Question about (Tenser's) Floating Disk

[KarinsDad]

What if someone wants to destroy it?

Have them lift it. If they can lift the weight it is carrying, they should be able to move it more than 3 feet above the ground and have it wink out.

 

[Hypersmurf]

...actually, here's one. What if you can turn a floating disk vertical? Since it's 3' in diameter and 3' off the ground, it would be touching the ground if it rotated on its center.

Uh, it would be one and a half feet off the ground if it rotated on its centre.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Since the Fly spell doesn't match your dictionary definition of fly. (no physical means of propulsion required), then I don't think your definition applies.

Out of curiosity - if there's no physical means of propulsion required, why is someone slowed down by wearing chain mail, when they aren't slowed down by carrying chain mail?

Where do you find from the description of the Fly spell that there is no physical means of propulsion required?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

I'm jumping on you?



Look in the mirror pal.



You have more problems with people disagreeing with you than practically anyone else here on the boards.



Other people disagree and do not call people jerks (thread after thread after thread).

I think you need to calm down a bit there KD. Making up stuff isn't like you.



Unless you have links to all these threads where I've been calling people jerks? I can only think of one, maybe two threads in the last month or so where that's happened. Oddly enough, you were involved in those threads as well.

Other people disagree and do not suddenly claim they are talking house rules as opposed to core rules.

I guess you missed it, but I thought I made it clear in my first post that I was talking about how I handled the floating disk spell. I don't think I every mentioned anything about a core rule or official interpretation (up until you jumped in and started quoting stuff at me, and I misread the text of the spell).



I apologize for not whipping out the magic "house rule" phrase earlier, I thought it clear that I was talking about my own personal way of handling the spell. Then some people started telling me that it was overpowered, and I explained why it wasn't, given the additional restrictions I put on it. That's when you jumped in acting all high and mighty.



It felt to me like you were deliberately baiting me. That may not have been your intent, but that's what it felt like.

Grow up Caliban. People will respect you more.

You might want to take your own advice there chief. Or at least lay off the personal attacks. I think that comment was uncalled for.

In the meantime, come back and talk with us when you want to talk about the real rules as opposed to Caliban's House Rules.

Nah, I think I'll come back and talk whenever I damn well please. You're not my dad KD. You don't get to boss me around like that.



I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was talking about KD, but talking down to me really won't get you anywhere.

 

[jgsugden]

Uhhhhh ... I'll give someone a quarter just to lock this thread.

Anyone that is going to be convinced to change their view of TFD by this thread has already been convinced. Everyone else is just beating a dead horse. Go forth to other threads and bestow your wisdom someplace where it might still help!

 

[Abraxas]

Are we playing a comic book super hero RPG, or are we playing a fantasy RPG?

Doesn't matter - fantasy is fantasy.

In the fantasy world, the original designer (i.e. the guy who created the spell in the campaign world, not the real world designer of the spell) of the Fly spell would not have had any fantasy world models of a creature that flys in the air and flys in the water (unless you add those types of creatures into your campaign). Hence, from a fantasy world perspective (not a 20th/21st century lets read comic books perspective), that ability would probably never enter the spell designers mind.

There are numerous creatures in the 3.5E that fly without wings. They all could be models of creatures that fly both in and out of water. You have to decide that (in your campaign) no magical means of flight works underwater for this not to be true. So from a fantasy world perspective where creatures can move about without any visible means they ability to move through water as easily as air most likely does come to mind.

Phrases like "flew across the water" and "flies through the sea" have been around a lot longer than comic books - so the idea of flying through water is not a 20th/21st century one. The dictionary also defines the word fly as "To move with great speed; rush or dart" which could easily describe movement underwater.

If underwater movement is strictly prohibited by the spell you have to define how much of the flyer has to be immersed before his mode of movement changes from flying to swimming. It would be a pretty pathetic spell developer that didn't consider what would happen if he fell overboard during a sea voyage and his fly spell couldn't pull him out of the briny deep

We should look at the game designer who created the spell. Go back to the 1st edition DMG where fly is specifically stated as woking underwater (although at half speed).

Until 3.5, DND 3E failed pretty much to define underwater environments. There were hints here and there (like the Freedom of Movement spell), but there were very few rules.

Except for the MoP pg 77. In the MoP it states that creatures on the elemental plane of water with a fly speed didn't have to swim but could move at half their normal rate with their maneuverability reduced by one grade. The fly spell creator could have very well seen flying creatures there and used them for the model of his fly spell.

However, nowhere in the 3.5 DMG Aquatic Terrain section or in the Fly spell description or in the Flight description of the Monster Manual does it talk about flying under water. It does talk about invisibility under water. It does talk about fire spells underwater. Since the concept of "flying underwater" is a 20th century concept and not a medieval fantasy concept and it is not mentioned in the rules whereas swimming IS mentioned, do you really think that it is allowed as a core rule? Or, is it a house rule?

Flight underwater is not a 20th century concept - nor is it a houserule.
In all editions of D&D when the effects of being underwater on spells are discussed only those spells that are affected have any commentary at all. Why are invisibility and fire spells talked about? - Because those spells are affected when used underwater. If a spell isn't stated to operate differently underwater then the spell doesn't operate differently underwater.

Another aside - The Aquatic terrain text appears to be pulled directly from Skip Williams article "Water, Water Everywhere, D&D Underwater Combat Rules" in Dragon 291 and condensed. In the dragon article Skip stated "Most spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities work normally underwater." He then goes on to explain the fire descriptor spell exceptions - it appears these were all lumped under magical attacks in the DMG.

Can you fly underneath the ground? No. Why not?

Because the Fly spell does not alter the earth and does not let you pass through solids.

Can you fly underneath the water?

Yes, because the fly spell has to do nothing to the water for you to move through the water. The only question should be how effectively can you move through the water. Sure, a DM can adjudicate that flying underwater isn't allowed. But, the text does not prohibit it. (And the authors intent actually supports flying underwater).

I agree we disagree but this is all a hijack anyways.

 

[Henry]

The original thread starter hasn't requested the thread close from what I've read, so it stays open. But it does merit a warning:

Let's please stop with the personal attacks. People are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. It still doesn't give one poster the right to flame another.

Please carry on.

 

[LokiDR]

I think TFD is a pack horse. It carries a lot of weight, moves pretty slowly, and has an alternate method of movement: floating. In any case where there is a question about the spell, I think I will use this concept. I guess that means that it is ridable, doesn't float over water, and can not be pulled by your familar (unless you have a toad familiar, that is just too funny).