Question about (Tenser's) Floating Disk

[brento766]

new perspective.

Just think of it this way: your floating disk is like a wagon (the kind you had when you were a little kid) You can put stuff in it and you can pull it behind you. If you wanted to, you could add a long sting to it and pull it from 20 ft ahead instead of just the handle's length. If you wanted to, you could just drop the handle and it would stay in one place as you walked away. But if you got in it, it doesn't mean you would go anywhere. You might be able to creatively say that if you were on an incline and you stood on it, you would procede to go down the hill like in a wagon because of simple phisics rules but even then you would have to make some serious balance checks.

 

[mikebr99]

Having the disk follow you is not an action, but I would certainly rule that if you are riding it, directing it is a move equivalent action. That resolves every issue you brought up.

That sounds good... I'll have that.

YMMV


Mike

 

[Evil Eli]

If you paid $money$ for a rule book and you want to interpet a spell in a certain way, It is your right! Your book your point of view, period.

However, If you attempted such a stunt in a game I was running I would say NO. The reason being I paid $money$ for my rule book also and I have my interpetation of how the spell works. Since I am DMing the game and my word is final you would have to accept it or find another group who would be have the same POV as you.

Nuff Said!

 

[Caliban]

The reason that I rule on Tenser's Floating Disc the way I do is that, outside of one of my own characters, I've never actually seen anyone use the spell.

Allowing a more flexible interpretation of the spell (with certain commonsense restrictions) makes it more likely to actually be use. In spite of this, I still haven't seen the spell used by a player in my home game.

 

[jgsugden]

jgsugden:
secondly, if your idea of "enough evidence" is that one phrase (to the exclusion of all else), then i suppose you have a valid point. as for the "none that points to [yours]" comment, again, this is true only if you ignore the rest of the spell description. however, if you do read the rest of the spell description, the line of right and wrong becomes a bit more blurry.

Why? Why do I let myself get dragged into this drivel? Could it perhaps be that I have too much free time on my hands today?

I don't ignore the rest of the spell description. There is nothing in there to support the idea that you can ride on the disk. The closest thing to it is the phrase that says you can change the interval by which it follows you. You can direct it to change the inteval, but there is nothing in the description that says you can get on it.

i never said that the game desiners intended for the spell to be used in "X" way, merely that according to the way the spell description is written, it is possible. if however, this is your contention, there are lots of things in this world have additional uses that the original designers hadn't thought of. it's one of the biggest sources of advancement and progress. therefore, intention does not negate possibility.

while i'm prepared to concede that using the spell as "a personal flotation device" is not your idea of the intent of the spell, but it certainly seems that it is to me, and unless you can show me that i'm wrong by using fact and not allusion, then your statement has no power. at least no more than mine..

Uhhh? You never said it was an intended use of the spell, but it is your idea of the intent of the spell? Objection! Your honor, the witness is contradicting himself! I'd ask leave of the court to flog him thrice with a wet noodle!

As for finding alternative uses for spells, that is fine and dandy as long as it doesn't break the spell by doing things clearly beyond the intended power level of the spell. Using polymorph to get party members through a small hole in the wall is fine. Using TFD as levitate with horizontal motion is not.

you mentioned: "why omit any rules to govern this act?" this is a good point. if the spell designers never intended it to be used this way,and there was the a specific indication that it couldn't be used thusly in a previous version of the game, then you tell me? why didn't they exclude this use specifically? (as had been done before.) especially when there are clearly guidelines as to what cannot be done with it already in the description. it could be that perhaps it does not break the "what can be accomplished" rules?

~NegZ

I'd estimate that there are roughly 600 spells (6 per page, 100+ pages) of spells in the PHB. There are three columns on each page. Each column contains about 70 lines of text. Each sentence is roughly three lines long. If they cut one unnecessary sentence out of each description (like this 'you can't ride on your own disk' line), they saved themselves 8 or 9 pages of spell descriptions. These are very rough estimates, but with space at a premium in both editions of these books, you can understand why the took out lines like these that were present in prior editions.

Why doesn't this 'space' argument apply to my argument regarding there being no 'guidance' text present? Because if that was an intended use, it would be necessary information, not just a helpful piece of guidance. You can (and should) include rules that provide a way to figure out what you *can* do with a spell. It is impossible to include information to tell you everything you can't do with each spell.

But I'm glad you understand that my point is valid.

Look at this whole situation from this angle: Being able to ride the disk would be an obviously beneficial use. Being able to avoid traps, sail over water, etc ... would make this spell a combination of a wagon, water walking and a weak version of fly. Considering the significant advantage for using the disk in this way, if it were something that the designers intended to be possible, don't you think there would be rules for it?

Further, considering it gives the hybrid advantages of two third level spells, doesn't it strike you as unreasonable to be a first level spell with a longer duration (though slightly weaker effect) than *both* of those spells?

And you still never dealt with my 'follows you around' is not equal to 'comply with directions' argument.

This time, I'm really done with this issue. Good luck. To be honest, I don't really care about this issue one bit as the last time I used this spell was *waaaaaaaayyyyyyyy* back in the early days of first edition AD&D (1981? or so). Not because it is the spell has been underpowered, but because the disks don't talk. If something is going to carry my booty around, I want something that can tell me how cool my new treasures are!

 

[KarinsDad]

I have to side with the "does allow the caster to sit on the disc, does not allow the caster to ride the disc" position.

The phrase:

"If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you."

appears to state that you can direct it to maintain a constant interval of 5 feet, or you can direct it to maintain a constant interval of some other number of feet (e.g. 20 feet).

Just because the disc can move on its own does not mean that you can direct it to move on its own in a different manner than the text states that it moves. The text states:

"The character creates a slightly concave, circular plane of force that follows the character about"

and

"It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany the character at a rate of no more than the character's normal speed each round."

It has no problem moving, as long as it is following and accompanying the caster. Nothing in the text indicates that it can move on its own without following.

From the text, it also appears that you cannot even direct it to stop because it will continue to follow you. You can change the interval at which it follows you, but there isn't any reference to making it stop (unless you stop).

Now, someone could interpret the phrase "If not otherwise directed" to mean that you can direct it to stop or you can direct it to move on its own, but none of the rest of the spell text supports that interpretation. In the context of the rest of the spell description, this interpretation is adding functionality which is not supported by the rest of the text.

The only movement listed in the rest of the text is following movement. The only stopping listed in the rest of the text ("maintains a constant interval of 5 feet") is when the caster stops.

 

[LokiDR]

Actually, I don't think the "familiar chariot" is strictly legal. Share Spells doesn't allow you to "key" a spell to the familiar; it allows you to cast a spell with a Range of Personal on the familiar, or to have a spell you cast on yourself affect him too.

TFD has an Effect, not a Target, so it can't be Shared.

-Hyp.

Not technically legal, but I don't think it is over powered. Besides, the toad chariot is just too amusing.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not technically legal, but I don't think it is over powered. Besides, the toad chariot is just too amusing.

You know toads have a speed of 5, don't you?

(Even Anthropomorphic toads. Gah. A whale with bipedal legs moves 30. A toad with bipedal legs moves 5.)

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

so ... lemme see if i get this right, LokiDR thinks that creative spell use should be discouraged? seriously though, the spell description says nothing that prevents sitting on it.

If you want a portable chair, I am all for it. I think it gets overpowered if it is a personal hover transport.

The wording, from a purely technical point of view, does not prevent you from using it as a transport. "otherwise directed" can very legitimately be used to say the platform can go anywhere in range as long as the caster directs it. I think that is a little too strong for a 1st level spell.

Without going into heavy semantics, I would be fine with FD as a seat, a stepping stone, or a familar toted chariot. More than that and it starts looking like a 2nd level spell.

 

[LokiDR]

damn double posts....