Floating Disc Question


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:

I agree that the 2 guys riding tandem shouldn't get full attacks. But using the earlier ship logic that's exactly what is still happening just they are on a vehicle. My objection is trying both apply the mounted rules to any situation of movement that would be considered voluntary but not involuntary.

If me be moved to a target via being on an apple cart means i can't full attack then why isn't that applied due to a bull rush? Because the rules don't say i can't after a bull rush is the answer I'll likely get or it makes the bull rush too good. But the situation is identical someone is giving up an action to move me a distance outside of my turn. If instead of a friend one of the BBEG's minions hop-on and drive the apple cart into a crowd of their buddies can I now full attack since it wasn't voluntary? What if a Friend is the one bull-rushing me closer to a target is it now not gonna let me full attack?

I will agree that it is strange that in some cases if you are moved when its not your turn you are denied your full attack and in other cases if you are moved when its not your turn you aren't. I have to assume that the reason for the differences is game balance. If you could always make an attack if moved when its not your turn or could never full attack if you were moved when its not your turn it would create an exploitable loophole. So, the rules exist as they do in order to try and keep things balanced. The DM is perfectly within their rights to ignore or change the rules, especially if they deem doing so won't unbalance the game and it results in a more consistent universe.

For example, if you have two swordsmen standing on top of a stage coach fighting. The DM could ignore the movement of the stagecoach thereby allowing both to make full attacks or they could state that since both of them are "effectively" mounted then they both would follow the mounted combat rules and neither can make a full attack. The rules do not tell us which of these two rulings is correct and honestly the same DM could make opposite rulings in two different situations as a result of the surrounding circumstances.

If two swordsman fighting on a stagecoach that is moving through a flat area at a constant speed, with no other opponents in sight. It makes for a more enjoyable dramatic fight if both are allowed to make full attacks.

However, if the coach is flying down a bumpy forest road with raiders and guards riding/fighting along side it on both sides and one of the raiders has leaped on top of the stage coach and has engaged the top side passenger. Now you have a situation where its probably easier to just treat everyone as mounted. Its a chaotic situation and if either of the men on top of the stage coach is allowed to make a full attack it gives them a distinct advantage over their enemies that are on horse back next to the coach.

Whatever ruling results in the least amount of exploitation without sacrificing fun is probably the right answer. Even if it isn't logical or realistic. Normally I push for whatever is most logical or realistic unless the rules contradict such things. In those cases I have to look at why the rule exists and game balance is often the answer in those cases. If I think the rule is too restrictive and ignoring it won't unbalance things then I'll probably do so. But I will acknowledge that I'm going against the rules.

Taken at its extreme you could argue everyone is mounted at all times since they are all standing on top of planet that is spinning like a top while orbiting a sun, all at very high speeds.


That is a great explanation about how I generally feel on the topic.

I will summarize my thoughts in a simple manner:
I'm generally going to treat creatures moving or being moved in a voluntary manner as something akin to mounted combat. No you don't get to cheat the system to get full attacks. But ultimately one set of hard rules will not work optimally in all situations, and as a GM I will decide on a case by case basis what I think is most balanced and appropriate.

For example, getting rid of an enemies ability to full attack by moving them would be imbalanced so it doesn't remove their ability to full attack.


Been reading this thread for a while and it seems to me a lot of confusion when there really isn't. All characters and even monsters follow the same basic rule. You have a set of actions per round. You get a Move action, A Swift and a Standard Action. You have the option to take a Full Action giving up all your other actions. Some spells and actions require you to take a Full action. More then one attack is considered a Full Round Action. Even monsters follow this.
It doesn't matter if the martial moves under his own feet or something else he still moved. He gets one attack. Now once he's in the enemy's face he can swing as many times as he has attacks.


Well the argument that others are making is that the reason you're denied a full attack when moving is because you spend a move action to move (and thus can't combine it with a standard action to full attack). In the case of mounted combat it explicitly calls out that you're denied a full attack when your mount moves more than 5'. It's not because you use your move action, in fact the mounted combat rules explicitly say you retain your move action, it says its you can use it to do other things. You just can't make a full attack.

The argument myself and others make is that the extension of the mounted combat restriction to other forms of being moved makes sense and is logical. However, it is not explicitly in the rules.


What of bull rush, then?


Agénor wrote:
What of bull rush, then?

I just read bull rush again. What about it?

If creature A successfully performs a bull rush on creature B, pushing them back say 20 feet (it was a really good check) which lands them in melee range to creature C. On creature B's turn by the RAW, creature B could choose to make a full attack against creature C.

It's also worth noting that if the movement of creature B caused it to move through squares threatened by creature D, this movement would not provoke an AoO from creature D. Unless creature A has greater bull rush.


I've think I've already covered in my other posts how I feel about movement resulting from being involuntarily moved, via things like combat maneuvers.

But to specifically address it, obviously the person performing the bull rush cannot make a full attack, but the person that would be moved by bull rush does not lose their actions or ability to perform a full attack.

The delineating factor (for me) is voluntary versus involuntary movement.


How come, since B was moved between the beginning of the round and its turn, can B make a full attack?

A bull rush moves you just as a disk would.

@Claxon, as of the delineation being voluntary or not, I agree. Being on a disk is involuntary, whether one benefits from said movement or not is irrelevant. However it seems others are making rules - not rulings, rules - using hindsight.


Agénor wrote:

How come, since B was moved between the beginning of the round and its turn, can B make a full attack?

A bull rush moves you just as a disk would.

I didn't realize that floating disks required a standard action and a combat maneuver check in order to move. We are looking at very different versions of the spell if that's the case.


Agénor wrote:

How come, since B was moved between the beginning of the round and its turn, can B make a full attack?

A bull rush moves you just as a disk would.

@Claxon, as of the delineation being voluntary or not, I agree. Being on a disk is involuntary, whether one benefits from said movement or not is irrelevant. However it seems others are making rules - not rulings, rules - using hindsight.

Being in a disc is hardly involuntary.


Cavall wrote:
Being in a disc is hardly involuntary.

Being isn't an action.


LordKailas wrote:


I didn't realize that floating disks required a standard action and a combat maneuver check in order to move. We are looking at very different versions of the spell if that's the case.

So you make the decision being about the resources invested? This is hindsight, not a good base to create a robust model with which to run instances, it requires to rule ad hoc every time.


For you non-raw people, if an enemy charges you, can you full attack them on your turn, or can you only make a single attack?

This is because they were not always next to you on the previous round, similar to you only being next to them when you arrive on a floating disk.


LordKailas wrote:
Agénor wrote:

How come, since B was moved between the beginning of the round and its turn, can B make a full attack?

A bull rush moves you just as a disk would.

I didn't realize that floating disks required a standard action and a combat maneuver check in order to move. We are looking at very different versions of the spell if that's the case.

So you make the decision being about the resources invested? This is hindsight, not a good base to create a robust model with which to run instances, it requires to rule ad hoc every time.


In one of my posts I said, giving some penalty might work better. Just for a second, can we entertain the idea that being moved gives you the "unbalanced" condition. Say a -2 or -4 to melee attacks, dex and str skill checks, and reflex saves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Agénor wrote:
LordKailas wrote:


I didn't realize that floating disks required a standard action and a combat maneuver check in order to move. We are looking at very different versions of the spell if that's the case.

So you make the decision being about the resources invested? This is hindsight, not a good base to create a robust model with which to run instances, it requires to rule ad hoc every time.

Its one of many things to consider. Lets go back to the stagecoach example and change it from a stagecoach to a floating disk.

Character A, Sees two incapacitated ratfolk enemies. They cast floating disk throw the two (creatures B & C) onto it and continue on their way.

Situation 1: Creature A is strolling down an empty road and creature B wakes up and attacks creature C.
The DM rules that given the situation Creatures B and C should be allowed to make a full attacks against each other. Even while Creature A continues to stroll along oblivious to the fight.

Situation 2: Creature A gets ambushed by mounted bandits (gnomes on riding dogs). Creatures B and C decide they want to help creature A. The DM rules that in this case creatures B and C should be treated as being mounted otherwise they would have an unfair advantage getting to flank and full attack the bandits while the caster just runs around to keep from getting surrounded.

It's not a situation explicitly covered by the rules and its important that the DM makes a ruling that deals with the current situation. Because the only set of rules we have to cover a similar situation are the mounted combat rules its up to the DM if the situation in question is close enough (in their opinion) that it makes sense to use the same rules or not. You can expect table variation since nothing explicitly references it.

In a complete vacuum (and having lots of experience dealing with munchkin players as a DM). I'm going to advocate the least beneficial ruling unless I have evidence that the least beneficial ruling isn't what was intended. In this case, that the floating disk and other things that move outside of the rider's control should probably follow the mounted combat rules. Unless there is some reason that it makes sense to ignore the existence of the moving thing (eg. everyone is on the same moving thing).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Agénor wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Being in a disc is hardly involuntary.
Being isn't an action.

I've no idea what this means. But climbing on to a disc is both voluntary and an action. I find most of your arguments a little disingenuous.


I think people are worrying too much about keeping a martial character from being able to gain a benefit from anaother character's aid. Let's consider what the controller of the disk is giving up to give their buddy the pseudo pounce. They lose their move action, so they are locked down in their position unless they want their buddy to come back to them. This can be pretty bad. The "mounted" character has no control over the placement of the disk.

Also consider when this actually becomes impactful. Until about level 6 it really doesn't make a difference, and even then it's not as big a difference. It probably isn't a huge difference in capability until level 8 or 9. Which is also around where martials are starting to really lag behind casters. So not allowing it is really just enforcing balance issues as they are rather than allowing teamwork to help balance the caster martial disparity. Is that really a good thing? I would say no.


1. The wizard has ways to move, including just moving 5 feet or using school abilities. Hardly locked down.
2. Has no say? As in the fighter can not just say "move me here"? Untrue.
3. Comes online as of level 1, when ANY character with dex 15 can take two weapon fighting. Which I would if I knew I could always get 2 attacks on a first level character with a full bab character and weapon focus.


Cavall wrote:
3. Comes online as of level 1, when ANY character with dex 15 can take two weapon fighting. Which I would if I knew I could always get 2 attacks on a first level character with a full bab character and weapon focus.

Sure, let's have my level 1 wizard waltz past the enemy and provoke an AoO (because the carried player follows behind the caster and needs to end up adjacent to the enemy), surely nothing bad will happen.


Umm what character besides gnomes weight less than 100 lbs at lv 1?

He said no control, not no say. No matter how much he shouts, the wizard can just ignore it.


LordKailas wrote:
I'm going to advocate the least beneficial ruling unless I have evidence that the least beneficial ruling isn't what was intended.

Glad to know I can count on you to not allow the enemy to full attack me after I charge them. After all, I wasn't next to them on their last turn.


Cavall wrote:
Agénor wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Being in a disc is hardly involuntary.
Being isn't an action.
I've no idea what this means. But climbing on to a disc is both voluntary and an action. I find most of your arguments a little disingenuous.

@Cavall, to be, to become, to seem.... Those are verbs that describe states, not actions. Hence being on a disc is not an action, move or otherwise. One cannot voluntarily be and to voluntarily not be, it takes actions towards this end.

Climbing indeed is an action, voluntary indeed; but in our scenario, it doesn't happen in the current round so it is disregarded. Just like the fighter drew his sword and readied his shield, also prior to this round so I am not counting those actions even though he does use both sword and shield in the current round.

I am not disingenuous. I am trying to reach a general rule rather than look at specific instance. To be able to rule that something counts as the move action of a character, I look at similar cases and from there infer.

LordKailas wrote:
It's not a situation explicitly covered by the rules and its important that the DM makes a ruling that deals with the current situation.

I appreciate the exemples you have developped. They encompass the issue quite well.

I disagree with you. The two situations you have described should have the same rule. The cost of a +3 longsword doesn't change when a full B.A.B. class character is using it or when a half-B.A.B. character is using it.

In the end, this is about the concept of round and initiative. Given a fight between two persons trading blows for a long time, it doesn't matter where the end of a round and the beginning of a new one falls, the combat is a cycle. Where one acts in the round doesn't in itself affect what one can do. This is why when one delays, his initiative is changed in subsequent rounds rather than kept to the original value.

If you decide the person on the floating disk has been moving hence cannot perfom a move action, what if that person has been moved way more than a double move? Let's say for example a frail halfling through a peasant railgun?
- a great number of peasants in a line, each of them readying an action to pass to the peasant ahead of him in the line whatever the peasant behind them passes him, which could make things reach relativistic velocities -

I believe you cannot rule this away without breaking part of the core of the system which initiative is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Agénor wrote:


I appreciate the exemples you have developped. They encompass the issue quite well.

I disagree with you. The two situations you have described should have the same rule.

This seems to be our fundamental disagreement. For the enjoyment of the game the rule needs to change based on the particulars of the situation. If you're demanding that the rules be consistent between the two pairs of senarios I've presented I only see two options that are reasonable.

1. If a creature is "riding" some mode of transport, whether it be a horse, a coach or a ship. Then that creature must obey the mounted combat rules.

2. Find a ruleset for a d20 system that better addresses the combat situation. Special rules that only apply during say a chase (eg paizo's chase deck). Special rules that only apply during ship to ship combat (eg d20 starwars ship combat).

applying the mounted combat rules to only characters on horseback creates an unbalanced situation if similar modes of transport don't suffer from similar restrictions.

What about chariots?
What about PC Druids that are polymorphed into mounts with other PCs on their backs?
What about 2 characters on the same mount?

as you can see as soon as you limit the mounted combat rules to a single rider on an animal they are controlling, it leaves the door wide open for exploitation.

If you think the mounted combat rules are stupid and should be completely disregarded, as a DM you can do that. Just don't expect all DMs to share your view.

If mounted combat rules should apply to similar situations (eg chariots) at what point do those rules no longer apply?


Keep fighting the good fight Kailas


LordKailas wrote:
Agénor wrote:


I appreciate the exemples you have developped. They encompass the issue quite well.

I disagree with you. The two situations you have described should have the same rule.

This seems to be our fundamental disagreement. For the enjoyment of the game the rule needs to change based on the particulars of the situation. If you're demanding that the rules be consistent between the two pairs of senarios I've presented I only see two options that are reasonable.

1. If a creature is "riding" some mode of transport, whether it be a horse, a coach or a ship. Then that creature must obey the mounted combat rules.

2. Find a ruleset for a d20 system that better addresses the combat situation. Special rules that only apply during say a chase (eg paizo's chase deck). Special rules that only apply during ship to ship combat (eg d20 starwars ship combat).

applying the mounted combat rules to only characters on horseback creates an unbalanced situation if similar modes of transport don't suffer from similar restrictions.

What about chariots?
What about PC Druids that are polymorphed into mounts with other PCs on their backs?
What about 2 characters on the same mount?

as you can see as soon as you limit the mounted combat rules to a single rider on an animal they are controlling, it leaves the door wide open for exploitation.

If you think the mounted combat rules are stupid and should be completely disregarded, as a DM you can do that. Just don't expect all DMs to share your view.

If mounted combat rules should apply to similar situations (eg chariots) at what point do those rules no longer apply?

So, not to keep beating this dead horse, but I did point out the vehicle rules which covers all things not mounted previously in this thread. Specifically, it had chariots as an example vehicle. If I had to choose between two sets of rules that were closest to this situation because it is not specifically covered, I would default to the vehicle rules as my baseline over the mounted rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thedmstrikes wrote:
So, not to keep beating this dead horse, but I did point out the vehicle rules which covers all things not mounted previously in this thread. Specifically, it had chariots as an example vehicle. If I had to choose between two sets of rules that were closest to this situation because it is not specifically covered, I would default to the vehicle rules as my baseline over the mounted rules.

According to the vehicle rules, the wizard would be the "driver" of the floating disk and as such they can't do anything but control the floating disk during their turn. Also, the wizard disk, now has facing whereby their movement is restricted based on their facing. The wizard would have to spend part of their turn making a driving check to manuver the disk any time they want to change directions. Any passengers on the disk would be able to act normally during their turn.

I doubt any player would be happy with this but I suppose its something you could do. It has its own set of ramifications/problems.


LordKailas wrote:
Thedmstrikes wrote:
So, not to keep beating this dead horse, but I did point out the vehicle rules which covers all things not mounted previously in this thread. Specifically, it had chariots as an example vehicle. If I had to choose between two sets of rules that were closest to this situation because it is not specifically covered, I would default to the vehicle rules as my baseline over the mounted rules.

According to the vehicle rules, the wizard would be the "driver" of the floating disk and as such they can't do anything but control the floating disk during their turn. Also, the wizard disk, now has facing whereby their movement is restricted based on their facing. The wizard would have to spend part of their turn making a driving check to manuver the disk any time they want to change directions. Any passengers on the disk would be able to act normally during their turn.

I doubt any player would be happy with this but I suppose its something you could do. It has its own set of ramifications/problems.

No the Wizard has to use either a Standard action or a move action depending on what type of control over the vehicle they want to use. They could even cast a spell and maintain speed since they only need a move action to do that.


Talonhawke wrote:
No the Wizard has to use either a Standard action or a move action depending on what type of control over the vehicle they want to use. They could even cast a spell and maintain speed since they only need a move action to do that.

You are correct. However, the wizard does not automatically move with the disk. The wizard would have to spend a move action to "run along side it" in order to keep up with it and maintain control. Each vehicle has a designated "driver space" that the controller at bare minimum needs to be adjacent to in order to maintain control

Driving Space wrote:
At least one 5-foot-by-5-foot square on each vehicle must be designated as its driving space—often such an area encompasses multiple squares. In order to drive a vehicle, an intelligent creature must be within at least one square of the driving space and able to manipulate its driving device.

Since the disk occupies only a single 5 foot square that square must also be its designated driving space.

So, as you've stated the wizard could as a standard action cause the disk to accelerate.

Accelerate (standard action) wrote:
With a successful driving check, the vehicle’s current speed increases up to its acceleration (in 5-foot increments; minimum 5 feet), but no higher than its maximum speed. The vehicle can move forward or forward diagonally. In other words, each time a vehicle enters a new 5-foot square, it can choose any of its forward-facing squares—the ones directly in front or either of the squares directly forward and diagonal. This allows the vehicle to swerve. A driver who fails her driving check can only move into squares directly in front of the vehicle’s forward facing.

I'm not sure what the acceleration rate is for a floating disk, but we are told that it has a movement rate equal to the normal movement rate of its caster (typically 30 feet). So, we'll say the wizard can make it move up to 30 feet as a standard action. If the wizard does not then spend a move action to put themselves adjacent to the driving space, then on the next turn the disk will continue to travel in a straight line decelerating 10ft each round. Until it comes to a stop.

you're essentially having your friend sit on a skateboard that you then shove.

Its worth noting this spell has a range of close, and that if it goes outside that range the spell immediately ends dropping its contents on the ground. This means that moving at max speed and not chasing after it will almost guarantee that the spell will go out of range in a another round or two.

You are correct that it only takes a move action to maintain the speed of a vehicle, however, this would be in addition to the move action you have to take to keep up with the disk. So, on round 2 instead of spending a standard action and a move action you're spending 2 move actions. Which doesn't leave any room to cast spells unless you're able to cast said spells as a swift action.


LordKailas wrote:
The wizard would have to spend a move action to "run along side it" in order to keep up with it and maintain control. Each vehicle has a designated "driver space" that the controller at bare minimum needs to be adjacent to in order to maintain control

False. The wizard needs to use a move action to control the disk's position, and must be in Close range of the disk. He does not need to move alongside of it.

LordKailas wrote:
Driving Space wrote:
At least one 5-foot-by-5-foot square on each vehicle must be designated as its driving space—often such an area encompasses multiple squares. In order to drive a vehicle, an intelligent creature must be within at least one square of the driving space and able to manipulate its driving device.

Since the disk occupies only a single 5 foot square that square must also be its designated driving space.

So, as you've stated the wizard could as a standard action cause the disk to accelerate.

The disk is a spell, not a vehicle. It has no "driver". It has a caster that controls it. The caster designates where the disk will go, at no more than his own base speed.

LordKailas wrote:
Accelerate (standard action) wrote:
With a successful driving check, ...
If the wizard does not then spend a move action to put themselves adjacent to the driving space, then on the next turn the disk will continue to travel in a straight line decelerating 10ft each round. Until it comes to a stop.

The wizard need not spend a move keeping up with the disk. If the wizard does not spend a move action to designate where the disk will go, it will return to just behind the wizard, as per the spell.

LordKailas wrote:
This means that moving at max speed and not chasing after it will almost guarantee that the spell will go out of range in a another round or two.

The disk does not have inertia. It goes where the wizard states, or returns back to the wizard. There is no option for continuing to move on its own.

LordKailas wrote:
You are correct that it only takes a move action to maintain the speed of a vehicle, however, this would be in addition to the move action you have to take to keep up with the disk. So, on round 2 instead of spending a standard action and a move action you're spending 2 move actions. Which doesn't leave any room to cast spells unless you're able to cast said spells as a swift action.

This is wrong, since it is a spell and not a vehicle.

/cevaah


Cevah wrote:
This is wrong, since it is a spell and not a vehicle.

I 100% agree. It doesn't make sense to use the vehicle rules for this spell because it's not a vehicle.


LordKailas wrote:
Cevah wrote:
This is wrong, since it is a spell and not a vehicle.

I 100% agree. It doesn't make sense to use the vehicle rules for this spell because it's not a vehicle.

Otherwise stated: It doesn't make sense to use the vehicle mount rules for this spell because it's not a vehicle mount.

As it is neither, the GM must choose how to deal with it. I think the vehicle rules match up better.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
Cevah wrote:
This is wrong, since it is a spell and not a vehicle.

I 100% agree. It doesn't make sense to use the vehicle rules for this spell because it's not a vehicle.

Otherwise stated: It doesn't make sense to use the vehicle mount rules for this spell because it's not a vehicle mount.

As it is neither, the GM must choose how to deal with it. I think the vehicle rules match up better.

/cevah

that's a strange statement since you just demonstrated how the vehicle rules fail to work with it.


As pointed out above, riders of vehicles are not restricted to a standard action. Same as Dim Door allows those taken with the caster full actions on their turn.

/cevah


1 person marked this as a favorite.

so, basically you want to cherry pick a single aspect of the vehicle rules and ignore everything else. I suppose following the same logic the mount spell should also use the vehicle rules. Since by RAW its a summoned creature controlled by the one who summoned it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we all just agree there isn't a one size fits all solution and that there is nothing in the rules that directly covers such a situation, and that a GM will need to decide how they prefer to adjudicate the situation?

Some of clearly prefer to run things like mounted combat and think it makes more sense.

Some prefer to run it like a vehicle and think it makes more sense.

We can provide a myriad of arguments each way as this thread proves, but neither is supported by the rules over the other.

Ultimately we will have to agree to disagree.


LordKailas wrote:
so, basically you want to cherry pick a single aspect of the vehicle rules and ignore everything else. I suppose following the same logic the mount spell should also use the vehicle rules. Since by RAW its a summoned creature controlled by the one who summoned it.

It is not cherry picking when it is specific-overrides-general. The driver and facing rules are overridden by the spell. The inertia aspect is also overridden.

As to the Mount spell, it provides a mount that will "serve you as a mount". Therefore it follows the mount rules. When you borrow a well trained horse, it will likely still obey the trainer over the rider, but it still uses the mount rules.

@Claxon: +1

/cevah


Cevah wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
so, basically you want to cherry pick a single aspect of the vehicle rules and ignore everything else. I suppose following the same logic the mount spell should also use the vehicle rules. Since by RAW its a summoned creature controlled by the one who summoned it.
It is not cherry picking when it is specific-overrides-general. The driver and facing rules are overridden by the spell. The inertia aspect is also overridden.

So, what other vehicle rules are left?

When you say you want to use X rules and then black out 99% of them, its hard to see it as anything but cherry picking a specific statement.

as for the mount spell, IMO the logic still follows. But, I'll clarify with a stronger example. Also using the same logic (of using vehicle rules for floating disk) if I use summon monster 1 to summon a horse and my halfling friend climbs onto said horse. Then I should use the vehicle rules since this summoned creature is under my control and acts on my turn as per the normal summoned monster rules.


The disk is neither a mount nor a vehicle as understood by the rules, therefore isn't ruled by either set.
The rules for mounts are made to apply to a character on a horse commanding said horse, and variations thereof, this isn't such a variation because the passenger isn't commanding the mount.
The rules for vehicles are made to apply to animal-drawn carriages guided by a driver riding along, and variations thereof. Likewise, this isn't such a variation, here because the disk doesn't have a driver.

The rules of initiative and actions per turn can be abused regarding movement because they have each character act in turn when narration has the characters act simultaneously.

I believe Mordenkainen transformed performing the whole range of his iterative attacks while a passenger on Tenser's disk doesn't qualify as an abuse of the initiative.

There is no inertia in the rules of Pathfinder, only movement. When performing a move, a character doesn't need to accelerate at the beginning nor to decelerate at the end.


(If anything inertia is fluff, you could just as easilly sprint every 30 ft as you could power walk the same distance.)

(Why did people ignore my suggestion of an alternate rule? Is it really that bad to just not use either rules and come up with a new one? *thinking*)


Temperans wrote:
(Why did people ignore my suggestion of an alternate rule? Is it really that bad to just not use either rules and come up with a new one? *thinking*)

No, it isn't bad at all, it is even encouraged. I do believe it is the wisest course of action when presented with problematic rules. However, this is the Rules subsection of the forum, by opposition to Homebrew, so the discussion is restricted to rules published by Paizo - and staff members in more or less official capacity^^


LordKailas wrote:
Cevah wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
so, basically you want to cherry pick a single aspect of the vehicle rules and ignore everything else. I suppose following the same logic the mount spell should also use the vehicle rules. Since by RAW its a summoned creature controlled by the one who summoned it.
It is not cherry picking when it is specific-overrides-general. The driver and facing rules are overridden by the spell. The inertia aspect is also overridden.

So, what other vehicle rules are left?

When you say you want to use X rules and then black out 99% of them, its hard to see it as anything but cherry picking a specific statement.

The rules for vehicles mentions: Drivers, Occupants, Facing, Acceleration/Deceleration, Initiative, Controlling a Vehicle, Driving Check, and In Combat. The spell does not override: Occupants, Initiative, Controlling a Vehicle, or In Combat.

LordKailas wrote:
as for the mount spell, IMO the logic still follows. But, I'll clarify with a stronger example. Also using the same logic (of using vehicle rules for floating disk) if I use summon monster 1 to summon a horse and my halfling friend climbs onto said horse. Then I should use the vehicle rules since this summoned creature is under my control and acts on my turn as per the normal summoned monster rules.

The Summon Monster spell does not summon a mount. To use the creature as a mount, requires the caster communicating to the creature the need to be a mount. It then requires someone to ride it as a mount. It is still under the caster's control, but uses the mount rules while used as a mount. The rider will control it only as much as the caster allows (or convinces the creature to allow). The creature will then act on the rider's turn, but will disappear on the caster's turn some time later.

@Agénor: the vehicle rules have Acceleration/Deceleration, which is the same as inertia.

/cevah


Agénor wrote:

The disk is neither a mount nor a vehicle as understood by the rules, therefore isn't ruled by either set.

The rules for mounts are made to apply to a character on a horse commanding said horse, and variations thereof, this isn't such a variation because the passenger isn't commanding the mount.
The rules for vehicles are made to apply to animal-drawn carriages guided by a driver riding along, and variations thereof. Likewise, this isn't such a variation, here because the disk doesn't have a driver.

The rules of initiative and actions per turn can be abused regarding movement because they have each character act in turn when narration has the characters act simultaneously.

I believe Mordenkainen transformed performing the whole range of his iterative attacks while a passenger on Tenser's disk doesn't qualify as an abuse of the initiative.

There is no inertia in the rules of Pathfinder, only movement. When performing a move, a character doesn't need to accelerate at the beginning nor to decelerate at the end.

Well, given the FAQ response, the mount rules arent actually about commanding a mount, they are about the time taken by the mount to get to a location that interferes with full round attacks.

Just need to clarify that so we don't accept something false as true.


To be even more precise, the mount rules are about the time it take during your turn (not during the round) to reach the target. But yes it has nothing to do with action economy of the rider, as it was the mount who used the move action to move.

Shadow Lodge

No full attack. Travel on the disk isn't instant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:
The rules for vehicles mentions: Drivers, Occupants, Facing, Acceleration/Deceleration, Initiative, Controlling a Vehicle, Driving Check, and In Combat. The spell does not override: Occupants, Initiative, Controlling a Vehicle, or In Combat.

are you sure on that?

Occupants, from the rules you linked

Occupants wrote:
Any creature riding, driving, serving as crew on, or providing propulsion for a vehicle is considered its occupant.

This on its own doesn't do anything other then define a term. Without any additional context this isn't very helpful. A character riding anything is by definition is considered an occupant. Provided of course that the vehicle rules apply.

Initiative, from the rules you linked

Initiative wrote:
A vehicle moves at the start of its driver’s turn. If a vehicle has no driver, it moves on the turn of the last creature that was its driver, or on a turn determined by the GM.

Then, as you said

Cevah wrote:
The disk is a spell, not a vehicle. It has no "driver". It has a caster that controls it. The caster designates where the disk will go, at no more than his own base speed.

seems that the spell over-rides this portion. The spell moves on the caster's turn as per the spell instead of the DM determining when its initiative occurs as per the vehicle rules.

Controlling a Vehicle, from the rules you linked

Controlling a Vehicle wrote:
If a vehicle has a driver, before the driver does anything else on her turn, she must determine what drive action she is taking, and take that action. If the driver takes no action, takes some other action instead of driving the vehicle, or delays or readies an action—or if there is no driver—the vehicle takes the “uncontrolled” action. A driver can only take one action each turn to control a vehicle. Once the driver has selected the action, or takes some other action forcing the vehicle to become uncontrolled, the vehicle moves.

Once again there is no driver, so the majority of that doesn't apply. It's also not uncontrolled since the spell establishes that it is controlled by the caster. So this section also gets over ridden by the spell.

Finally, In Combat. from the rules you linked

In Combat wrote:
Vehicles, creatures used as propulsion, and crew members do not threaten any area around them, but their drivers and their non-crew occupants do. Vehicles can enter the spaces of objects and creatures smaller than themselves. Vehicles do not have attacks, but they can—and may be required to—make vehicular bull rush, vehicular overrun, and ramming combat maneuvers.

This also does not seem to apply unless you are suggesting that the floating disk can be used to perform bull rush, ovverrun and ramming combat maneuvers. It states that vehicles can perform these, but when we look at the section in detail we see that both the bull rush and overrun options require a driver making a drive check which as you've already stated the disk does not have a driver thanks to the wording of the spell. As for ramming, this does no damage unless it is performed by at least a large vehicle. Since the disk isn't a large vehicle this doesn't do anything. So, this section also does not apply thanks to the wording of the spell.

So, sure the term occupant isn't over-ridden by the spell. But the term on its own doesn't provide any additional clarity for the spell. At most its an extension of the single cherry picked rule you wish to apply to the floating disk spell.


Serum wrote:
No full attack. Travel on the disk isn't instant.

So any greater than 5ft movement that is made during a turn cancels out the full attack ability? Does that include a target moving into range?


@LordKailas: you may be right. Vehicle rules don't match up well. Are you game to go through the mount rules in as much detail for the spell? I would love to see your take.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:

@LordKailas: you may be right. Vehicle rules don't match up well. Are you game to go through the mount rules in as much detail for the spell? I would love to see your take.

/cevah

Absolutely.

Lets see, mounted combat states

Mounted Combat wrote:
These rules cover being mounted on a horse in combat but can also be applied to more unusual steeds, such as a griffon or dragon.

All this states is that it can apply to more usual steeds. The assumption seems to be that your steed is living, but it doesn't explicitly state that it has to be living. It is worth noting that even very intelligent creatures such as dragons can serve as steeds and would use these rules.

Overall, the spell is different enough that this statement doesn't support or negate applying these rules for the disk.

Mounts in Combat wrote:
Horses, ponies, and riding dogs can serve readily as combat steeds. Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat. If you don’t dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a mount. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full-round action, and you can’t do anything else until your next turn.

This seems to largely not apply, there is no way to "combat train" the disk nor does it make sense for the disk to become frightened requiring a ride check.

Quote:
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.

If something is being used as a mount, that mount acts on the rider's initiative count. It does use the words "as you direct it" which is just as problematic for the disk as it is for the dragon. Would a dragon act on its own initiative or the riders? The rules seem to want the two to be on the same initiative which means that the dragon's initiative shifts to be the same as the rider even when the rider isn't directing it or it keeps its own initiative. In either case the rest of the rules should still apply since a dragon is called out as a viable mount regardless of your answer to the initiative question.

Quote:
A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount’s space during combat.

This is just talking about the details of a specific mount. So, it wouldn't be relevant even to other mount options such as a dragon. The rest of the statement however is fine. You are considered to share the same space as your mount. So, if you were on a huge dragon you would be considered to be sharing that same space during combat.

Combat while Mounted wrote:
With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.

does the person on the disk suddenly control it just because they are the rider? The rules of the spell indicate that movement of the disk is still controlled by the caster. Unlike a dragon mount, there is no communication verbal or non-verbal between the rider and the disk. So this seems to largely not apply to the disk. The purpose of the check is to minimize the amount of effort the rider requires to maintain control of the mount while leaving both hands free. Since the rider can't control the disk this check is un-necessary and so barring any sort of acrobatics check imposed by the DM the rider's hands are always free and needn't be associated with a check like this. The same would be true of the dragon rider. Since they aren't "controlling" the dragon and they also should not be required to make this sort of check.

Quote:
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.

None of this seems to contradict the spell. Though you would have to be fighting something quite small to get the +1 melee bonus to attacks. What size is the disk? Definitely not large, maybe medium or perhaps smaller.

Quote:
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).

The disk can't charge so this doesn't apply.

Quote:
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.

I'm not sure if the disk can take a double move, but it certainly can't take the run action. So the 1st half of this seems to largely not apply. The 2nd half still applies and doesn't seem to contradict the spell.

Casting Spells While Mounted wrote:

You can cast a spell normally if your mount moves up to a normal move (its speed) either before or after you cast. If you have your mount move both before and after you cast a spell, then you’re casting the spell while the mount is moving, and you have to make a concentration check due to the vigorous motion (DC 10 + spell level) or lose the spell. If the mount is running (quadruple speed), you can cast a spell when your mount has moved up to twice its speed, but your concentration check is more difficult due to the violent motion (DC 15 + spell level).

Nothing here seems to contradict the spell. It does call out that independent of when it's initiative is, if the disk moves both before you cast and after you cast its considered to be in motion while you're casting. Which results in a concentration check. As before the disk can't "run" so the last part of this section doesn't apply. If we assume that a dragon mount acts on its own initiative this means that if a dragon moves up to an enemy and attacks it. It could retroactively cause a concentration check by moving on its next turn.

If Your Mount Falls in Battle wrote:
If your mount falls, you have to succeed on a DC 15 Ride check to make a soft fall and take no damage. If the check fails, you take 1d6 points of damage.

The disk doesn't have HP but it can be dispelled or move out of range. In these cases the rules tell us that the rider will need to make a ride check lest they take a hard fall. This no only doesn't contradict the spell but does give us information of how to handle things in one of these edge cases.

If You Are Dropped wrote:
If you are knocked unconscious, you have a 50% chance to stay in the saddle (75% if you’re in a military saddle). Otherwise you fall and take 1d6 points of damage. Without you to guide it, your mount avoids combat.

Again, the first half seems to apply. If you drop since there is no saddle you fall and take 1d6 dmg. The last part doesn't apply since the disk isn't controlled by the rider.

For the most part these rules seem applicable. The one part that certainly is an issue is what initiative should the disk use? The dragon rider has a similar issue. It seems weird that a bunch of the rules would suddenly not apply just because the mount is being controlled by someone other then the rider.

In the end the rules can be applied and whatever benefits/limitations are imposed on the disk rider. They should be the same as those imposed on a dragon rider.


LordKailas wrote:
Cevah wrote:
@LordKailas: you may be right. Vehicle rules don't match up well. Are you game to go through the mount rules in as much detail for the spell? I would love to see your take.
Absolutely.

Skipping over parts you indicated had no relevance, I see the following...

LordKailas wrote:
Mounts in Combat wrote:
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
If something is being used as a mount, that mount acts on the rider's initiative count. It does use the words "as you direct it" which is just as problematic for the disk as it is for the dragon. Would a dragon act on its own initiative or the riders? The rules seem to want the two to be on the same initiative which means that the dragon's initiative shifts to be the same as the rider even when the rider isn't directing it or it keeps its own initiative. In either case the rest of the rules should still apply since a dragon is called out as a viable mount regardless of your answer to the initiative question.

The disk moves on the caster's turn, and uses the caster's move action. It is directed by the caster. The rider has no interaction here.

LordKailas wrote:
Combat while Mounted wrote:
With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
does the person on the disk suddenly control it just because they are the rider? The rules of the spell indicate that movement of the disk is still controlled by the caster. Unlike a dragon mount, there is no communication verbal or non-verbal between the rider and the disk. So this seems to largely not apply to the disk. The purpose of the check is to minimize the amount of effort the rider requires to maintain control of the mount while leaving both hands free. Since the rider can't control the disk this check is un-necessary and so barring any sort of acrobatics check imposed by the DM the rider's hands are always free and needn't be associated with a check like this. The same would be true of the dragon rider. Since they aren't "controlling" the dragon and they also should not be required to make this sort of check.

Since a passenger on a vehicle makes no check for being a passenger, I see no reason for a GM to impost one just because the passenger is on a disk.

LordKailas wrote:
Quote:
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
None of this seems to contradict the spell. Though you would have to be fighting something quite small to get the +1 melee bonus to attacks. What size is the disk? Definitely not large, maybe medium or perhaps smaller.

The disk is probably about the same size as a shield, which is considered one size category smaller than the wielder. This means it is probably size small. This means the creature you attack must be tiny to get the bonus.

Since the disk is not moving on your turn, I think you should get a full attack, even if the disk moved on another's turn.

LordKailas wrote:
Quote:
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
I'm not sure if the disk can take a double move, but it certainly can't take the run action. So the 1st half of this seems to largely not apply. The 2nd half still applies and doesn't seem to contradict the spell.

Causing the disk to change location is a move action by the caster. The caster can only reposition it within close range. Using a second move action to reposition it again has no benefit, and wastes the caster's action.

LordKailas wrote:
Casting Spells While Mounted wrote:
You can cast a spell normally if your mount moves up to a normal move (its speed) either before or after you cast. If you have your mount move both before and after you cast a spell, then you’re casting the spell while the mount is moving, and you have to make a concentration check due to the vigorous motion (DC 10 + spell level) or lose the spell. If the mount is running (quadruple speed), you can cast a spell when your mount has moved up to twice its speed, but your concentration check is more difficult due to the violent motion (DC 15 + spell level).
Nothing here seems to contradict the spell. It does call out that independent of when it's initiative is, if the disk moves both before you cast and after you cast its considered to be in motion while you're casting. Which results in a concentration check. As before the disk can't "run" so the last part of this section doesn't apply. If we assume that a dragon mount acts on its own initiative this means that if a dragon moves up to an enemy and attacks it. It could retroactively cause a concentration check by moving on its next turn.

With the disk moving on another's turn, this largely does not apply. If you ready an action to cast as the disk moves, however, I can see a need for a check.

LordKailas wrote:
If Your Mount Falls in Battle wrote:
If your mount falls, you have to succeed on a DC 15 Ride check to make a soft fall and take no damage. If the check fails, you take 1d6 points of damage.
The disk doesn't have HP but it can be dispelled or move out of range. In these cases the rules tell us that the rider will need to make a ride check lest they take a hard fall. This no only doesn't contradict the spell but does give us information of how to handle things in one of these edge cases.

Since the disk can never be directed up more than 3 feet, a fall for going out of range is the same as dropping from standing. No damage and no check. If however, the disk goes over a crevasse, and finds itself more than 3' up, it winks out and you fall same as if you fell off the ledge of the crevasse. I think a reflex check to grab the edge of the crevasse is appropriate in the latter case.

LordKailas wrote:
If You Are Dropped wrote:
If you are knocked unconscious, you have a 50% chance to stay in the saddle (75% if you’re in a military saddle). Otherwise you fall and take 1d6 points of damage. Without you to guide it, your mount avoids combat.
Again, the first half seems to apply. If you drop since there is no saddle you fall and take 1d6 dmg. The last part doesn't apply since the disk isn't controlled by the rider.

The military saddle has straps and buckles to hold you in should you weaken of fall unconscious. The disk does not. I see a 50%/50% chance of falling in/off the disk. No damage, since the height is too low.

LordKailas wrote:

For the most part these rules seem applicable. The one part that certainly is an issue is what initiative should the disk use? The dragon rider has a similar issue. It seems weird that a bunch of the rules would suddenly not apply just because the mount is being controlled by someone other then the rider.

In the end the rules can be applied and whatever benefits/limitations are imposed on the disk rider. They should be the same as those imposed on a dragon rider.

Well, seems the mount rules don't do much better. :-)

/cevah

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Floating Disc Question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.