Resilient Sphere’s weightlessness

[Segev]

In the thread on contingent spell creativity, it was mentioned that a Resilient Sphere being weightless means any creature can just pick it up and move it. And the spell does say it can be picked up and carried.

But does it render its contents weightless to those carrying the sphere, or does anybody who wants to pick it up have to be able to carry its contents? I’d always read the weightlessness as referring only to the sphere itself, but the comment about a defensive sphere being a bad idea mentioned how anybody could pick it up and carry it away.

Obviously, this is a place for DM rulings, but I thought it a good topic for discussion of consequences and likely RAI. What do you think? Should a 5-strength weakling be able to lift a solid gold statue encased in a Resilient Sphere?

What are the pros and cons from a caster’s perspective, and from a DM’s?

It definitely reduces the defense a bit if the encasing means you can be trivially pushes aside, or carried to a location that will kill you when the spell ends. It also increases the utility if encasing heavy things makes them easy to move. Albeit only for up to a minute.

If the sphere’s weightlessness translates to its contents, can it be hung in mid-air with its contents inside? This would seem to make the hamster-ball function it explicitly has harder to use, since it couldn’t roll downhill. And might make it push off the ground and float away just from the down force of the hamster ball motion. Of course, that might be thinking about it in real physics terms too much.

[Mellack]

I would think that the objects inside have to retain their weight. If not, even a gentle breeze would send the sphere flying away. Since that seems far too annoying to work with, that leaves me with the sphere having to keep the weight of everything inside.

[Falconcry]

If cast underwater do you bob to the surface?

[Valmark]

The sphere being weightless doesn't mean it's inside is, does it? Nor the fact that it can picked up- people can be picked up too, and people aren't weightless usually.

At the very least the spell doesn't say its contents can be ignored.

[LudicSavant]

The sphere being weightless doesn't mean it's inside is, does it? Nor the fact that it can picked up- people can be picked up too, and people aren't weightless usually.

I'm the exception. I'm totally weightless. Yep.

[Temperjoke]

Well, my question is, are you floating in the exact center of the sphere, or standing on the bottom of it? If you are floating inside it, then I would assume that it is weightless. If you are standing on the bottom, then it seems logical that your weight would factor, and thus it is not weightless.

I think the intent is that the sphere doesn't add anything to your existing weight, so you can't use it for dropping on enemies, or like for tripping traps or accidentally breaking through a floor.

[Valmark]

Well, my question is, are you floating in the exact center of the sphere, or standing on the bottom of it? If you are floating inside it, then I would assume that it is weightless. If you are standing on the bottom, then it seems logical that your weight would factor, and thus it is not weightless.

I think the intent is that the sphere doesn't add anything to your existing weight, so you can't use it for dropping on enemies, or like for tripping traps or accidentally breaking through a floor.

The sphere is just enough big to accomodate its contents and a creature can push on the walls from inside to move it, so you probably aren't floating in it.

[Segev]

The contents retaining and transmitting weight through the sphere is how I always interpreted it, but I did want to get other opinions.

It definitely has you standing in the bottom of it, given the hamster-ball thing it calls out as doable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Spells do exactly and only what they say. If it wanted the contents to be weightless, it would say so. It does for other things that change the weight of other objects.