direction to maintain the 10 foot distance. Of those 3 movements, only one prevents you from using it as a chair, the other 2 would allow you to control it's movement.

Dalebert

2014-09-13, 07:38 AM

1: I only said 2 things, saying, "it doesn't say you can't" is a poor argument, and that I believe you have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support your position.

Generally, that's true. Spells only do what they say they can do. This spell says it can carry up to X amount of weight. So I interpreted his point as the spell already says you can sit on it, in effect, assuming you're within the weight limit. I concede that a DM could interpret the wording to adjust the distance it's following at, though that seems oddly specific to me, possibly to the point of getting silly. I'm picturing it getting hung on corners and such. It also seems like a basic need to be able to position it appropriately to load with heavy stuph. What if the treasure is in a corner? You can't walk into a wall to get it closer. I picture it as following your commands like an unseen servant except all it can do is move horizontally so those commands are restricted to "go next to that pile of treasure and wait" and never "go up" because it can't. And also like Unseen Servant, it winks out if it goes further than the range from you.

One weird point is they never specify it's max speed. I think that's just part of the sloppiness resulting from writing up so many spells and not trying to think of every little thing. It's implied that it can go at least as fast as your land speed in order to follow you so I'd probably go with that. Otherwise, it really could get ridiculous if you could ride it at some insane speed. I would even allow you to sit on it and say "follow that guy", though you would lag behind if their land speed was greater than the caster's.

Segev

2014-09-13, 08:36 AM

I am interpreting that phrase as that you can direct it to maintain either greater or less than a 5 foot interval. Though thinking on it more, I can see how you got your interpretation, I still believe that the follow only interpretation is the more valid one. Also I wouldn't be against someone ruling that it did work the way you think.Well, I obviously disagree, but I can at least accept that we both understand the other's position.

1: I only said 2 things, saying, "it doesn't say you can't" is a poor argument, and that I believe you have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support your position.I don't know how to present more evidence when I think I've presented everything necessary. Let me try using Dalebert's post below yours to see if his words are clearer than mine.

Generally, that's true. Spells only do what they say they can do. This spell says it can carry up to X amount of weight. So I interpreted his point as the spell already says you can sit on it, in effect, assuming you're within the weight limit.
Add to this the phrases, "It floats along horizontally within spell range," and, "If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you," we have a default behavior "if not otherwise directed," and a behavior within its directed capability ("float along horizontally within the spell range").

That gives us, from the spell's text:
1. The ability to sit on it.
2. The ability to move it horizontally within the spell's range.
3. A default behavior "if not otherwise directed."

The third is only relevant to my point in that it spells out that it can be otherwise directed.

Since 1 and 2 are in place, as long as you are sitting on it, it is clearly within the spell's range. You therefore have the ability to direct it to move horizontally anywhere, as it never leaves the spell's range.

2: I can't find that last quote in the spell at all, which description are you looking at. I'm looking at a PDF of the first printing.My apologies, I paraphrased when I thought I was quoting. The actual quote is: "It floats along horizontally within spell range". Combined with the fact that you can clearly direct it's motion, or the "if not otherwise directed" phrase wouldn't be necessary, you clearly can direct that floating.

3: We have two conflicting interpretations, according to my interpretation, you [I]are adding functionality (I will admit that according to your interpretation, I'm needlessly restricting it).Well, at least we can both see the other's point, even if we don't agree. I will point out that your later comment...

As an aside, even with my interpretation, you can still do a similar thing. Climb onto your disk, then command it to maintain a 10 foot distance, it moves away from you, and since you are on it, it continues to move. Since we don't know how to control it, it may move randomly, or it may move in the shortest distance to fulfill it's objective. You may even be able to direct which direction to maintain the 10 foot distance. Of those 3 movements, only one prevents you from using it as a chair, the other 2 would allow you to control it's movement.
...means I am not adding functionality, even by your interpretation. It just requires a more...creative...form of the command. Rather than "move over there," it's "move away from me in that direction...now stop." Since the action to direct it is not specified, it defaults to a move-equivalent action to control its location (as that is, I believe, how directing spell effects works; I could be mistaken as I cannot find controlling rules to reference and thus am operating from potentially imperfect memory; it could be "free" in the "talking is a free action" sense). But the point here is that I am not adding functionality, merely reducing the required mental gymnastics required to get to the same effect. To the point about "it may move randomly," I contend that anything that engenders something needing to be determined randomly is, by precedent, going to say so. This means that you're adding, if not functionality, then at least rules that are not present in the text, by suggesting the need for randomized control.

4: Perhaps it's just the medium of communication, but I do not like the tone of your posts.My apologies; I get frustrated when people seem not to even be seeing my arguments, or to be reacting to them like I wrote them in some dialect of Klingon in which they are not proficient, and that may be showing. I assure you that my mental tone, in my own head, remained philosophical, if perhaps a bit intense.

One weird point is they never specify it's max speed. I think that's just part of the sloppiness resulting from writing up so many spells and not trying to think of every little thing. It's implied that it can go at least as fast as your land speed in order to follow you so I'd probably go with that. Otherwise, it really could get ridiculous if you could ride it at some insane speed. I would even allow you to sit on it and say "follow that guy", though you would lag behind if their land speed was greater than the caster's.The actual line is: "It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round." That provides its maximum speed. It can move at your normal speed each round.

The one point of inclarity, to me, is if your "normal" speed is your listed Speed stat, and thus you cannot double move without out-pacing it, or your "normal speed each round" is "how fast you can go without augmentation or outside aid," in which case it can double-move or even run with you (or follow at your swim or fly or burrow speeds). As long as you stay in vertical range of it, at least. Burrowing, swimming, or flying up or down away from it would not permit it to follow you in that dimension, because it floats horizontally.

Dalebert

2014-09-13, 12:11 PM

The actual line is: "It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round." That provides its maximum speed. It can move at your normal speed each round.

Hmm. Not sure how I missed that.

The one point of inclarity, to me, is if your "normal" speed is your listed Speed stat, and thus you cannot double move without out-pacing it, or your "normal speed each round" is "how fast you can go without augmentation or outside aid," in which case it can double-move or even run with you (or follow at your swim or fly or burrow speeds). As long as you stay in vertical range of it, at least. Burrowing, swimming, or flying up or down away from it would not permit it to follow you in that dimension, because it floats horizontally.

I would say your run speed isn't your "normal" speed, but since anyone can move twice in a round, and since it doesn't specify otherwise, the disk should be able to as well. My call as a DM would be the disk can't "run".

Brookshw

2014-09-13, 12:30 PM

My apologies; I get frustrated when people seem not to even be seeing my arguments, or to be reacting to them like I wrote them in some dialect of Klingon in which they are not proficient, and that may be showing. I assure you that my mental tone, in my own head, remained philosophical, if perhaps a bit intense. Oh we're most certainly listening, apologies from this side if you thought you were being ignored.

I believe the key point of contention here is the sentence

If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you. I believe this can be represented as:
Not[Otherwise directed] = [Constant interval of 5 feet].
Here I think you've made an invalid inference by asserting that you're permitted to move it in other fashions. The proper inversion I believe should be
[Otherwise directed] = Not[Constant interval of 5 feet].
By this the only thing that changes is the constant interval. The argument you've put forth as I'm understanding you breaks would work itself out as
[Otherwise directed] = Not [Constant interval]
Not [Constant interval] = Not [Follow]

However [Constant interval] =/= [Follow] which is where it gets problematic. These two phrases would have to have equivalency if you were to be correct, but I don't see evidence for such a thing.

Further I think there's some evidence to be gained from Greater Floating Disk (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/floating-disk-greater--4520/)
This spell functions like _Tenser's Floating disk (PH 294), except that the created disk does not need to stay within 3 feet of the surface beneath it. However, the disk must remain within 15 feet of you at all times. You can concentrate (as a standard action) on the disk to make it move with a fly speed of 20 feet (perfect). This allows you to sit on the disk and command it to carry you about. Emphasis mine.

The distinction between the two, normal and greater version, specifies that it's the introduction of a flight speed that allows you to ride it around. If the capacity existed in the normal version for it to carry you around there would be no reason to include the sentence "This allows you to sit on the disk and command it to carry you around".

Dalebert

2014-09-13, 04:56 PM

I believe this can be represented as:
Not[Otherwise directed] = [Constant interval of 5 feet].
Here I think you've made an invalid inference by asserting that you're permitted to move it in other fashions. The proper inversion I believe should be
[Otherwise directed] = Not[Constant interval of 5 feet].
By this the only thing that changes is the constant interval. The argument you've put forth as I'm understanding you breaks would work itself out as
[Otherwise directed] = Not [Constant interval]
Not [Constant interval] = Not [Follow]

I understand the logic but it seems like you're over-thinking it. If they really cared, I think they would have specified instead of just leaving every reader to do that logic puzzle above, such as "Your only control over the movement of the disk is to change the size of the interval it follows you from." That once sentence would resolve this IF they thought there was possible ambiguity.

Further I think there's some evidence to be gained from Greater Floating Disk (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/floating-disk-greater--4520/)

I honestly don't think that means much. There's not much at all to be gained by riding the 1st level version whereas the other allows personal flight. Aside from some rare and very context-dependent circumstances, being able to ride on a disk that can't be higher than 3 feet and can't move any faster than you is fairly useless. If they cared about you not doing it, they'd have specified with one or two additional sentences in the desc rather than leaving ambiguous. I posit that pointing out the caster can ride this one isn't to say you can't ride the other as much as not seeing any point in doing so due to its significant limitations compared to the higher level version. There's really almost never a point in riding the 1st level version other than maybe style points.

Brookshw

2014-09-14, 08:36 AM

I understand the logic but it seems like you're over-thinking it. If they really cared, I think they would have specified instead of just leaving every reader to do that logic puzzle above, such as "Your only control over the movement of the disk is to change the size of the interval it follows you from." That once sentence would resolve this IF they thought there was possible ambiguity. Well no, it' takes very little thinking to assume that when they say "follows you" they mean "follows you" rather than having to trick out some other meaning of what the spell does. The above is rather a responses to attempts to infer additional properties that wouldn't be necessary since, if they really cared they could have said "direct able" rather than follow. They probably decided that there was some ambiguity though considering they clarified in the FAQ that while you can sit on it, it can't fly you around. Not really sure what you're getting at here since it's not providing any evidence that it can be used to Yoda chair.

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a515/brookshw/aed02191-c2a0-478e-9a4c-b72adbc8381d_zps66b8598d.png

Editors not: Perform: Dance, Gungam Style can now be used to substitute for a ride check.

I honestly don't think that means much. There's not much at all to be gained by riding the 1st level version whereas the other allows personal flight. Aside from some rare and very context-dependent circumstances, being able to ride on a disk that can't be higher than 3 feet and can't move any faster than you is fairly useless. If they cared about you not doing it, they'd have specified with one or two additional sentences in the desc rather than leaving ambiguous. I posit that pointing out the caster can ride this one isn't to say you can't ride the other as much as not seeing any point in doing so due to its significant limitations compared to the higher level version. There's really almost never a point in riding the 1st level version other than maybe style points. You honestly don't think that when they called out the differences between the greater and normal version, that specifying your ability to ride it around is a function of the greater not present in the normal, means much? Okay...

Not sure where you getting to with the rest there, it's the RAW that's under dispute, not how much of a game breaking effect it would have if you could fly around on a normal floating disk. Anyway, since one of the things specified in the normal version but is present in the greater is, in addition to being able to ride it around, is the concentration and move action requirement, if you could fly around on the normal version that would give you a mount and edge in the action economy, not some rare and context dependent circumstance. Additional advantages against trip attacks since you'd be sitting (I'd certainly call that a stabilization bonus) and could defend yourself with a ride check (okay, ride's probably not a caster's bread and butter). Ignoring difficult terrain so no movement penalties for transversing it gives you better abilities to kite things around and it's harder to be followed, couldn't be tracked, able to avoid ground based traps, eh, I could go on but they're not rare and pretty common for many cases.

Dalebert

2014-09-14, 09:15 AM

You honestly don't think that when they called out the differences between the greater and normal version, that specifying your ability to ride it around is a function of the greater not present in the normal, means much? Okay...

Not sure where you getting to with the rest there, it's the RAW that's under dispute, not how much of a game breaking effect it would have if you could fly around on a normal floating disk.

I was trying to get at the RAW. I was disputing the reason why they mention riding on the greater version. You said it was verifying that you can't ride the other. I thought they mention it because they don't expect you to have any particular reason to ride the crappier version because it's about the same as walking. But you did point out some good reasons that I honestly hadn't thought of. I'm inclined to agree that you shouldn't be able to ride it around given those.

Where is this FAQ that clarifies this? That could have settled it rather quickly. I DLed the PH3.5 FAQ and did a search for "floating" with no result.

nyjastul69

2014-09-14, 09:43 AM

I was trying to get at the RAW. I was disputing the reason why they mention riding on the greater version. You said it was verifying that you can't ride the other. I thought they mention it because they don't expect you to have any particular reason to ride the crappier version because it's about the same as walking. But you did point out some good reasons that I honestly hadn't thought of. I'm inclined to agree that you shouldn't be able to ride it around given those.

Where is this FAQ that clarifies this? That could have settled it rather quickly. I DLed the PH3.5 FAQ and did a search for "floating" with no result.
I found a post on another forum claiming it is on page 91 of the 3.5 D&D FAQ. They quoted the bit I'm quoting.

FAQ quote
Can you ride your own Tenser’s floating disk?
No. While you could command your Tenser’s floating disk to move close enough for you to sit upon it, it has no ability to move under its own power. It can follow you only at a maximum rate equal to your normal speed.

I understand the FAQ's relevance as a rules/reference document. I also can't open the FAQ file on my phone so I can't confirm whether the quote I posted is accurate.

Segev

2014-09-14, 10:20 AM

I do not think we are going to come to agreement. This is not to dismiss your point, but to acknowledge that we fundamentally disagree on that one sentence.

I still contend that, absent language specifying that it "follows you at a constant disatnce, the first sentence is not restrictive, but descriptive of a default behavior.

The restrictions of how you may direct it are clearly spelled out: it cannot move faster than your normal speed, and if it moves outside of the spell's range from you, it winks out.

It also includes no rules for randomizing (or determining fromexternal conditions) direction of motion if you are on it, whih your interpretation would seem to require.

Still, clearly the FAQ writer agreed with you in at least what he thought the intent was.

As for the call-out in Greater Floating Disk, it could indicate that the writer of that spell thought that the lesser version forbade it, but that does no make it so. It notably does not say, either, that it allows riding "unlike Floating Disk," so the call-out could be in reference to the fact that its above the ground flight speed can carry you aloft, but only at he reduced speed of 20ft.

Brookshw

2014-09-14, 10:53 AM

Brookshw

2014-09-14, 01:03 PM

@Dalebert: just returned to a computer and the need to correct myself, it's on page 89 of the 3.5 FAQ (http://wizards.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/33604/0/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNDEwNzE2NTE3L3NpZC9neGlxa28ybQ==/filename/Main35FAQv03142008.zip), not 91.

I do not think we are going to come to agreement. This is not to dismiss your point, but to acknowledge that we fundamentally disagree on that one sentence. Well if we disagree then we disagree, which is fine.

I still contend that, absent language specifying that it "follows you at a constant distance, the first sentence is not restrictive, but descriptive of a default behavior. Well, I don't much feel like repeating myself so I'll just go with it doesn't say you can ride it so that's probably a good indicator that that's not a function of the spell, this is covered by the rules of the game articles (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040907a) as well as, well, the rules themselves. It doesn't really need to discuss you're ability to breath or anything else not impacted by the spell.

The restrictions of how you may direct it are clearly spelled out: it cannot move faster than your normal speed, and if it moves outside of the spell's range from you, it winks out. Er, not quite again considering the otherwise directed is not said in relation to anything about the speeds and is in fact said later in the passage. Seems odd to place it after the speed thing if you want it to have any affect on that.

It also includes no rules for randomizing (or determining fromexternal conditions) direction of motion if you are on it, whih your interpretation would seem to require. Again, not quite. My assertion was that it doesn't move other than by following you (or changing it's following distance I suppose), so if you sit on it it's not going anywhere (c'mon, I even did a spoiler pic for this!), also that it lacks an internal capacity for movement which seems confirmed by the greater version. Not sure where the randomization bit you've interpreted is coming from, at least I don't think I've indicated it randomizes somehow.

As for the call-out in Greater Floating Disk, it could indicate that the writer of that spell thought that the lesser version forbade it, but that does no make it so. It notably does not say, either, that it allows riding "unlike Floating Disk," so the call-out could be in reference to the fact that its above the ground flight speed can carry you aloft, but only at he reduced speed of 20ft. Well,....it does say: "[Functions like TFD] except [. . .]This allows you to sit on the disk and command it to carry you about.". It even gives the action required to command it to carry you which has no parallel in the normal version.

Anyway, I think we've gone through the evidence as it can best be presented.

bekeleven

2014-09-14, 01:21 PM

"I'm going to make you some lemonade. Unless otherwise directed, I'll make lemonade with ice."

Sweet, I'm asking for a coke.

Segev

2014-09-14, 02:21 PM

"I'm going to make you some lemonade. Unless otherwise directed, I'll make lemonade with ice."

Sweet, I'm asking for a coke.

Flawed analogy; it doesn't say "it follows" in the second clause. Only in the first. The second says "it maintains a distance."

A more accurate analogy would be: "I will bring you some lemonade. Unless otherwise directed, I'll put it on the table to your left, in arm's reach."

"Thanks! Could you put it on the table in front of me, though? I don't mind leaning over to get it, and that way I won't knock it over if I reach for the remote that's also on the table to my left."

bekeleven

2014-09-14, 03:35 PM

Flawed analogy; it doesn't say "it follows" in the second clause. Only in the first. The second says "it maintains a distance."

A more accurate analogy would be: "I will bring you some lemonade. Unless otherwise directed, I'll put it on the table to your left, in arm's reach."

"Thanks! Could you put it on the table in front of me, though? I don't mind leaning over to get it, and that way I won't knock it over if I reach for the remote that's also on the table to my left."
Whether it follows is the part we're arguing about, in that you say it's optional whereas by my reading it's not. In my example, it was the lemonade itself. We're not disputing the second sentence, only whether it invalidates the first.

If it doesn't say "it follows" in the second instance, then wouldn't a more accurate analogy be, "I'm going to make you lemonade. Unless otherwise directed, I'm going to add ice." This represents the fact that the first sentence is stating the clause under discussion (drink type, whether it follows you) and the second states an option you can choose, which you pointed out doesn't mention said clause at all (ice, or follow distance).

Hmm, that seems a bit unfairly tilted. Feel free to tweak the analogy yourself, but keep in mind that we're discussing whether the first clause, non-choice clause, applies, in light of the second (choice-giving) clause. So the second clause (as you mentioned) doesn't mention the first clause, but provides agency that arguably could override it.

I'm not sure how to simplify that.

Segev

2014-09-14, 04:59 PM

Except that your analogy still implies much more strongly the direct link of "the ice goes in the lemonade," because you have to have something to which to add. Floating Disk not only separates it by an additional sentence or two, which changes the context, but also has the sentences stand on their own. The implied necessity of an antecedent is absent. "It floats along at no more than your normal speed each round. Unless otherwise directed, it maintains a distance of 5 ft." These sentences make sense on their own, individually or together, and thus are not dependent on the first one. Your analogy's second sentence makes no sense without the first. "Unless otherwise directed, I'll add ice," raises a lot of questions, because it's not a complete thought. "It floats along within range" is a complete thought on its own. Your analogy is not analogous.

But they're right; this is a thread on Prestidigitation, not Floating Disk.

Vortenger

2014-09-14, 06:34 PM

In truth, I'm fascinated by the discussion. Segev's interpretation is entirely valid, and I'd never thought of using the disk in such a fashion. That being said, this subject takes up about a page. Perhaps move to a new thread so I can continue to eat popcorn and learn more about spell interpretation?

edit: Hey, that thing I suggested happened! Thanks, mods!

Brookshw

2014-09-14, 08:54 PM

In truth, I'm fascinated by the discussion. Segev's interpretation is entirely valid, and I'd never thought of using the disk in such a fashion. That being said, this subject takes up about a page. Perhaps move to a new thread so I can continue to eat popcorn and learn more about spell interpretation?

Start the thread and link to it and we'll see :smallwink:

Stella

2014-09-15, 04:49 AM

I think you're trolling but I'll try one more time to explain gravity. It's this thing that is constantly exerting a force on everything and pulling objects down toward the Earth all the time. The spell says you can slowly lift 1 lb, presumably by concentrating on where you want the object to go (like up). How else would you be controlling the movement if not by concentration? When you stop lifting, it falls. It's just like if you lift something with your hand but when you let go, it falls unless you placed it on something. Absent gravity, it would kinda stay there indefinitely, but there's gravity in most places in Pathfinder.
Close. Prestidigitation requires no concentration. But the spell description specifically details that it can only lift "1 pound of material." It is well within the RAW to conclude that this 1 pound of material is the spell Target at the time of casting, and it cannot be changed as there is no mention of such a change within the spell description. So if the object is allowed to fall, it falls. And then can be lifted again, until the spell expires. So, no cloud of daggers floating around you, because that would require one Prestidigitation spell per dagger.

It could be argued that the spell allows for a change in Target based upon the text which allows the spell to "color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round," but this text does not make clear whether the area being cleaned actually moves, or if the spell only creates a fixed 1-foot cube "dishwasher" area (for example, it could be a 1-foot cube "tie die" area or a 1-foot cube "make dirty" area instead) where people can pass dishes in and out of until the spell expires in order to clean them. (This would be quite handy IRL, BTW) The definition of spell Area suggests to me that the second is the case (a fixed spell Area set at the time of casting), and this limitation appears to be in line with both the RAW for spell Area and the RAI for Prestidigitation.

On to Floating Disk!

If you are standing on it, you move with it, and it thus literally cannot move out of range.
Yes, you can stand on your own Floating Disk. And it "will accompany you" as per the spell description. If you are standing on the 3' diameter Floating Disk, you cannot move far without stepping off of it. And then you are right back where you were before you stood upon it: The Disk "will accompany you" as you move. There is no case where you can both move and have the Disk "accompany you" as well while you stand upon it, since it only "accompanies you" as you move, and you cannot move without stepping off of it. The "If not otherwise directed" clause only describes how the caster can make the interval in which the Disk accompanies her greater or less than the default of 5 feet, should she so wish. It does not even hint that the Disk can move when the caster does not also move, other than to shorten or length this distance. And shortening or lengthening this accompanying distance does not make the Disk capable of moving when the caster does not move.

Segev

2014-09-15, 09:00 AM

Close. Prestidigitation requires no concentration. But the spell description specifically details that it can only lift "1 pound of material." It is well within the RAW to conclude that this 1 pound of material is the spell Target at the time of casting, and it cannot be changed as there is no mention of such a change within the spell description. So if the object is allowed to fall, it falls. And then can be lifted again, until the spell expires. So, no cloud of daggers floating around you, because that would require one Prestidigitation spell per dagger.Another poster already said this, but it bears repeating: Prestidigitation specifies that YOU can perform EFFECTS, not that it is cast upon a target. It more properly should have a Target of Personal, because of how it actually works, but if it makes you feel better, what is really happening is that, upon casting it, you gain unlimited "spell slots" for an hour with which to cast these minor-effect spells.

So, yes, you can get your cloud of floating daggers. Can't move them as a group, but you can get them all up into the air, with enough time. They'll just hang there until somebody moves them or the spell expires.

On to Floating Disk!

Yes, you can stand on your own Floating Disk. And it "will accompany you" as per the spell description. If you are standing on the 3' diameter Floating Disk, you cannot move far without stepping off of it. And then you are right back where you were before you stood upon it: The Disk "will accompany you" as you move.While I acknowledge there's a bit of a "chicken and egg" thing going on here, it can be argued that your car is "accompanying you" to whatever destination you drive it. Same thing going on here.

There is no case where you can both move and have the Disk "accompany you" as well while you stand upon it, since it only "accompanies you" as you move, and you cannot move without stepping off of it.First off, you ARE moving if it moves and you're sitting on it. Or are you arguing that getting in your car and driving it to the store leaves you still in your driveway?

Secondly, there's no "as you move" clause in the sentence. It doesn't require you to move to command the disk to; the only restriction is that the disk must stay within range and that it cannot move faster than your normal movement speed.

The "If not otherwise directed" clause only describes how the caster can make the interval in which the Disk accompanies her greater or less than the default of 5 feet, should she so wish.Such has been claimed, but there is not adequate evidence in the text to state this definitively. "Remains within 5 ft." as a default behavior in no way dictates that the only thing it can be "otherwise directed" to do is move out to a different distance, especially not with the clause in the prior sentence stating that it "floats along horizontally within spell range."

It does not even hint that the Disk can move when the caster does not also move, other than to shorten or length this distance.Sure it does. It says it "floats along horizontally within spell range," which is a separate and distinct clause that forms a complete thought independent of any references to the caster moving. It does go on to say "and will accompany you," but that is again a separate clause. To be restrictive in the manner you're ascribing to it, it would have to say something like, "It floats along horizontally within spell range as it accompanies you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round. It maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you unless you direct it to maintain a different distance."

And shortening or lengthening this accompanying distance does not make the Disk capable of moving when the caster does not move.If that is what the spell said in restrictive language, you'd be right. But that would also lead to a counter-intuitive situation where the caster has to be careful where, relative to himself, he initially casts it, lest he wind up with it on the wrong side of him for convenient positioning for loading or unloading. It also raises the question of whether it maintains relative position on the absolute grid, or relative position to his facing. I think the default would be the former, by the RAW, but I could be mistaken.

Regardless, the most sensible reading of the RAW remains the one that leads to the fewest silly situations, even if it allows a minor benefit of not having to touch the ground while drifting regally over a surface. It does not contradict anything in the spell's text, and has the fewest (and least confusing) (potentially) unintended consequences.

But I am pretty sure I've said nothing new in this post, so I recommend people make sure they're posting something new before trying to rebut it. We are, after all, in a Prestidigitation thread, not a Floating Disk one.

Brookshw

2014-09-15, 09:41 AM

Segev

2014-09-15, 10:39 AM

Yeah, floating disk could use its own thread at this point.

And come now, you're making this a bit personal when you dismiss other arguments as silly or leading to silly situations. I'll save my refutations for another thread should anyone care enough to continue this debate.

I don't dismiss the argument as silly. I said it led to a somewhat silly situation. By which I mean, I can see it leaading to comical rather than dramatic practical difficulties. If it were a TV series, these complications are of the sort that I could see in the light-hearted, get-a-laugh-out-of-the-audience scenes more than in the take-this-seriously-it-is-a-dramatic-adventure scenes. Of course, comic drawbacks can be played for drama, but they still lend a certain amount of Joss Whedon light-heartedness to it.

I apologize if anybody took it personally; I do understand the position and even agree it is a valid way to read the RAW. I just think it's the wrong choice of how to interpret it based on the fact that it leads to more complications and more "woops, ha-ha, you have to dance around to get it positioned right and maybe can't even get it where you want it, so we have to do this awkwardly" situations if you play it out as interpreted. If I have to choose between an unintended consequence that lends itself to smoother, more dramatic gameplay and unintended consequence that lends itself to awkward complications that will tend to tickle the funny-bone, and the spell is not presented in a tongue-in-cheek fashion hinting that such humor is intended, I will tend towards the less complex, more played-straight interpretation that treats it seriously. And I stand by my belief that that is the more correct way to do it by the RAW, as the other is more the rules-lawyer approach of shoehorning a desired effect in (or out, as the case may be).

Believe me, I am all for rules-lawyering as a mental exercise, and even to force a character to be more what somebody wants it to be. However, if you have two interpretations of a rule, and one is more straight-forward and has fewer inobvious consequences or odd results, my thesis is that the more straight-forward reading is the right one. I feel mine is the more straight-forward reading as it does not cause facing to become important in a spell where facing is never mentioned (amongst other things).

Dalebert

2014-09-15, 01:34 PM

Because it doesn't belong in the Prestidigitation thread and because no one else seems to have done so yet, I made a new thread.

I don't dismiss the argument as silly. I said it led to a somewhat silly situation.

I know I expressed the same concern but I'm not sure if it's that big a deal. I can picture some situations where the disk is as much as 5 ft away from where would be ideal for your purposes. Maybe you have to carry the treasure a few feet, but the general idea of this spell is that you're loading it up with treasure that would otherwise be too heavy to deal with, maybe piles of gold coins or just hefting a whole chest up onto it.

What I have been convinced of is that it's too powerful to be able to ride it. (BTW, how does this compare to just casting Mount? How many of the benefits given would still apply or not?) I think a simpler solution, if you're concerned about the awkward situations of trying to position it as needed, is go ahead and house rule that you can command it about but not while you're on it. That would take care of it being too powerful.

Side note: I'm curious what happens if it goes over the edge of a cliff? Let's say I'm flying and it follows me over the edge. Does it fall quickly at the normal rate of gravity and then come to a stop suddenly 3 ft above the ground? Does it fall Feather Fall rate (potentially reading extra abilities in that aren't specified well)? Does it wink out and reappear or just wink out?

Dalebert

2014-09-15, 01:41 PM

Yeah, it really doesn't belong here and as far as I can tell no one else has made the new thread so here you go.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372094-Floating-Disk-ongoing-debate

Jowgen

2014-09-15, 02:28 PM

Brookshw

2014-09-15, 02:30 PM

Thanks for starting the thread Dalebert. For those just tuning in the conversation starts at post 113 of this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370480-DM-s-Call-Prestidigitation/page4) and continues into the 6th page. The crux of the discussion is if the normal version of Floating Disk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/floatingDisk.htm) can be ridden and directed around.I've asked Glyphstone to move over to this thread relevant posts.

As to your questions, mount (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mount.htm)summons a creature and behaves as one for all intensive purposes which is definitely a big difference considering it could be killed fairly easily to negate any advantage, could be tracked, trigger traps, etc.

Re: the side note question I believe based on the line "The disk also winks out if you move beyond range or try to take the disk more than 3 feet away from the surface beneath it" that getting it off a cliff somehow would negate the bolded part and cause it to wink out.

Trasilor

2014-09-15, 02:37 PM

Because it doesn't belong in the Prestidigitation thread.

I know I expressed the same concern but I'm not sure if it's that big a deal. I can picture some situations where the disk is as much as 5 ft away from where would be ideal for your purposes. Maybe you have to carry the treasure a few feet, but the general idea of this spell is that you're loading it up with treasure that would otherwise be too heavy to deal with, maybe piles of gold coins or just hefting a whole chest up onto it.

What I have been convinced of is that it's too powerful to be able to ride it. (BTW, how does this compare to just casting Mount? How many of the benefits given would still apply or not?) I think a simpler solution, if you're concerned about the awkward situations of trying to position it as needed, is go ahead and house rule that you can command it about but not while you're on it. That would take care of it being too powerful.

Side note: I'm curious what happens if it goes over the edge of a cliff? Let's say I'm flying and it follows me over the edge. Does it fall quickly at the normal rate of gravity and then come to a stop suddenly 3 ft above the ground? Does it fall Feather Fall rate (potentially reading extra abilities in that aren't specified well)? Does it wink out and reappear or just wink out?

Regarding Side Note:

The disk also winks out if you move beyond range or try to take the disk more than 3 feet away from the surface beneath it. When the disk winks out, whatever it was supporting falls to the surface beneath it.

So, it cannot go over the cliff without the caster commanding it. At which time it winks out of existence and all the stuff on it plummets to the bottom.

I guess, in the loosest readings, a caster could ride the disk. It moves at your speed within the spells area of effect which is constantly moving.

But, if that is the case, you could use the disk to knock down walls - it states how much weight it can support, not how much force it exerts horizontally. As such, the horizontal force could be infinite. Furthermore, as the disk has no third dimension (it is a plane three feet across and a 1 inch deep at center - like a concave lens), It could be used as a tool to slice into anything above three feet (think of a blade with an infinitely small edge slipping through the molecules).

If this is the case, this then becomes the most powerful level 1 spell in game...an invisible force that can literally slice you in half which ignores all armor.

EDIT: Dang swordsage'd

Segev

2014-09-15, 02:38 PM

From a balance standpoint, I don't think it's too powerful to let it carry you. It's never going to be FASTER than you could walk, and at best it serves as a way to cross hard-to-traverse terrain. Nice, but not game-breaking. Especially since ANY of our interpretations would allow you to set it up with two casters standing on each others' disks to move in this same fashion.

Caster A and Caster B set their disks adjacent to each other. Caster A commands his to move away from him, while Caster B leaves his at the default "maintain 5 ft." Both slide that direction. Steering is accomplished by turning so the position of the disks relative to each other changes. Sillier solutions with a single one would involve such things as dangling the wizard like a fish off of a 10-foot pole held out by the party fighter as the wizard commands the disk to move away from him. The fighter steers by using the wizard as a rudder.

Mount is still generally better, as it moves faster and without need for direction. It also lasts for twice as long. The Floating Disk is only a superior form of transport if you need to get over terrain without touching it. It is a superior carry-all because it doesn't take up as much space and is just an efficient platform on which to store stuff.

Trasilor

2014-09-15, 02:46 PM

I have heard the argument that the disk simply has no propulsion mechanism beyond the caster's movement, only moving in relation to the caster. In order for it to be functional as an improvised mount, one must accept the notion that the caster can sacrifice his own would-be movement in order to have the Disk move instead. Arguments for this base themselves on it taking a move-action to direct a spell-effect, and the "unless otherwise directed" clause.

I personally think there are ways to get mount-ish use out of the disk without having to accept that the caster can actively direct the disk's movement. Any method that could be used to propel oneself forward while under the effect of the levitation spell ought to work, as the disk levitates and thusly does not exert any form of pressure on the ground beneath while one sits on it. The cheapest non-magical method I can think of is using some sort of paddle. For simple magical means, an Unseen Servant ought to do (limited speed though).

Another potential method, dependent on how detailed the "otherwise directed" directions can be, is to direct the disk to maintain its position relative to a specific part of the caster's body, rather than the whole caster. If the disk is directed to stay centred under the caster's left hand, then the caster sitting on the disk could make the disk move forward by simply extending his hand over the edge of the 3-foot disk. The disk would then move at its maximum speed to try and centre itself under the palm of his left hand, moving the caster, thusly creating indefinite propulsion in the direction of the hand. Think the cartoon cliche of getting someone to move by dangling food in front of them with a fishing rod.

Floating disk moves anywhere the caster designates within close range. If you assume close range includes Range of 0 then a cast could easily ride atop the disk and command it to move 30 feet forward (well within close range). Nothing in rules states that you must move it in relation to you (the caster) - just that it moves anywhere within the caster's range. In fact, per the rules, you could command it to move beyond your range - at which point it winks out of existence - unless you move before it get there. And if you are sitting on it - well, it can never be out of your range. :smallamused:

Now, this does not mean you can go everywhere on a floating disk. It only works 3 feet above ground. If we take the position that ground = earth (not the floor under your feet), the spell fails when you are in a building, over water deeper than 3 feet, on a ship, in a shop with a basement, etc. Although the latter might be a good way to find trap doors :smallamused:

Jowgen

2014-09-15, 03:01 PM

Sillier solutions with a single one would involve such things as dangling the wizard like a fish off of a 10-foot pole held out by the party fighter as the wizard commands the disk to move away from him. The fighter steers by using the wizard as a rudder.

I suppose that does get around the issue whether the disk can be directed to remain a certain distance from a certain part of the caster's body.

One method of making the disk a faster method of transportation than a mount is if you have a flying friend that can either cast Floating Disk (e.g. share spells on Familiar) or activate a tenser's floating disk (e.g Raven and Pseudodragon familiar, I believe). If the critters casts it and moves at its full fly-speed, you can simply sit on it as it moves with the critter; covering long distances without having to consider terrain or rest (critter ought to be construct or undead for maximum usefullness).

Brookshw

2014-09-15, 03:18 PM

Floating disk moves anywhere the caster designates within close range. : This need to have evidence and so far all we've seen is an ability to direct it in relation to the distance it maintains.

Sith_Happens

2014-09-15, 03:21 PM

Wild idea appears!

1. Be standing on your Floating Disk.
2. Direct it to maintain a distance of 0 feet.
3. Jump up to your speed.
4. The disk will move so as to catch you.

Zaq

2014-09-15, 03:37 PM

Wild idea appears!

1. Be standing on your Floating Disk.
2. Direct it to maintain a distance of 0 feet.
3. Jump up to your speed.
4. The disk will move so as to catch you.

No good. It specifies that it can't be more than 3 feet off the ground.

EDIT: Oh, you mean a horizontal jump? I interpreted you as meaning "jump straight up, and the disc will move upward to catch you." If you mean a horizontal jump check, that might work. It relies on interpreting how fast the disc moves after you, I guess. Of course, good luck jumping very far without a running start . . .

Jowgen

2014-09-15, 03:37 PM

Wild idea appears!

1. Be standing on your Floating Disk.
2. Direct it to maintain a distance of 0 feet.
3. Jump up to your speed.
4. The disk will move so as to catch you.

I would have pointed out the difficulty of moving your full speed with a single jump-check, but then realized that jumping, while part of your movement, is not limited as to how many you can do in a round. If all you need to do is jump 5 feet 6 times each turn, the standing jump DC for that is 10... which you can get by taking 10.

You'll look silly as hell, but less silly than when dangling off a fish hook, and it's a lot more rule-tight than my 'direct to stay under appendage' idea. Kudos.

Dalebert

2014-09-15, 03:47 PM

Yeah, it really doesn't belong here and as far as I can tell no one else has made the new thread so here you go.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372094-Floating-Disk-ongoing-debate

This link to the new thread probably should have stayed in the old thread. :) I realize he had a lot of messages to sift through. It's understandable.

Mount is still generally better, as it moves faster and without need for direction. It also lasts for twice as long. The Floating Disk is only a superior form of transport if you need to get over terrain without touching it. It is a superior carry-all because it doesn't take up as much space and is just an efficient platform on which to store stuff.

I don't think it takes up less space if you are a small character because you can ride a medium-sized mount, at least in PF. Not certain if that applies in 3.5.

Wild idea appears!

1. Be standing on your Floating Disk.
2. Direct it to maintain a distance of 0 feet.
3. Jump up to your speed.
4. The disk will move so as to catch you.

I believe you, Sir, have found a work-around for all us folks who want to use their disk in a The Floor is Lava game. :smallbiggrin:

Segev

2014-09-15, 03:53 PM

This need to have evidence and so far all we've seen is an ability to direct it in relation to the distance it maintains.

We do not have evidence that that is all that it can be directed to do. We only know what happens if it is not "otherwise directed."

Or, rather, we do know that it "floats along within spell range," as well.

The crux of this particular debate is whether there is a hidden, unspoken rule in the "Unless otherwise directed" sentence which restricts this other "direction" to being simply distance-based, or whether "loats along horizontally within spell range" is saying that the caster can decide (i.e. direct) how it "floats along" as long as it is within the restrictions established by the spell (i.e. no faster than the caster's normal speed each round, stays within spell range, cannot go more than 3 ft. above the ground).

Segev

2014-09-15, 03:56 PM

Wild idea appears!

1. Be standing on your Floating Disk.
2. Direct it to maintain a distance of 0 feet.
3. Jump up to your speed.
4. The disk will move so as to catch you.

In case it needs pointing out, when jumping, if you jump farther than your normal speed could move you in one round, you actually "pause" in mid-air until your next turn, whereupon you continue your jump-caused movement. This means that you will move exactly as fast as the disk moves under you. This trick therefore works quite well, under any interpretation of the spell.

Troacctid

2014-09-15, 04:06 PM

The Vagabond

2014-09-15, 04:16 PM

You can also have someone else cast the Floating Disk spell and ride on it while it follows them around. Give a Talisman of the Disk to your familiar and it can shuttle you to and fro at your leisure. If they have a higher movement speed than you, the disk even moves to keep up! Seems good with a dragon familiar's flight speed.

Actually, you don't even need the talisman. You just need the familiar. Any spell with the target of "You" can be redirected to your familiar. So you can cast it on your familiar, and ride it that way.

Segev

2014-09-15, 04:18 PM

Vogonjeltz

2014-09-15, 04:19 PM

The crux of the discussion is if the normal version of Floating Disk can be ridden and directed around.

No, because it follows the caster, it's non-directable. I agree with your reasoning in the rest of your post as well.

Segev

2014-09-15, 04:19 PM

Actually, you don't even need the talisman. You just need the familiar. Any spell with the target of "You" can be redirected to your familiar. So you can cast it on your familiar, and ride it that way.

Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: 3-ft.-diameter disk of force

Unfortunately, Floating Disk doesn't target "you." Its effect is the disk itself, which appears (and, thanks to the text of the spell, "floats about horizontally within") Short range.

Segev

2014-09-15, 04:21 PM

No, because it follows the caster, it's non-directable. I agree with your reasoning in the rest of your post as well.

Except that the text of the spell says that it stays within five feet of the caster "unless otherwise directed." Since it can be "otherwise directed," it can be "directed." This means it is not "non-directable." That much, at least, is not in dispute.

Stella

2014-09-15, 06:34 PM

"woops, ha-ha, you have to dance around to get it positioned right and maybe can't even get it where you want it, so we have to do this awkwardly" situations if you play it out as interpreted.Except that this is something you have imagined which has no relationship to the RAW. The rules state that you can move it closer or farther away from you, and that will never make the caster have to "dance around" (a choice of words which seems to have been selected only to make the situation more comedic than it needs to be) the Disk except in a very tight space (given that the Disk is well under one game square in size. And in such a tight space there are simple rules for who can move through what kind of already occupied squares which are not at all awkward to follow.

Moving Around In Squares

In general, when the characters aren’t engaged in round-by-round combat, they should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could. A 5-foot square, for instance, can hold several characters; they just can’t all fight effectively in that small space. The rules for movement are important for combat, but outside combat they can impose unnecessary hindrances on character activities.
I don't see anything "awkward" or comedic ("woops, ha-ha", "dance around") about this description of movement in a tight space. Do you?

I also feel that the following spell text:

It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round.
Is a clear indicator that the Disk moves as the caster moves, and is not a car which has a motor capable of moving it separate from its magical property of following its caster or moving closer or farther away as directed by the caster. You car does not accompany you, it moves and you accompany it. If it did not move, you would not be capable of moving either, and this is the exact same situation between the caster and the Disk.

If the Disk had a separate motive speed it would have been listed. Instead it is limited to the casters speed, as the caster moves. Which makes a Dwarf Wizard with a speed of 20 able to move their 20 and have the Disk follow them at the set distance, and a Human Wizard 1/Monk3 with a speed of 40 able to move their 40 and have the Disk follow them at the set distance. The RAW is clear that the disk only moves as the caster moves, and while the caster is sitting on it there's no way for the Disk to move any further or closer to the caster, nor can the caster herself move without stepping (or falling) off of the Disk.

Troacctid

2014-09-15, 07:29 PM

Yeah, even a Raven has a 40 ft. fly speed, which is nice. A pseudodragon (improved familiar or cohort) has a fly speed of 60 ft. A white wyrmling dragon has a fly speed of 150 ft. Get any of them the ability to cast Floating Disk and they can fly you around at their speed.

Heck, the fishing-rod trick would work at their full speed. You could probably cook up something that was a little more dignified for a Tiny creature.

You can get 60 feet from a hawk, no need for improved familiar. If you do have improved familiar, air elementals are faster than pseudodragons, but it might be better to go with something like the imp that can go invisible to keep itself safe.

...

2014-09-15, 07:46 PM

Dalebert

2014-09-15, 07:58 PM

I think the only overpowered part about flying on a disc is that you could use it to negate falling damage. Falling off a cliff? Just cast Floating Disk and you'll be able to hop off three feet above the ground with no penalty.

I believe we settled that earlier. The disk winks out if you attempt to make it go more than 3 feet above the ground. So if you go off a cliff or try to create more than that high, it winks out.

...

2014-09-15, 07:59 PM

I believe we settled that earlier. The disk winks out if you attempt to make it go more than 3 feet above the ground. So if you go off a cliff or try to create more than that high, it winks out.

Really? I would have thought it would simply fall. Can you show me where this was found?

Dalebert

2014-09-15, 08:06 PM

Really? I would have thought it would simply fall. Can you show me where this was found?

From the description in the SRD:

The disk also winks out if you move beyond range or try to take the disk more than 3 feet away from the surface beneath it.

...

2014-09-15, 08:36 PM

From the description in the SRD:

Thanks. I would normally try to argue that it could work if you had it start over 3 feet in the air, but I think that's a case of rule 0.

Stella

2014-09-15, 09:00 PM

I would normally try to argue that it could work if you had it start over 3 feet in the air, but I think that's a case of rule 0.
How is this in any way Rule 0? RAW is RAW, and three feet is three feet.

The disk also winks out if you move beyond range or try to take the disk more than 3 feet away from the surface beneath it.

Cast the spell such that the Disk is greater than 3 feet above the ground, and it will wink out immediately upon appearing. Per RAW.

Sith_Happens

2014-09-15, 09:40 PM

In case it needs pointing out, when jumping, if you jump farther than your normal speed could move you in one round, you actually "pause" in mid-air until your next turn, whereupon you continue your jump-caused movement. This means that you will move exactly as fast as the disk moves under you. This trick therefore works quite well, under any interpretation of the spell.

Only if you're already used your standard/other move action. It's possible to jump twice your speed in a round by using up a double move.

...

2014-09-15, 09:48 PM

How is this in any way Rule 0? RAW is RAW, and three feet is three feet.

Cast the spell such that the Disk is greater than 3 feet above the ground, and it will wink out immediately upon appearing. Per RAW.

Well, technically, it wouldn't be moved anywhere, so that's a bit of a loophole.

Jack_Simth

2014-09-15, 09:54 PM

Here's a stupid question:
What happens when you're sitting on the edge of the disk (1.5 feet from the center of the disk) and direct it to follow you at a distance of 0 feet?

Jowgen

2014-09-15, 11:40 PM

Here's a stupid question:
What happens when you're sitting on the edge of the disk (1.5 feet from the center of the disk) and direct it to follow you at a distance of 0 feet?

In this specific scenario, nothing. The disk would be touching you, and at no point does it say that the distance measures distance from its centre, so the distance would be 0.

Earlier in this threat, I suggested that one potentially could direct the disk to move relative to a part of the caster's body, and use that to 'fishing rod bait' it into moving. In your scenario, you'd be directing the disk to keep a distance of zero from your toes, so as long as you don't dangle your feet underneath the disk, it would move in the direction your feet are pointing in an attempt to move at the distance you stipulated.

However, Sith_Happen's Jumping disk trick simply works much 'cleaner' than this.

Well, technically, it wouldn't be moved anywhere, so that's a bit of a loophole.

Additionally, the text only stipulates that it winks out if you (aka. the caster) tries to take it 3 feet away from the surface beneath it. Reading very literally, you could argue that this means that anyone or anything other than the caster can do whatever they want with the disk while it is within range of you (e.g., pick it up and use it as an improvised shield). I in no way shape or form support this ridiculous reading, I'm just saying.

What interests me personally is the use of the words "ground" and "surface" in the spell-text. To my knowledge, "Ground" is not particularly well defined in game terms, but would intuitively be taken to mean anything that you can simply walk on. "Surface" on the other hand would most definitely include liquid surfaces like water as well as semi-liquid surfaces like lava.

The question here is simple: assuming you have some means of propulsion (e.g. disk jumping, unseen servant), could you use the disk as a personal floating boat?

EDIT: Also, while I'm at it: lying prone under the disk to gain cover against... certainly attacks from straight above, likely from anywhere above ground, maybe against attacks from larger than small land-based attacks.

nyjastul69

2014-09-16, 12:36 AM

Well, technically, it wouldn't be moved anywhere, so that's a bit of a loophole.

The disc doesn't need to be moved to wink out. It winks out once there is a distance greater than 3 ft above the ground.

Segev

2014-09-16, 01:02 AM

Except that this is something you have imagined which has no relationship to the RAW. The rules state that you can move it closer or farther away from you, and that will never make the caster have to "dance around" (a choice of words which seems to have been selected only to make the situation more comedic than it needs to be) the Disk except in a very tight space (given that the Disk is well under one game square in size. And in such a tight space there are simple rules for who can move through what kind of already occupied squares which are not at all awkward to follow.I think you've misunderstood under what conditions I expect the wizard to have to dance around. Let me attempt to clarify:

First, let's assume the spell ignores facing; it treats the grid as the absolute space within which to move relative to you. I will assume for this example, as well, that you're right - the disk can only move when you move, except to move closer or further away from you. Let's assume that the grid is arranged such that the squares form rank and file in the cardinal directions. You choose to cast the spell and place the disk one square North of you. You move to the East one square, and it also moves to the East one square. Move North one square, and it does the same. No matter how you move, as long as you move no faster than your normal speed each round, it remains one square North of you.

Now, you decide to command it to move out to 25 feet from you. It moves 4 squares North, per your instructions, and will maintain that position relative to you no matter how you move (barring speed getting too high again). Next, you decide that you want to stand at the edge of the cliff to your North and look down. Because you don't want the disk to wink out by going over the cliff, you command it to move to 0 ft. from you. You have to stand on it when it comes into your square.

We now come to our first oddity under your interpretation of the rules: What happens if, while you are standing on it, you command it to move 10 feet away from you? You cannot command a direction, per your interpretation of the RAW. Nowhere in the RAW are randomization rules, nor any other rules for determining a direction of motion in this situation, provided. You'd have to invent them. But the RAW explicitly state, if nothing else, that if you stop directing it otherwise, it will maintain a distance of 5 ft. from you. How does it do that with you standing on it if you choose to stop directing it to be 0 ft. from you?

But let's assume you don't care to give it that command in a way that confuses it, so you carefully command it to maintain a distance from you based on how far from it you're moving as you step down. You have finally managed to choose to change its direction wrt you. Let's say you step off it to the West while commanding it to move away from you, placing it to your East. Now if you order it away, it moves East, as that's directly away from you.

In order to position it in a direction from you other than the one with which you started, you had to hop up on it and walk carefully off of it in the opposite direction from that which you wished it to maintain wrt you. That's what I mean by "dancing around."

I don't see anything "awkward" or comedic ("woops, ha-ha", "dance around") about this description of movement in a tight space. Do you?There was no tight space in my above example, but it required hopping up on the disk to get it moved to a new relative direction. If the disk has stuff piled on it, that isn't even an option. If you had a small pile of loot filling most of the space on it, you couldn't move up next to the cliff face at all without trying to dance on top of the loot pile and hoping you didn't dislodge stuff onto the floor, since that's the only way to change its direction relative to you.

I also feel that the following spell text:

It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round.

Is a clear indicator that the Disk moves as the caster moves, and is not a car which has a motor capable of moving it separate from its magical property of following its caster or moving closer or farther away as directed by the caster. You car does not accompany you, it moves and you accompany it. If it did not move, you would not be capable of moving either, and this is the exact same situation between the caster and the Disk.So only one person is accompanying another when both go to the same destination? Is a father not accompanying his son if his son is piggy-back riding? Does that make his son an unaccompanied minor? You may think I'm being flippant, but my point is that the word "accompany" does not require the one accompanied to be the one actively providing the locomotion. If it did, then a carried child would never be accompanied by his parent. The child would be accompanying the parent, but not the other w

If the Disk had a separate motive speed it would have been listed. Instead it is limited to the casters speed, as the caster moves.It says it accompanies you at no more than your normal movement speed each round. That is its move speed. That is, in fact, a specified speed. I'll demonstrate this as part of my response to the following:

Which makes a Dwarf Wizard with a speed of 20 able to move their 20 and have the Disk follow them at the set distance, and a Human Wizard 1/Monk3 with a speed of 40 able to move their 40 and have the Disk follow them at the set distance.Absolutely. But if the Dwarf Wizard with a speed of 20 were to climb onto a horse and ride it at a speed of 50, the disk would not be able to keep up by the RAW, because it can accompany him at no more than his normal movement per round. The horse's speed is not the Dwarf's.

As a separate issue, I am not positive the Monk's enhancement bonus to speed counts as part of "your normal speed each round." Otherwise, would Haste and Expeditious Retreat and Boots of Striding and Springing be part of your "normal" speed? Or are they additions to it that make you have to be careful?

Regardless, the spell provides a speed for the disk; it cannot move faster than that. If you have it North of you and are moving North, if you try to go faster than your normal speed you will trip over it (or at least step over it). Another oddity: if you are moving towards it while it's ordered to maintain a distance of 20 feet from you, you'll overtake it if you move faster than your normal speed, and eventually have to step on and then over it. Once on the other side, it will move at your normal speed to be 20 feet on the other side of you. And then it will slowly be outpaced as you keep moving away from it until it leaves the spell range (this part isn't odd, it's just an illustration of how the thing DOES have a specified movement speed).

The RAW is clear that the disk only moves as the caster moves,It really isn't. It is clear that, barring other instructions, it does this to the best of its ability. It is also clear that, if the caster is somehow moving faster than his normal speed, the disk cannot keep up. Unless otherwise directed, if the wizard doesn't leave the spell range, once the wizard slows down to something below his normal speed, the disk will move at said speed to reposition itself to where it was last commanded to be. By your interpretation, since only distance can be commanded, it will move to that distance but will not re-orient itself relative to you. More running about faster than your normal speed would be required to force it to be unable to keep up and thus shift relative position "involuntarily" in order to reposition its direction relative to you once more.

and while the caster is sitting on it there's no way for the Disk to move any further or closer to the caster,Where in the RAW does it say that it cannot move any further from the caster while he is standing on it? I mean, clearly, it will take him with it if it moves, but nothing in the rules says it cannot be commanded to try to move away from him, even by your interpretation. What says "it doesn't move" when it is commanded to change from 0 ft. to 10 ft. distance?

nor can the caster herself move without stepping (or falling) off of the Disk.Given the fishing rod and jumping tricks, I don't think this is borne out even under your interpretation.

Segev

2014-09-16, 01:06 AM

Only if you're already used your standard/other move action. It's possible to jump twice your speed in a round by using up a double move.There was some discussion about what your "normal speed each round" means. If it means "one move action only," then you're right. But it could count a double move as a "normal speed" for when you are, well, taking a double move. The RAW argument could go either way; the "common sense" argument is that a double move takes the time of a move and a standard action, which is roughly twice the time of a move action. So if you tried to move twice your normal speed in a move action, it wouldn't be able to keep up, but if you move twice your normal speed in a move and a standard action, it can, because you're taking twice the time to move it.

The disc doesn't need to be moved to wink out. It winks out once there is a distance greater than 3 ft above the ground.

Yep. Moreover, it can't even be cast at more than 3 feet above the ground, as the spell specifies that it appears at that height and, if you're out of range of the ground to cast it down there, it can't appear within range...so it doesn't.

bekeleven

2014-09-16, 03:10 AM

Brookshw

2014-09-16, 05:58 AM

We do not have evidence that that is all that it can be directed to do. We only know what happens if it is not "otherwise directed." That's not actually providing any evidence that it behaves in a manner you've prescribed though. Since the spell doesn't specify anything about how you can direct it in other fashions (or can ride it, such as the greater version does) then the evidence simply isn't there to support the claim. I've already gone through the logic puzzle concerning why I find myself skeptical of the inference you've tried to make in order to provide evidence.

Or, rather, we do know that it "floats along within spell range," as well. Sure, but nothing about that is actually evidence that it floats around wherever you direct it. As has already been said multiple times by various posters, if it doesn't say that it probably doesn't.

An interesting thing I just noticed (or maybe I'm just coffee deprived enough for this to seem sensible) is that it "carries loads for you". Since we know from the encumbrance rules that our own body weight isn't taken into account in establishing a load, we could validly establish that a load has to be an external element separate from ourselves, to whit, our body doesn't qualify so it can't carry around our body (this is admittedly an extremely restrictive reading and normally I wouldn't bother bringing it up except for the sake of complete analysis, and, ya know, need more coffee).

Anyway, there's still a complete lack of any text that supports the idea that it can be directed to perform in a fashion you've claimed.

Also, I really like the idea of jumping around on it with it's following range being 0 feet though assuming there's any form of arc in the jump, and you're jumping off of it, it would presumably need to elevate itself more than 3 feet off the ground to maintain the 0 range, which seems to violate the "or try to take the disk more than 3 feet away from the surface beneath it" clause and causes it to wink out.

Snip Belekeven already responded to this quite well I think but I'm going to toss an analogy out there. If you consider it to be somewhat (but not completely) analogous to a very stubborn and lazy mule that will only follow you at the length of whatever tether it's on, the odd situations seem to be much more avoidable.

We now come to our first oddity under your interpretation of the rules: What happens if, while you are standing on it, you command it to move 10 feet away from you? Probably nothing since it's movement is to follow you and you can only decide at what distance. Until the distance condition is met I'd assume it wouldn't follow you. Snipping the rest of your examples as they're likewise assuming that it moves in a fashion other than following you so my response would be something similar. Even if you get into a situation where it could potentially get strange, this is not evidence to believe you can direct it, it means the RAW hasn't accounted for everything so the DM would adjudicate.

As an aside I got the idea for some strange Rube Goldberg puzzles based on the winking out portion (especially the If used to transport a liquid, its capacity is 2 gallons.) such as needing to add weight to raise a platform on the other side of the room while on the platform.

Vogonjeltz

2014-09-16, 07:12 AM

Except that the text of the spell says that it stays within five feet of the caster "unless otherwise directed." Since it can be "otherwise directed," it can be "directed." This means it is not "non-directable." That much, at least, is not in dispute.

That's distance not activity, it still only moves when following the caster, the sentence provided merely allows the caster to expand that follow distance.

Segev

2014-09-16, 07:43 AM

segev, I can answer you hypothetical. The disk follows you. It doesn't maintain 10 feet absolute north, it maintains 10 feet behind you. A DM could reasonably rule this as "the opposite vector to your current movement" (which creates an issue where it has to move faster when you corner) or, how I would rule it, as "where you were 10 feet ago in your movement." This means that if you take a sharp corner or U-turn it gets closer for a time. A DM could choose to make a ruling about that but I wouldn't.

There is also the question of exactly what happens when you ask it to lengthen its follow distance. Lacking anything (imo) suggesting independent movement or much of a memory, I'd rule that it stays at the same spot until the distance you travel from that spot increases to the desired length.This is an interesting take, and one I admit I had not thought of. It still leads to some strangeness when it comes to trying to position it for convenience, and it allows for the fishing-rod scenario. There's one other problem with it, though, but I will get to that after a couple more quotes...

Sure, but nothing about that is actually evidence that it floats around wherever you direct it.I still think the "Unless otherwise directed" clause, in the context it's in, combined with the "floats along within spell range" clause, is indicative, but we now do have a third possible interpretation, and it almost is without the flaws of the other interpretations to which I object. (My own interpretation lacks these flaws completely, which is why I have stuck by it over them thus far. I've spelled these flaws out in detail multiple times, so I won't belabor them now.)

An interesting thing I just noticed (or maybe I'm just coffee deprived enough for this to seem sensible) is that it "carries loads for you". *snip*This is an interesting note for a different reason than you seem to be suggesting. Technically, a mount carries loads for you, too; you become a load when you are loaded. However, that's beside the point of interest that led me to quote this for response:

If something "carries loads for you," it carries them where you direct. Otherwise, it's not really carrying them for you. It's just bearing them and happening to be near you. Despite my choice of words to illustrate the difference, "carry" verses "bear" is not the main crux of this, however. The crux is the words, "for you." (There is some hay to be made over "carry" versus "bear," but that's not what I want to focus on right now.) To carry something for you, it would have to do so as you specify. So now we have further wording that implies that it carries loads as directed by you, because otherwise it's not so much carrying loads for you as happening to be a support surface to bear loads that remains near you.

Anyway, there's still a complete lack of any text that supports the idea that it can be directed to perform in a fashion you've claimed.Obviously, I disagree, and I think you hit upon something that provides still more support.

Also, I really like the idea of jumping around on it with it's following range being 0 feetWe can certainly agree that this works under all interpretations so far.

though assuming there's any form of arc in the jump, and you're jumping off of it, it would presumably need to elevate itself more than 3 feet off the ground to maintain the 0 range, which seems to violate the "or try to take the disk more than 3 feet away from the surface beneath it" clause and causes it to wink out. Nah. The spell specifies that its motion is "horizontal" as it attempts to move. The distance it maintains can thus be assumed to refer only to horizontal distance, and to ignore vertical. The only ascension and descension in which it engages is smooth motion to stay roughly 3 feet off the ground.

The "attempt to take it more than 3 feet off the ground" text is in there for if you move out of range vertically, or try to "trick" it by putting it over a pit or cliff or something.

Belekeven already responded to this quite well I think but I'm going to toss an analogy out there. If you consider it to be somewhat (but not completely) analogous to a very stubborn and lazy mule that will only follow you at the length of whatever tether it's on, the odd situations seem to be much more avoidable. Maybe, but that stubborn and lazy mule can't be said to do anything "for you," and may well not move when directed to maintain a distance from you and follow.

Probably nothing since it's movement is to follow you and you can only decide at what distance. Until the distance condition is met I'd assume it wouldn't follow you. Snipping the rest of your examples as they're likewise assuming that it moves in a fashion other than following you so my response would be something similar. Even if you get into a situation where it could potentially get strange, this is not evidence to believe you can direct it, it means the RAW hasn't accounted for everything so the DM would adjudicate.I can agree that the DM's adjudication is probably the right solution. Though I stand by the statement that my interpretation is valid per the RAW and would not require any adjudication to make up for holes in the rules.

That's distance not activity, it still only moves when following the caster, the sentence provided merely allows the caster to expand that follow distance.

So, I promised I'd get back to the one flaw that remains in bekeleven's interpretation. First off, it is almost entirely sound, taking "follow" to mean "it moves along behind you" and treating it like it's a wagon on a rope tether, effectively, of the directed length. The "unless otherwise directed" behavior allows it to be commanded to maintain a greater distance than it currently does, but not to move until the wizard's manual motion has caused the greater distance to be achieved.

However, what happens if it's further away than you want it? If it was maintaining a 20 ft. distance, and you command it to start maintaining a 5 ft. distance, when does it move? To be strictly pedantic, it's not technically following you if you aren't moving. So are you required to move at least five feet to make it "follow" you and close the distance? This, again, seems odd...but I suppose, despite still requiring some dancing about if you want to position it, it at least is consistent and without technical holes.

Still, I think it an overly restrictive reading, and that it fails to quite capture carrying something "for you."

I remain convinced that my interpretation is both valid and correct (albeit the personal hovercraft application may not have been something the writers expected nor desired), and that it achieves exactly the desired effects (again, excepting possibly the allowance of it carrying you, which may well not have been intended). That said, bekeleven's interpretation is the first one other than mine which I think fully stays within the RAW without introducing rules quirks that require DM adjudication to handle.

Brookshw

2014-09-16, 08:19 AM

Zirconia

2014-09-16, 09:13 AM

Interesting interpretation, Bekeleven, but it makes me curious how a couple of situations would be resolved because of the oddities of D&D facing and movement.

(1) I Shapechange or Polymorph into something with no definable "front", say a Gelatinous Cube, and have myself hoisted 4' into the air (to avoid problems with the next part). I summon my Tensors Disk at a 20' range to the North.
1a. I direct it to move to zero distance. Then, I direct it to move back out to 20'. Which direction does it move? Does it "remember" which way it approached, and move back out that way? The basic issue with this is that I have not "moved" since it was summoned, how does it "follow" me?

(2) I summon the Tensor's Disk at a 20' range to the North, and direct it (if necessary) to stay at that range. I move 5' North which, I believe, by your interpretation, would mean the disk would want to swing around to 20' South of me. Continuing my movement, I move back 5' South. I continue the "Hokey Pokey" until I have used up all of my 30' normal movement for the round. How far does the disk move that round, and where does it end up? I'm guessing your ruling would be that it just stays put, since you haven't moved past it, and it only gets "dragged" by your presence? If so, that means "directing" it to stay 20' away actually means "20' or less".

We had some discussions on the "riding the disk" thing in our campaign, and compromised on letting me share it with my familiar and allowing it to tow me, despite the language not being quite right for that, since that exposes the familiar to some risk. It is also a bit more "Wizardy" than jumping everywhere, though that is a nice RAW idea.

Segev

2014-09-16, 09:23 AM

On my phone so no long response but concerning "for you" is not equivalent to "as directed by you". I may ask a friend to hold my coffee while I fumble out my keys but that doesn't mean they'll hold it at shoulder height, or in some particular grip, just because they're doing it "for me".Ah, but he's holding it for you, not carrying it for you.

If your friend were carrying your coffee into your apartment for you because your hands were full, he would carry it to where you directed so you could take it from him when you needed it.

Likewise if I ask a player to grab some milk from the store "for me" so there's milk for the coffee its not the same as directing them to pay by credit card, or drive as opposed to bike/walk to the store, to put it in a bag vs. carry it in there hand, and so on.Neither can you direct the floating disk to buy you the items that it carries, nor even to collect them independently. You can only direct it to carry things for you. It will carry them 3 feet off the ground and move at no more than your normal speed. By default, it will carry them five feet from you, but you can direct it otherwise within the spell's range.

Seems as though you've construed the words into a false equivalency, I suspect the more accurate meaning is "in place of you" or "instead of you"."For you" generally has more of a "for your benefit" connotation than a simple "in your stead" connotation. Moreover, as I've shown, your analogies are not analogous, as you're not asking your friends in your examples to "carry something for you." You've asked them to hold something in one case, and to buy something in another. The first doesn't involve any sort of direction other than "hold this." There's no implication of following nor conveying it to another location. The second relies on the request being to "buy" because without that the concept of how to pay is meaningless. There is no analogous "how to pay" decision to be made in the Floating Disk's function of carrying something for you. It explicitly cannot even pick things up at your direction! It just carries them when you (or somebody else) ladens it with them.

Brookshw

2014-09-16, 09:59 AM

Ah, but he's holding it for you, not carrying it for you.

If your friend were carrying your coffee into your apartment for you because your hands were full, he would carry it to where you directed so you could take it from him when you needed it.

Neither can you direct the floating disk to buy you the items that it carries, nor even to collect them independently. You can only direct it to carry things for you. It will carry them 3 feet off the ground and move at no more than your normal speed. By default, it will carry them five feet from you, but you can direct it otherwise within the spell's range.

"For you" generally has more of a "for your benefit" connotation than a simple "in your stead" connotation. Moreover, as I've shown, your analogies are not analogous, as you're not asking your friends in your examples to "carry something for you." You've asked them to hold something in one case, and to buy something in another. The first doesn't involve any sort of direction other than "hold this." There's no implication of following nor conveying it to another location. The second relies on the request being to "buy" because without that the concept of how to pay is meaningless. There is no analogous "how to pay" decision to be made in the Floating Disk's function of carrying something for you. It explicitly cannot even pick things up at your direction! It just carries them when you (or somebody else) ladens it with them.

It's irrelevant if the disk could perform these tasks or, say, go to the moon for me as my point is that "for you" doesn't necessitate and direct control over function. Neither does "carry" for that matter.

car·ry /ˈkarē/

verb support and move (someone or something) from one place to another. "medics were carrying a wounded man on a stretcher" synonyms: convey, transfer, move, take, bring, bear, lug, tote, fetch, cart "she carried the box into the kitchen"

support the weight of. "the bridge is capable of carrying even the heaviest loads" synonyms: support, sustain, stand; More

noun an act of lifting and transporting something from one place to another. "we did a carry of equipment from the camp"

(in golf) the distance a ball travels before reaching the ground.

Segev

2014-09-16, 10:12 AM

Fine and dandy. So it can support and convey items for you. "For you" still means that it does it for your benefit, which means you have some directive say over to where it carries the items. Within the limits specified by the spell, which provide a maximum speed and maximum distance from you, as well as the 3 ft. height limit.

If the paramedics are carrying a man for an ER doctor, they'll carry him where the doctor directs. They don't just stand X feet from the doctor and follow him, requiring him to maneuver such that their following happens to put the stretcher where he wants it.

bekeleven

2014-09-16, 11:08 AM

However, what happens if it's further away than you want it? If it was maintaining a 20 ft. distance, and you command it to start maintaining a 5 ft. distance, when does it move? To be strictly pedantic, it's not technically following you if you aren't moving. So are you required to move at least five feet to make it "follow" you and close the distance? This, again, seems odd...but I suppose, despite still requiring some dancing about if you want to position it, it at least is consistent and without technical holes.

fol·low
verb: follow;
go or come after (a person or thing proceeding ahead); move or travel behind.
"she went back into the house, and Ben followed her"
synonyms: come behind, come after, go behind, go after, walk behind More
"Go after" means they have to be moving at the time? Where is this coming from? When sherlock followed a criminal's path to their home and found them asleep, that means he retroactively wasn't following them because they were stationary at the time?

Interesting interpretation, Bekeleven, but it makes me curious how a couple of situations would be resolved because of the oddities of D&D facing and movement.

(1) I Shapechange or Polymorph into something with no definable "front", say a Gelatinous Cube, and have myself hoisted 4' into the air (to avoid problems with the next part). I summon my Tensors Disk at a 20' range to the North.
1a. I direct it to move to zero distance. Then, I direct it to move back out to 20'. Which direction does it move? Does it "remember" which way it approached, and move back out that way? The basic issue with this is that I have not "moved" since it was summoned, how does it "follow" me?This was literally an example I used. It doesn't move until you move at least 20 feet, at which point it follows you. No idea how "facing" comes into it - under both my proposed interpretation and my alternate one, facing never came into it.

(Under my alternate one, it wouldn't move until you moved 5', at which point it would bug out 15' in the opposite direction.)

(2) I summon the Tensor's Disk at a 20' range to the North, and direct it (if necessary) to stay at that range. I move 5' North which, I believe, by your interpretation, would mean the disk would want to swing around to 20' South of me. Continuing my movement, I move back 5' South. I continue the "Hokey Pokey" until I have used up all of my 30' normal movement for the round. How far does the disk move that round, and where does it end up? I'm guessing your ruling would be that it just stays put, since you haven't moved past it, and it only gets "dragged" by your presence? If so, that means "directing" it to stay 20' away actually means "20' or less".As I said, when you U-turn, you become closer to the disk. If you move 5 feet to the north, it wouldn't care. In fact, you could move 15' to the north, such that you were adjacent to it, and it wouldn't care. Then if you got on all fours and crawled underneath it, it would start to move south, then as you kept moving it would go to your original spot, turn around, and follow you north.

(Under my alternate interpretation, it depends on when the disk acts in the initiative order. The spell text doesn't specify. However, if we assume it acts immediately after you, the you would have ended your turn in the same square as you started it. If you rule this as "the disk sees you're in the same place for the round" it doesn't move. If you rule this as "the disk just saw you going from north to south and you are now 20 feet from it," then the disk also doesn't move because that's exactly where it would need to be - 20 feet to your north.)

Fine and dandy. So it can support and convey items for you. "For you" still means that it does it for your benefit, which means you have some directive say over to where it carries the items. Within the limits specified by the spell, which provide a maximum speed and maximum distance from you, as well as the 3 ft. height limit.

If the paramedics are carrying a man for an ER doctor, they'll carry him where the doctor directs. They don't just stand X feet from the doctor and follow him, requiring him to maneuver such that their following happens to put the stretcher where he wants it."For you" doesn't mean you get to have no limits. It means it's doing something for your benefit, but you're still acting within the bounds of the spell. If paramedics are carrying a patient for a doctor, he can't ask them to carry the guy to burger king. Are you claiming that if the floating disk only follows you, it's not providing you a benefit?

Anyway, semantic debates aren't my favorite so that's all I'm going to say on the "for you" front. And the "you have move to be followed" front.

Brookshw

2014-09-16, 11:17 AM

Fine and dandy. So it can support and convey items for you. "For you" still means that it does it for your benefit, which means you have some directive say over to where it carries the items. Within the limits specified by the spell, which provide a maximum speed and maximum distance from you, as well as the 3 ft. height limit.
.

And, apparently, within the parameter of following you since it explicitly does. Just carrying the thing alone is of benefit. We might think it could benefit us more if it acted in some additional fashion but that doesn't mean it does.

Segev

2014-09-16, 11:53 AM

"Go after" means they have to be moving at the time? Where is this coming from? When sherlock followed a criminal's path to their home and found them asleep, that means he retroactively wasn't following them because they were stationary at the time?It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say, "Bob followed Alice into the house," if Alice didn't move from being with Bob to being in the house first. If the "start following" command is given when she's already in the house, and she never started with him, there's not much "following" to be done. Going into the house to find her is not a "following" action anymore. It's a "go to her" action. Or a "come to her" action, if she's beckoning.

"For you" doesn't mean you get to have no limits. It means it's doing something for your benefit, but you're still acting within the bounds of the spell. If paramedics are carrying a patient for a doctor, he can't ask them to carry the guy to burger king. Are you claiming that if the floating disk only follows you, it's not providing you a benefit?Of course the paramedics won't take the guy on the stretcher to burger king. The "spell range" in this analogy would be "in the ER/OR area," within which the doctor specifies where he wants the patient so he can work on him. Just as Floating Disk spells out the area within which you can direct it: the spell range.

And, apparently, within the parameter of following you since it explicitly does. Just carrying the thing alone is of benefit. We might think it could benefit us more if it acted in some additional fashion but that doesn't mean it does.Yes, and holding something is benefit, too. To carry something for someone speaks of transporting it to a desired location, not merely of holding it in the general vicinity.

But, once again, I think we're at an impasse. I will not convince you, and you will not convince me.

I do agree that, other than mine, bekeleven's interpretation is the best one in terms of having clear RAW support and no gaping holes.

edit: Also, the "following" is not restrictive. That's its general default function. It does not preclude moving as directed within range. Therefore, it does not restrict that motion within range. (In fact, somebody can follow somebody else in any number of ways and relative orientations. If you tell your kid to follow you, you can direct them to stay in sight ahead, to walk beside holding your hand, to walk close behind... there are a lot of options that fall within "follow" and "otherwise directing" "within spell range.")

Brookshw

2014-09-16, 12:12 PM

We do indeed seem to hit impasse after impasse.

Segev

2014-09-16, 12:17 PM

We do indeed seem to hit impasse after impasse.

We see each other's positions, and I think I understand yours, and I think you understand mine...we just don't agree. There's no real convincing at that point. We will just continue to disagree.

Brookshw

2014-09-16, 01:20 PM

We see each other's positions, and I think I understand yours, and I think you understand mine...we just don't agree. There's no real convincing at that point. We will just continue to disagree.

Well I suppose we could break the whole thing down into symbolic logic, not sure it would solve anything but at least we'd have new things to disagree about :smallbiggrin:

Vogonjeltz

2014-09-16, 04:09 PM

So, I promised I'd get back to the one flaw that remains in bekeleven's interpretation. First off, it is almost entirely sound, taking "follow" to mean "it moves along behind you" and treating it like it's a wagon on a rope tether, effectively, of the directed length. The "unless otherwise directed" behavior allows it to be commanded to maintain a greater distance than it currently does, but not to move until the wizard's manual motion has caused the greater distance to be achieved.

However, what happens if it's further away than you want it? If it was maintaining a 20 ft. distance, and you command it to start maintaining a 5 ft. distance, when does it move? To be strictly pedantic, it's not technically following you if you aren't moving. So are you required to move at least five feet to make it "follow" you and close the distance? This, again, seems odd...but I suppose, despite still requiring some dancing about if you want to position it, it at least is consistent and without technical holes.

That's how I am reading it, like an adjustable rope where it only moves when you do. So if you've expanded the distance to 10 ft the only way to get it back down to 5 ft is to actually move closer to it. Extending back to 10' would require you to direct it to follow at 10' instead of 5'.

Alternatively, we could read it to mean that if you direct it back to 5' while it's at 10' it will, while you are moving, attempt to catch up. However given the rate of your normal speed each round, it would require the player to slow down so it actually can catch up. This would mean moving at less than normal speed (I suppose 5' less if it's only 5' away from you) for one round.

I don't support it coming when called because the text states that it operates off following and accompanies the caster. The "if not otherwise directed" portion of the text is speaking specifically about the constant interval, not motion.

Jowgen

2014-09-16, 04:38 PM

Trasilor

2014-09-16, 04:57 PM

So it would appear that this thread will reach no consensus on whether it can be directed or not.

I think that's okay, since the jumping and fish-rod tricks take care of using it to stay of the ground, and there are a variety of other applications to be explored.

For example, could one crouch or lie prone under it to use it as a source of cover from certain attacks?

Jumping and landing would have a problem as the force you exert on the disk may be greater than the amount of weight it can carry.

Similarly, a single sword strike (or virtually any edged weapon for that matter) should have sufficient force to destroy all but the most powerful castings.

Troacctid

2014-09-16, 04:57 PM

So it would appear that this thread will reach no consensus on whether it can be directed or not.

I think that's okay, since the jumping and fish-rod tricks take care of using it to stay of the ground, and there are a variety of other applications to be explored.

For example, could one crouch or lie prone under it to use it as a source of cover from certain attacks?

I don't think there's any indication of whether it's solid or opaque, so who knows? Ask the DM.

Jowgen

2014-09-16, 05:13 PM

Jumping and landing would have a problem as the force you exert on the disk may be greater than the amount of weight it can carry.

The text give no indication that objects within the weight exerting sudden force onto it would cause it to wink out. If something dropped from more than 10 feet above, warranting falling damage, maybe a DM could fiat that the sudden impact counts as increased weight; but beyond that some serious physics math would be required, which does not work well in the abstracted D&D reality.

Similarly, a single sword strike (or virtually any edged weapon for that matter) should have sufficient force to destroy all but the most powerful castings.

As a force effect, the floating disk is immune to virtually all damage. The only way to get rid of it is trying to direct it out of its range or placing too much weight onto it. Calculating the weight equivalent of a weapon impact would again require DM fiat and serious physics math.

I don't think there's any indication of whether it's solid or opaque, so who knows? Ask the DM.

Tad confused here. It's definently solid, which I believe qualifies it as blocking line of effect and thus giving cover. Whether it blocks line of sight based on whether it has colour does depend on the DM, but that's concealment, not cover.

Brookshw

2014-09-16, 06:14 PM

So it would appear that this thread will reach no consensus on whether it can be directed or not.

Probably not though I'd like to think we've explored the evidence sufficiently for people to make their own informed determination for their individual games. On the plus side, at least Segev and I are willing to shake hands and call it a day, so to speak, rather than draw it out into an unwieldy war of attrition.

Segev

2014-09-16, 11:19 PM

Probably not though I'd like to think we've explored the evidence sufficiently for people to make their own informed determination for their individual games. On the plus side, at least Segev and I are willing to shake hands and call it a day, so to speak, rather than draw it out into an unwieldy war of attrition.

Indeed.

Regarding the new question of impulse vs. weight ("impulse" being the term for sudden force applied, such as due to shocks from weapons smacking into things), D&D handles impulse specifically as damage. Force effects are immune to damage. So it is only the constant-force weight that matters. If your Floating Disk can support 100 lbs., it can support a 100 lb. treasure chest if it is placed gently on it, or if it is dropped from 200 feet up. (The chest itself might take falling damage, of course, but it still weighs 100 lbs., and thus is supported by the disk.)

Trasilor

2014-09-17, 08:44 AM

The text give no indication that objects within the weight exerting sudden force onto it would cause it to wink out. If something dropped from more than 10 feet above, warranting falling damage, maybe a DM could fiat that the sudden impact counts as increased weight; but beyond that some serious physics math would be required, which does not work well in the abstracted D&D reality.

Fair enough. It is up to the DM what happens when too much weight is applied to disk (winking out, falling to the ground etc.)

As a force effect, the floating disk is immune to virtually all damage. The only way to get rid of it is trying to direct it out of its range or placing too much weight onto it. Calculating the weight equivalent of a weapon impact would again require DM fiat and serious physics math.

This whole exercise is DM Fiat :smallamused:. When you use a spell beyond its intended purposes along with rules extrapolation. The spell does not say you can ride on it or use it as a jumping platform, etc. As such, the DM must make a judgement call.

Regarding the new question of impulse vs. weight ("impulse" being the term for sudden force applied, such as due to shocks from weapons smacking into things), D&D handles impulse specifically as damage. Force effects are immune to damage. So it is only the constant-force weight that matters. If your Floating Disk can support 100 lbs., it can support a 100 lb. treasure chest if it is placed gently on it, or if it is dropped from 200 feet up. (The chest itself might take falling damage, of course, but it still weighs 100 lbs., and thus is supported by the disk.)

That's not entirely true.

Damage reduces Hit Points. Hit points are an abstract concept. Per the Player's Handbook the represent two things:the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

A higher level character isn't just taking more hits to the chest, they are learning how to take a hit to the chest better. If you were to look at it in terms of percentages, a longsword (1d8) v fighter HP (10hp) can do anywhere between 10% to 80% damage. Same longsword (1d8) v fighter 10 (59 HP) does between 2% and 14% damage. The sword hasn't changed, just the opponent.

Second, not all impulse is treated as damage. No matter what your crazy jump modifier is, you can leap off of your ally's back (or your mount's) with them taking any damage.

But, even if you were to assume that all impulse is nullified because it is a force effect, then one cannot jump off the disk. When you wing a sword and connect with something, the energy must go somewhere. Per you logic, all the energy is completely absorbed by the force effect. So, swinging a sword at a disk results in your sword stopping as soon as you touch the disk. You don't bounce off or even move the disk, it simply stops. Based on this logic, when you try to jump off the disk, all the energy you push down is absorbed by the disk - it doesn't push you back - making it impossible to jump off of.

Regardless, it was just an observation. As a DM, I tend to reward my players for creative thinking - but they must consider all the options, not just the most favorable wording/interpretation.

If a spell caster wanted to use it as an impromptu shield, they should be aware that it might fail b/c they are using a spell beyond it's normal scope.

Segev

2014-09-17, 11:03 AM

That's not entirely true.

Damage reduces Hit Points. Hit points are an abstract concept. Per the Player's Handbook the represent two things:the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

A higher level character isn't just taking more hits to the chest, they are learning how to take a hit to the chest better. If you were to look at it in terms of percentages, a longsword (1d8) v fighter HP (10hp) can do anywhere between 10% to 80% damage. Same longsword (1d8) v fighter 10 (59 HP) does between 2% and 14% damage. The sword hasn't changed, just the opponent.I knew I was trying to be too pithy; sorry. I should have said, "Where impulse is actually mechanically represented in the game, it is represented as damage."

You bring up jumping, which could be argued to be another form of impulse being represented, but not as damage. I think you're probably right.

I was, however, making a very general statement, and not speaking in a rigorous set of rules-language. It's more design guidelines: don't worry about the force of impulse wrt carrying capacities. Impulse-as-impact generally will be best represented by hp damage to the impacting object(s), and impulse-as-propellent has rules governing it already in each important case (e.g. projectiles, jumping, knockback, etc.).

There are no rules for impulse imparted by something falling other than the rules for damage-from-falling. Therefore, dropping a 100 lb object onto a 100-lb-limit floating disk doesn't cause the disk to wink out; only 100 lbs are ever asked to be supported by it, by the way the rules handle it, and the damage the falling object might do to it is negated by it being a force effect.

Jowgen

2014-09-17, 11:06 AM

This whole exercise is DM Fiat . When you use a spell beyond its intended purposes along with rules extrapolation. The spell does not say you can ride on it or use it as a jumping platform, etc. As such, the DM must make a judgement call.

Point granted :smallbiggrin:

Damage reduces Hit Points. Hit points are an abstract concept. Per the Player's Handbook the represent two things:the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

This definition of HP works for creatures, but not for objects (presuming you treat the disk as such). For objects, their hit-points represent "what it is made of and how big it is", while their "ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one" is measured by their hardness, "a number that represents how well it resists damage".

Furthermore, objects have the added rule that they can be broken "with sudden force rather than by dealing damage" via a strength check against their break DC. This is the closest abstraction of impulse that the rules provide, and it specifically applies to objects, which makes it quite suitable to this discussion.

But, even if you were to assume that all impulse is nullified because it is a force effect, then one cannot jump off the disk. When you wing a sword and connect with something, the energy must go somewhere. Per you logic, all the energy is completely absorbed by the force effect. So, swinging a sword at a disk results in your sword stopping as soon as you touch the disk. You don't bounce off or even move the disk, it simply stops. Based on this logic, when you try to jump off the disk, all the energy you push down is absorbed by the disk - it doesn't push you back - making it impossible to jump off of.

Whether the damage/impulse is "nullfied"/"absorbed", or something else entirely happens, does appear to to be the crux of this matter. The answer largely depends on the relevant properties of force effects (mainly their damage-immunity) and how to explain them.

Based on the rules for objects, the disk might be immune to all damage for several reasons: a) it has infinite HP, due to "what it is made of"; b) it has infinite hardness, being able to "resist damage" infinitely for some reason; c) it has an infinitely high break DC , being immune to "sudden force". A) bases itself of the object's composition, which we have actual information on, while b) explains the "damage immunity" in a very straight forward manner, and c) is very likely to apply, as there simply is no break-DC.

Still, I do acknowledge that explaining the Disk's indestructibility based purely on these mechanical terms does not obviate the issue of 'how' and 'what happens'

The simplest way to resolve this remaining issue that I can think of is by comparing the disk to other similar things. Two come to mind: 1) the gloves of endless javelins, which produces Javelin's made of force that function as Javelins without penalty, and 2) Riverine, from stormwrack, which is objects of pressurized water sandwiched between two planes of force.

Riverine is a strange little thing. The weapon surfaces are force, but the weapon doesn't deal force damage... which I suppose can be attributed to the weapon composition being mostly water, and weapons counting as the material that makes up the majority of their structure (e.g. a steel sword coated in adamantine would still be treated as steel).

Riverine armor has the benefit that half of its granted AC is a deflection bonus. If one were to treat the disk as armor (a bit of a stretch really), then this could potentially give support to your "jumping force absorbed" point, depending on how you read/translate the armor deflection property.

Trasilor

2014-09-17, 02:27 PM

Point granted :smallbiggrin:

[snipped].

I guess my point was, when you deal with infinite (be it hp, hardness, etc) things get wonky.:smallamused:

To use the disk as cover, platform, etc. You must decide what happens when to much weight is applied to the disk. Does it sink to the ground, wink out, etc. Since the spell doesn't say, it is up to the DM.

Next, we must have a reason for why force effects are immune to damage. Since the rule books never state (infinite HP, infinite hardness, etc), it is up to the DM.

At this point, I could make assumptions that support either argument (it does or it doesn't work). :smallamused:

Which brings us back to the original answer: Whenever we are dealing with a point of contention that is is not expressly stated in the rules, it is up to the DM. :smallbiggrin:

Jowgen

2014-09-17, 06:25 PM

Which brings us back to the original answer: Whenever we are dealing with a point of contention that is is not expressly stated in the rules, it is up to the DM.

I suppose the best way is to cut it down to the relevant RAW points that apply in the absence of DM fiat, establish what information is simply not given, and what conclusions regarding the topics of discussion can be drawn based on strict RAW readings.

Things that are there:

- The disk is a circular plane of force, thusly following the rules for force effects in regards to indestructibility, effects on ethereal creatures, physical presence, etc.
- It's listed abilities are to follow the caster while maintaining a constant distance (5 ft or per instruction; subject to the caster not moving out of range), and to "hold" up to 100 lb of weight per caster level.

Things that are not in there:

- What happens when the disk is overburdened (presumably winks out).
- Mention of riding the disk (no propulsion or direction allowance specifically mentioned)
- Mention of the disk reacting to sudden weight application (not present in rules at all beyond falling damage).
- Mention of the disk reacting to any external forces other than weight and caster movement.
- What happens when the disk is unable to follow (e.g. shut the door between it and the caster as the caster moves)
- How the disk reacts to steps or other reasonably small changes in surface elevation.
- What qualifies as ground/surface.

Things that can be deduced by a strict RAW reading.

- The disk can not move ahead of the caster, as that would not qualify as following. If the caster walks ahead and then does a 180 turn to continue walking, the disk would either become stationary until the caster was again at the specified following distance, and then resume to follow; or move past and behind the caster to once again follow (DM's call which one happens).
- As there is no mention of anyone other than the caster being able to affect the disk's power to maintain its constant distance to the caster, no one besides the caster can affect the disk's position/movement.
- As there is no mention of the disk having any effect on anything that attempts to hinder its movement, it can not overcome solid obstacles that block its motion, and can thusly be forced out of range.
- The disk can not be destroyed/winked out unless duration expiries, goes out of reach, or is overburdened.

Things that inevitably require DM adjudication:

- The Disk's reaction to the caster doing a 180 degree turn while still moving.
- The Disk's ability to move around obstacles as well as up and down steps/steep slopes to maintain its distance to the caster.
- What qualifies as ground/surface for the disk to move on.

Conditions that must be met for certain discussed strategies to work:

Simple riding: The DM must agree that the disk can be directed to not simply follow the caster, but move freely within spell range as per the caster's directions.

Body-part baiting: DM must agree that the disk can be directed to follow a specific caster body-part.

Fishrod baiting: Someone needs to somehow literally dangle the caster out in front of the disk while he commands it to maintain 0 ft distance (which the DM must accept as an acceptable following distance). DM must be able to take the idea seriously.

Disk Jumping: The DM must agree that 0 ft is an acceptable following distance and not house-rule that there is a delay between caster and disk movement, that the disk will attempt to adjust its elevation to maintain the distance (and can not be commanded to not so so) and that applying objects with sudden force increases their effective weight.

Lava/Water surfing: DM must adjudicate what does and does not count as ground/surface for the disk to be on, and accept one of the above-mentioned methods of pseudo-riding the disk. I believe the nature of ground/surface is still worth discussing.

Cover taking: The DM must agree that a 3-diameter disk covers enough of the creature under it to grant cover benefits, and adjudicate which points of attack origin are affected by this (I believe this is still worth discussing), and not house-rule that the disk can be destroyed by means other than those listed in the description or that generally affect force effect.

I think this covers everything thus far discussed? If it does not, or if new things come up, I'm thinking of editing this post to keep it up to date for later reference (maybe even do a Floating Disk trick handbook after :3).

Segev

2014-09-18, 11:24 AM

The "ground" vs "surface" wording is problematic, yes. By the strictest reading, it can only use the ground as its reference point. It can therefore not be taken onto the upper floors of multi-story buildings (unless "ground" and "floor" can be considered synonymous, which...depending on context...they can be or are not), nor can it be used to hover over bodies of liquid.

If we accept that "ground" just really means "surface" and was a funny choice of synonym, then it gets a lot more flexible and sensible, in that you definitely can use it no matter what floor of the dungeon you're on. I am also inclined to think that ability to float out over a pool of water or lava is part of its function, but argument could legitimately be made against that.

It is also unclear if the caster can cause it to move up or down or to be conjured (when the spell is cast) at some distance CLOSER to the ground than 3 feet. If going down some steps, can the caster direct it to lower to close to the step it's currently above in order to avoid being more than 3 feet above the next one down?

Finally, regarding riding it, I imagine most medium-sized casters will need to be 2nd or 3rd level before they could even stand upon it. Also, the fishing rod would work even if you ruled 0 ft. wasn't a valid distance (though I can't imagine how you'd construe "default" as being "minimum"). You'd just need a fishing rod that held him 10 ft. out.

Brookshw

2014-09-18, 11:57 AM

Jowgen

2014-09-18, 12:59 PM

The "ground" vs "surface" wording is problematic, yes. By the strictest reading, it can only use the ground as its reference point.

It is tricky. Ground is used once in the general statement about its elevation height, while Surface is used twice when talking about the results of winking out. I think a potentially useful thing to consider in this context is the Waterwalk spell, which allows the caster to walk on any liquid/lava as if it were "firm ground" by having his feet hover an inch above the surface. Also, I believe an Epic balance check can let you walk on water (need to check on this). If a character could walk on water, shouldn't the disk be able to follow? If a character can traverse water by simply having a 1-inch "hover field" under his feet, shouldn't a floating disk also be able to?

At this point, my personal answer sadly remains maybe... -_-

"Ground" does really need to be read in slightly more wide-reaching definition by the DM, as not allowing the Disk or many other effects to work on the second floor of a building is just... bad.

It is also unclear if the caster can cause it to move up or down or to be conjured (when the spell is cast) at some distance CLOSER to the ground than 3 feet. If going down some steps, can the caster direct it to lower to close to the step it's currently above in order to avoid being more than 3 feet above the next one down?

By the way it is written, only taking it "away" causes it to wink out, but likewise it states that the 3-foot distance is always maintained. In terms of steps, I believe there are actually some relevant rules, which determine at what point angled ground/surface becomes a wall/imposes speed penalties. As long as the steps are within that angle, the disk ought to simply adjust his height to the average elevation of the ground, but even if not, it is only suppose to stay "approximately" 3 feet above ground, so while most steps ought to be fine, particularly high steps might actually pose a problem. (to be added to the DM-adjudication section).

Finally, regarding riding it, I imagine most medium-sized casters will need to be 2nd or 3rd level before they could even stand upon it.

I suppose a very harsh DM might rule that standing on the disk requires a balance check due to its (oh so very marginal) concave shape, or (a little more reasonably) because he deems it somewhat slippery due a possible lack of friction.

In the same vein, a character is actually likely to need a decent jump modifier to use the Disk jumping trick effectively. To my knowledge, jumping untrained makes it so you need to beat the DC by 5 to avoid falling prone upon landing, and the DC is doubled for a standing jump. DM's could set the base DC at varying difficulties based on what they deem the minimum jumping distance for the trick to work. If it's 1 ft, you'd need to reliably hit 7 to use it without jumping, 1.5 feet (aka. disk radius) would need to hit 8, if it is 3 (aka. disk diameter) it would be 11, and finally if the DM rules you'd need to jump at least 5 feet untrained, you'd need to hit 15. Having at least a single rank in jump would probably be advisable, to not need to beat the DM-given DC by 5.

Personally, I think this gives the DM an excellent method of having the character work for the extra utility, balancing the ignore-terrain benefits.

As to the dm adjudication disk jumping entry I think it should be amended to include whether vertical jumping while the disk is at range 0 constitutes a try to take it more than three feet off the ground. It's an extremely restrictive interpretation but I can see how it would be a true and valid interpretation of the RAW.

I didn't include it since directing the disk to NOT do anything that would cause it to wink out struck me as a rather uncontestably allowable command, but I shall include it for purposes of having all the strict RAW in there.

Segev

2014-09-18, 01:00 PM

As to the dm adjudication disk jumping entry I think it should be amended to include whether vertical jumping while the disk is at range 0 constitutes a try to take it more than three feet off the ground. It's an extremely restrictive interpretation but I can see how it would be a true and valid interpretation of the RAW.

Not really. It says it floats along horizontally. It actually provides no provision for moving along vertically. While one could possibly make arguments about being able to move it up and down to keep it following the contours of the ground below, there's no real way to construe its behavior of floating along horizontally as having it attempt to follow you "up." It can't make that motion.

The clauses about it winking out if you attempt to take it more than 3 ft. from the ground are a contingency to cover what happens if, somehow, moving horizontally causes it to suddenly be more than 3 ft. high.

Brookshw

2014-09-18, 01:24 PM

Not really. It says it floats along horizontally. It actually provides no provision for moving along vertically. While one could possibly make arguments about being able to move it up and down to keep it following the contours of the ground below, there's no real way to construe its behavior of floating along horizontally as having it attempt to follow you "up." It can't make that motion.

The clauses about it winking out if you attempt to take it more than 3 ft. from the ground are a contingency to cover what happens if, somehow, moving horizontally causes it to suddenly be more than 3 ft. high.

Not necessarily. While its true regarding its capacity is restricted to horizontal movement, in order to maintain a directed range of zero if the person were to be sufficiently high should therefore require it to attempt to follow that range command, in this case having to move upward which it can't. Since it would be attempting to accomplish an invalid command at the casters direction I believe the "try" portion is applicable. Basically, you're trying to move it illegally by giving it the command and then choosing an invalid action.

Segev

2014-09-18, 01:27 PM

Eh, I suppose I can see the reasoning. I don't entirely agree that even a strict reading gives it that implication, as it requires contortions to ignore context while reading the words with carefully-chosen definitions out of a possible list thereof, when others make more sense, but I can see how you could construct the argument.

Trasilor

2014-09-18, 02:08 PM

I suppose a very harsh DM might rule that standing on the disk requires a balance check due to its (oh so very marginal) concave shape, or (a little more reasonably) because he deems it somewhat slippery due a possible lack of friction.

If the disk is friction-less, you can't possible jump off of it, let alone land on it. :smallamused:

Disk Jumping: The DM must agree that 0 ft is an acceptable following distance and not house-rule that there is a delay between caster and disk movement, that the disk will attempt to adjust its elevation to maintain the distance (and can not be commanded to not so so) and that applying objects with sudden force increases their effective weight.

Did you mean to say that "applying objects with sudden force doesn't increase their effective weight."? Of course, physics says it does. So the question is not whether additional force increases an objects weight, rather how does the disc react to sudden increases in weight is the point of contention.

Segev

2014-09-18, 02:51 PM

Did you mean to say that "applying objects with sudden force doesn't increase their effective weight."? Of course, physics says it does. So the question is not whether additional force increases an objects weight, rather how does the disc react to sudden increases in weight is the point of contention.

Physics, in D&D, does not work that way, though. The way impulse - which is the sudden acceleratory force of impact - is represented tends to be either damage or imparted motion. There might be other exceptions, but that's the primary way. There are no rules in D&D 3e for changing the weight of an object based on its suddenly stopping due to impact.

Therefore, there is no "woops, dropped it too hard on the disk, so it broke." The disk holds X weight of stuff. It takes no damage from impacts. Therefore, the impact might damage the falling object, but not the disk. And then the object is at rest on the disk, weighing whatever it weighs.

Fitz10019

2014-09-18, 04:13 PM

(Under my alternate interpretation, it depends on when the disk acts in the initiative order. The spell text doesn't specify. However, if we assume it acts immediately after you...
This assumption kills the hopping idea. I imagine the mage jumping forward, landing on the ground, and the disk scoots up behind him a heartbeat later (possibly comically knocking into him). I think it would wait until the mage's movement is done, and then follows along the shortest path.

Jowgen

2014-09-19, 02:20 AM

If the disk is friction-less, you can't possible jump off of it, let alone land on it. :smallamused:

I actually looked into this a couple of months ago for the purposes of building a riverine super-sled. The physical properties of force effects are in no way shape or form defined anywhere. Some force effects weigh a little (e.g. Force ladder) but others don't weigh anything, nothing gives any indication regarding friction, whether they're invisible by default, or anything else that would serve to understand force effects as anything other than... well, magic.

A DM ruling that the disk has properties like friction-lessness would be assigning benefits and penalties where the RAW lists/indicates none, making it DM Fiat. However, the disk would in all likelihood be very smooth, which the DM might reasonably interpret as "Slippery", as per the balance-DC modifier, which isn't so much Fiat as it is a liberal/personal interpretation. Requiring the player to balance might render them flat-footed, so it could be considered a "pay-off" if the DM considers Disk jumping unbalanced.

Did you mean to say that "applying objects with sudden force doesn't increase their effective weight."?

As Segev said, the abstracted-reality rules of D&D do not deal with impulse in the way that would be applicable to the disk. Yes, real world physics would, but they... I am very inclined to say... never mix well with D&D and even less so with D&D magic. One of the basic rules of the RAW is that the absence of prohibition does not equal permission. It doesn't say that you can overburden the disk by dropping something lighter than its max load from a greater height onto it, so by the RAW, you can't. The DM has leeway for the purposes of applying common sense, but introducing an entirely RAW-removed approach to handle this situation would fall into DM-Fiat territory, per my understanding.

I imagine the mage jumping forward, landing on the ground, and the disk scoots up behind him a heartbeat later (possibly comically knocking into him). I think it would wait until the mage's movement is done, and then follows along the shortest path.

The disk doesn't have sentience, let alone a Dex modifier or the ability to take actions, it's for most intents and purposes an object, so how would it get a slot in the in initiative order? That aside, as a spell effect (as per the description "Effect: 3-ft.-diameter disk of force") it follows the rules for spell effect in combat, not creatures. Non-instantaneous spells can require concentration and/or a move action to maintain/direct (the latter can happen with the disk); but beyond that, they are active on the casters turn and any other turn, acting as their spell description dictates.

The Disk's specifically listed power is to "maintain a constant interval", which -as an active spell effect- it does at all times that is possible. The disk's given horizontal distance from the caster's location does not fluctuate in the absence of extraneous circumstances (e.g caster moving too fast or obstacles, the latter of which DM adjudicates as to how it reacts). There is nothing in the rules that would even hint that there is any form of delay in the disk's movement, which makes perfect sense, as it's movements are 100% tied to the caster's movement per instruction. If you command it to stay under you, it will (in the absence of extraneous circumstances) stay under you without fail, at every point in the round, until commanded otherwise. Spell effects that are centred on and move with the caster will similarly remain centred and move with the caster. In fact, I can't think of a single motion-capable, non-action taking spell effect that has the kind of delay that has been suggested. If there are such spells, then the nature of the delay will be spelled out (heh... get it? :smallbiggrin:) in the spell description.

I know the FAQ's authority mileage varies considerably, but it does say this on the topic (kinda surprised it hasn't been posted yet).

Can you ride your own Tenser’s floating disk?
No. While you could command your Tenser’s floating disk
to move close enough for you to sit upon it, it has no ability to
move under its own power. It can follow you only at a
maximum rate equal to your normal speed.

The jumping and fishrod tricks circumvent this limitation rather beautifully, in my opinion.

Brookshw

2014-09-19, 07:53 AM

I know the FAQ's authority mileage varies considerably, but it does say this on the topic (kinda surprised it hasn't been posted yet).

Can you ride your own Tenser’s floating disk?
No. While you could command your Tenser’s floating disk
to move close enough for you to sit upon it, it has no ability to
move under its own power. It can follow you only at a
maximum rate equal to your normal speed.

The jumping and fishrod tricks circumvent this limitation rather beautifully, in my opinion.

Think it was posted before you joined the thread, the faq came up during the first two pages.

And BTW, excellent job breaking down the discussion. Edit: hmmm, should it included that the greater version explicitly can be ridden?

Trasilor

2014-09-19, 09:12 AM

As Segev said, the abstracted-reality rules of D&D do not deal with impulse in the way that would be applicable to the disk. Yes, real world physics would, but they... I am very inclined to say... never mix well with D&D and even less so with D&D magic. One of the basic rules of the RAW is that the absence of prohibition does not equal permission. It doesn't say that you can overburden the disk by dropping something lighter than its max load from a greater height onto it, so by the RAW, you can't. The DM has leeway for the purposes of applying common sense, but introducing an entirely RAW-removed approach to handle this situation would fall into DM-Fiat territory, per my understanding.

The jumping and fishrod tricks circumvent this limitation rather beautifully, in my opinion.

As I said before, this whole argument is essentially DM fiat (allowing it or not allowing it).

The spell caster is trying to use a spell beyond the scope and wording within the spell. The spell does not say you can jump on/off of it. It does not say you can ride it. It doesn't eve say what happens when you put too much weight on it (it could just not move if overburdened).

Also, part of my contention is that people are not considering that jumping off could exert more weight than the disk is capable of supporting. What does this mean in game? Who knows as nobody knows what happens to a disk that is overburdened or 'physical' properties of force effects. :smallamused:

Brookshw

2014-09-19, 10:57 AM

Well looks like someone took favored enemy cat girls :smalltongue:

(I just really wanted to say that)

Jowgen

2014-09-19, 12:13 PM

And BTW, excellent job breaking down the discussion.

:smallredface:

Edit: hmmm, should it included that the greater version explicitly can be ridden?

Not necessarily that it can be "ridden", but it might be worthwhile re-examining the greater version to see if it can provide any insights into the lesser's function.

This spell functions like Tenser's Floating disk (PH 294), except that the created disk does not need to stay within 3 feet of the surface beneath it. However, the disk must remain within 15 feet of you at all times. You can concentrate (as a standard action) on the disk to make it move with a fly speed of 20 feet (perfect). This allows you to sit on the disk and command it to carry you about.

So, the greater version is identical to the lesser version except for the specifically mentioned differences. These differences are:
- Can be taken further than 3 feet from surface
- Must remain within 15 feet (presumably winks out if beyond?)
- Standard action concentration check can make it fly with perfect maneuverability.
- The above mentioned command-ability is stated to make it possible to sit on the disk and command it to carry you.

Things that are relevant to the regular disk discussion due to the "identical except for" clause.
- No mention of closer than 3 feet penalties.
- Uses the word Surface instead of ground. :smallbiggrin:
- You can sit on the the regular disk, as being able to command it to move around doesn't affect just sitting on it.

That's all I can think off at the moment.

As I said before, this whole argument is essentially DM fiat (allowing it or not allowing it).

This has been addressed by the current efforts to clearly identify what elements function per the RAW, and what elements require DM adjudication or fiat.

The spell does not say you can jump on/off of it. It does not say you can ride it. It doesn't eve say what happens when you put too much weight on it (it could just not move if overburdened).

Also, part of my contention is that people are not considering that jumping off could exert more weight than the disk is capable of supporting. What does this mean in game? Who knows as nobody knows what happens to a disk that is overburdened or 'physical' properties of force effects.

The FAQ and greater version both make allowance for sitting on it. I can't think of anything in D&D that you can sit on but not stand or jump on. The Greater Version doesn't use the word "Ride", and what the tricks do is not riding, it's using the following function in a way that allows one to use the disk to stay off the ground while moving.

The Impulse resulting from jumping off is even less present in the rules than the impulse from something falling, which at least has falling damage. Saying that using certain skills as part of your movement affects your weight for a split second would have further-reaching game implications. Trap pressure-plates for example would be strengthened, as a creature that would be too light to set one of might do so because of how it was moving on it. A DM can rule that it does, but there is absolutely nothing in the rules about it.

What happens to the disk when overburdened has been clearly identified as something that would require DM adjudication. It doesn't state that the conditional-effect known as "winking out" is triggered when overburdened, so the implication (subject to DM interpretation) is that the disk continues to exist. It uses the word hold, which (in this type of context) is defined as "Be able to bear (the weight of a person or thing)". What happens when something can't bear the weight of something? The thing doing the holding might break (disk can't do that) or the object might be dropped. How would the disk "drop" it's load? It would either need to dip to the side or fall. It is stated to remain horizontal "at all time" but only remain "approximately" 3 ft off the ground, so the latter is more likely (up to DM interpretation of course).

EDIT: Also, as the disk only needs to be "approximately" within 3 feet off the ground, a good portion of the impulse from Jumping could easily be absorbed/buffered by a momentary dip in the disk's elevation, without repercussions even if the DM ruled that dropping to the ground/overburdening would cause it to wink out.

Stella

2014-09-19, 04:45 PM

Fine and dandy. So it can support and convey items for you. "For you" still means that it does it for your benefit, which means you have some directive say over to where it carries the items.
The phrase "for you" is unnecessary, and might create confusion.

You create a slightly concave, circular plane of force that follows you about and carries loads for you.
The fact is that it will carry loads, no matter who places them upon it. Someone else placing a load upon the Disk does not in any way mean that the load is not being carried "for" the caster. An unnecessarily strict reading of RAW leads, as usual, to an inaccurate conclusion. The RAW is clear, it is only the misinterpretation which causes problems.

Jowgen

2014-09-21, 09:44 AM

The thread seems to be crawling to a close.

From what I can tell, the remaining are a) whether the one-time use of the word "ground" at the beginning of the spell description overrules the the term "surface", which is used twice at the end and in the greater version, for the purpose of where the disk will follow you. b) whether/how one can take advantage of the disk's dimension and near-indestructibility to gain some sort of cover bonus.

That ought to then be everything, unless someone can think of any other potential tricks/uses?

Brookshw

2014-09-21, 10:01 AM

I suppose we could ask if someone could flip the disk but by raw I think the answer is no. I might personally though permit such if someone was lifting with as much weight as the disk can support, but that's not raw backed.

Jowgen

2014-09-21, 02:57 PM

I suppose we could ask if someone could flip the disk

To what end would one be flipping it? Do you mean as to use it as a sort-shield/cover?

The disk dipping to the side was something I suggested earlier as a potential way for the disk to drop something when it was overburdened, as overburdening isn't listed as causing it to wink out. However, as the disk remains level "at all times" but only stays "approximately" three feet off the ground, the disk simply falling when overburdened seemed much more likely. There is a little wiggle-room vertically, but horizontally it never wavers, not even in the greater version.

Brookshw

2014-09-21, 03:30 PM

To what end would one be flipping it? Do you mean as to use it as a sort-shield/cover?

The disk dipping to the side was something I suggested earlier as a potential way for the disk to drop something when it was overburdened, as overburdening isn't listed as causing it to wink out. However, as the disk remains level "at all times" but only stays "approximately" three feet off the ground, the disk simply falling when overburdened seemed much more likely. There is a little wiggle-room vertically, but horizontally it never wavers, not even in the greater version.

I can think of some niche situations where it could come up but they'd be excessively specific, not horribly impacting for a general discussion but figured I'd mention the possibility in case anyone wanted to discuss possibilities/opinions. Otherwise I think that's about it.

Jowgen

2014-09-21, 04:11 PM

Fair enough.

If anyone has any other comments/indeas, do post them. If nothing comes up in the next couple of days, I might do a little mini-guide to floating disk use.

Jowgen

2014-09-22, 01:57 AM

Been going through some books for mentions of the Floating Disk and came across this from the description of the Shadow Hand spell from Magic of Faerun

Unlike Tenser’s floating disk, it does not have to follow you at a fixed distance— you may direct where the hand goes.

Really, just another nail in the coffin of the standard "ride around by directing it" idea.

Segev

2014-09-22, 08:08 AM

It has occurred to me that the maximum height of 3 feet off the ground is actually rather high. That's at least standard human-usable table height. (I'd always mentally pictured it more at mid-calf level, relative to a normal human).

Even without the "ride and hover" function, it would thus be a pretty impressive step-stool. A halfling could use it to stand eye-to-eye with a Medium-sized creature. Alternatively, a somewhat short-for-the-race halfling or gnome could walk UNDER their floating disk, using it like an umbrella (among other uses).

With or without the "ride" function, if you assume it can at least be variably controlled as to how high above a surface it hovers, a smaller caster could step onto it while it's only an inch off the ground, ride it to 3 feet off the ground, then step off onto a table or something. Could then make the disk move over the table, climb on it, and make it rise to 3 feet higher. Could also climb giants' steps this way without a climb check.

Depending on how we define "surface" and "ground" wrt this spell's allowed functionality, the floating disk could provide stepping stones (or transport, with some of the tricks here or just in general, depending on how you rule its ability to travel) over surfaces too delicate to support one's weight. Not just water or lava or the like, but awnings over stalls in the bazaar, or spider's webs, or a bolt of cloth extended like a makeshift bridge over a chasm (possibly with the aid of one's familiar).

Jowgen

2014-09-23, 01:37 AM

I've been considering the uses for medium creatures, but now that you say it, it does appear that it could have a lot more utility for a small creature under 3 foot.

The "amongst other uses" in this case might be quite significant. Surely, if you're small and fighting while not at all having to worry about being hit from above thanks to that miniature wall of force over your head, you would be deserving of a rather nice bonus. I'm thinking along the following lines:

Limited Cover (RC p. 39) against all attacks, as you're able to use the thing above you to your advantage similar to how you'd use a tree or pillar. Regular cover against attacks by a flying enemies seems similarly warranted. I'd even go as far as to say that you'd have the option to take total cover against attacks from above when not attacking, as the disk can stay directly above you in real time and no part of you needs to come out from underneath unless you're attacking (or performing a similar action). Personally, I'd run this as per tower-shield rules with the relevant FAQ Sage ruling in effect, so that a character doing this must give up their standard action rather than just the option to attack.

With floor-level meele attacks, AFAIK the rules make it so that you can effectively attack from any square you occupy, so that would just be limited cover. With ranged attacks from floor-level... I think limited cover is again the best option to default to for simplicity, although I suppose a DM could reasonably rule that certain attacks are more strongly affected (e.g. a crossbow shoots more in a straight line, but an arrow may have to arch).

I think the same benefits ought to apply to medium creatures fitting themselves under the disk, but they'd have to lie prone, or somehow squeeze (can't find applicable 3.5 rules for low spaces), or or at least crouch (not sure that option made it into 3.5), and the total cover option might not apply as a 3-foot disk would not be "almost as tall as yourself" like a tower shield. Perhaps improved cover instead.

One mayor thing in relation to this that would require DM adjudication is how visible/invisible the disk is. If it's invisible, the granted cover should not allow hide checks or give any other benefits of affecting line of sight.

As for the issue of whether it can go up/down within its 3 feet of space, it is obviously a DM call, but I think a good case can be made for it. A) it says it remains 'approximately' 3 feet above ground, so there is wiggle-room B) no penalty for it going lower is mentioned. C) the disk being able to go downwards is the most sensible solution for the question as to what happens when it is overburdened D) Giving a player to ascend 3 feet from the ground only has the most minor of convenience benefits and no combat benefits I can think off. E) a non-flying caster who is sufficiently small would have a very hard time to actually use this spell unless he could command it to get down to his level. I mean seriously, it's one of the simplest spells, and the idea that a shrunk half-ling wizard couldn't cast it in a way that would allow him to still load things onto the thing is just plain silly... and hilarious, but that's besides the point.

If I were to be DMing and wanted to be heavy-handed in my ruling, I'd likely go that one could set the height of the disk at the time of casting, and that it could be forced downwards with sufficient weight, but it would always default back to following at that height.