Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Negative Zero" data-source="post: 1240978" data-attributes="member: 3794">jgsugden:firstly, you're right, self-righteous was the wrong word to use. my bad.however, you are correct, i am a sinner. i bow my head in shame ... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> 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. 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. 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?  Saeviomagy:i actually didn't feel it was offensive at all. i never made any accusations, nor did i call any names. i simply stated that his tone came off a certain way. however, there are a lot of delicate crystaline constitutions around here, and i wanted to make sure that anyone who read it, did so by their own choice, not mine. (sort of a "don't complain about the nudity, if you know the movie's rated X" sort of thing.) ... (geez my mind is in the gutter! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />) anywho, i'd always assumed that it took a standard (or a move) action to move the disk beyond what its default actions were (read "follow you around"). clearly nothing states that this is the case (at least that i'm aware of), so you may be right.  however, with regard to the specific examples you mentioned; "full attacks (both ranged and melee) while moving at walking speed. Charges at 1.5 times normal charge distance" those are both mostly useful with "fighter" type classes, and can already be done according to what seems to be the "standard" interpretation of the rules by having the wizard's fighter buddy stand on the disk. (although, if you need to jump down, you can't charge.) and if it's already possible and the game is balanced, i can't imagine how it'd be unbalancing to allow a wizard to make a full attack that way. "Travelling all night while still memorising spells/healing etc" you can already do that with a wagon. no big deal there either. the only thing that you mentioned that could be an issue is the "Full-round casting actions". but then again, how much of an impact is that really? moderate, at best. (and i think that's being generous.) afterall, the wiz would still be vulerable, and i think that any capable DM would impose an AC penalty due to sitting (making him easier to hit) or a balance check if standing (potentially ruining his spell). not to mention, that for everything mentioned, the wiz would have to have the spell prepared, and in most of those cases, precast, and would be giving up a sleep spell, or a magic missile or any number of more useful spells to do it. how often do you see this spell memorised? i still don't see the major imbalancing factors alluded to. ~NegZ</blockquote>

Verification