Floating Disc Question


Rules Questions

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

Cevah wrote:
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.

Interaction in this case is the same as a character riding a dragon. Having the "mount's" initiative remain unaltered seems reasonable.

Cevah wrote:
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.

The mounted combat rules do not talk about passengers. However, I agree that the check in this case has nothing to do with maintaining balance on the mount but more to do with being able to do things while "directing" the mount. If the mount isn't being directed (as is the case in both the disk and the dragon) then I agree the check shouldn't happen.

Cevah wrote:
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.

I agree

Cevah wrote:
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.

A character riding a dragon should gain a similar benefit. The dragon moved on it's own turn not the rider's turn. Basically, if you have to "direct" the mount then you can't full attack on your turn, but if the mount does not require you to direct it then you should be able to get a full attack on your turn.

I disagree with this for balance reasons, but the rules can certainly be interpreted this way and they should be interpreted in a consistent manner, enemies riding worgs for example should be able to full attack for the same reason.

Cevah wrote:
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.

re-reading the spell again, its not clear how much control the caster has. The relevant lines from the spell seem to be.

Floating Disk wrote:
It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round. If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you.

Does it take a move action to direct it?

It's not called out what sort of action is required to direct it. Also, it states that it can't move at a rate higher then your normal speed each round.

Can it be moved more then that if directed?
The spell doesn't actually say one way or the other. If the disk can only move up to your speed each round then you are correct that doing this more then once wouldn't be productive.

I think I largely assumed that the floating disk spell worked the same way as the flaming sphere spell. But the language that describes how a flaming sphere can move simply isn't present in the floating disk spell description. Essentially, how much the disk can be manipulated and what sort of action is required falls squarely into the purview of the DM since the spell really doesn't say.

Cevah wrote:
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.

I would agree if the rules made a distinction, but they don't. They only state that the check happens if your mount moves both before and after you cast a spell. The wording certainly implies that these move actions (for the mount) must occur back to back. But strictly speaking it doesn't state that you can avoid this happening if your mount moves outside of your turn.

Cevah wrote:
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.

The rules do not specify that this damage has anything to do with the actual height you fall from. You take 1d6 damage regardless if you fell off a riding dog or an elephant. I think the damage would still apply. But I agree it does mean in some cases you would take 1d6 falling damage even if you've fallen off of a very small mount.

Cevah wrote:
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.

It really depends on how you interpret the 1st part. The rules state that you only have a 50% chance of falling off thanks to the mount's saddle. It then goes on to state that this percentage increases if you have a military saddle. But what if you don't have a saddle at all? If you're riding a horse bareback and you fall unconscious do you still have a 50% chance of staying on or is that purely the benefit of the mount having a saddle?

The way it's worded I think it's a benefit of the mount having a saddle and as such if you were riding the horse bareback you would automatically fall off as there is no saddle to hold you on. That being said, if a bareback rider has a 50% chance of staying on their mount then the disk rider would also have a 50% chance of staying on as it has nothing to do with the presence of the saddle.

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

They seem to work reasonably well. The only issues seem to come about when the mount you're riding doesn't require the rider to direct it. Rulings would need to be made in those cases anyway and I see no reason to rule the disk any differently then a self directed, sentient (anything above animal intelligence) mount.


Guys, I don't think this is going anywhere.

Probably time to go ahead and wrap it up.


LordKailas wrote:
I disagree with this for balance reasons,

Each GM to their own. I would be fine with this as a GM ruling.

LordKailas wrote:
Cevah wrote:
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.

re-reading the spell again, its not clear how much control the caster has. The relevant lines from the spell seem to be.

Floating Disk wrote:
It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round. If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you.

Does it take a move action to direct it?

It's not called out what sort of action is required to direct it. Also, it states that it can't move at a rate higher then your normal speed each round.

Can it be moved more then that if directed?
The spell doesn't actually say one way or the other. If the disk can only move up to your speed each round then you are correct that doing this more then once wouldn't be productive.

I think I largely assumed that the floating disk spell worked the same way as the flaming sphere spell. But the language that describes how a flaming sphere can move simply isn't present in the floating disk spell description. Essentially, how much the disk can be manipulated and what sort of action is required falls squarely into the purview of the DM since the spell really doesn't say.

Aiming a Spell:

Target or Targets wrote:
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Does it take a move action to direct it? Yes

It's not called out what sort of action is required to direct it. The above states it requires a move action to redirect.
Also, it states that it can't move at a rate higher then your normal speed each round. The speed stated is not a limit, but the rate it follows you when not directed.

Can it be moved more then that if directed? Yes.
The spell doesn't actually say one way or the other. If the disk can only move up to your speed each round then you are correct that doing this more then once wouldn't be productive. Aiming a spell does state, and the limit is within range.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:
Each GM to their own. I would be fine with this as a GM ruling.

fair enough

Cevah wrote:

Aiming a Spell:

Target or Targets wrote:
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

ok, I agree that directing the disk is a move action which does not provoke an AoO. However, the actual speed of the disk is still ambiguous. Nothing in the spell description specifies the limits of how much it can be re-directed, only what happens when you don't spend an action to direct it. So, it still strikes me as a DM call. I can see it being interpreted as having a speed equal to the caster's original speed or it being directable to anywhere within the confines of the original range of the spell. I have seen other spells which do specify to what extent a spell can be redirected and these interpretations are consistent with those spells. (eg, flaming sphere has a speed of 30, silent image specifies anywhere within range)

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

Want to post a reply? Sign in.