Floating Disc Question


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Floating Disc

So I have a question about this spell and taking along a passenger, is this a legal way to move another character so they don’t have to use their move actions to move.
Example arcanist altered self in to a Sasquatch tell the barbarian to jump on the disc the following round with the barbarian on the disc the Sasquatch charges the BBG can the barbarian come along and get its full attack’s during its round?


I don't think this is directly addressed by RAW, but it seems to me it should be run as mounted combat on a steed that happens to direct itself. In particular, if the "mount" moves more than 5', the rider only gets one attack.


I would treat this like riding a mount, so no.

But in general, yes a creature other than the caster could ride the disk assuming the disk can support the creatures weight, and assuming the creature can reasonably fit on a 3' disk, so medium or smaller creatures yes, large creatures maybe no. Large than larger, no.

But again, I would treat this like being on a mount, which limits you to you one attack for the round, if you mvoe more than 5'.

Quote:

Combat while Mounted

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.

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.

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).

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.


While this is a useful trick for low level (I fully support the mounted combat stipulation), there is a spell called telekinetic charge (level 4) that can let the PC make an attack when he arrives during the Arcanist's turn. See the spell description below:

Telekinetic Charge wrote:
You telekinetically launch an ally across the battlefield to anywhere within this spell’s range. While moving, your ally is flying just above the ground unless you wish otherwise. Movement from this spell provokes attacks of opportunity as normal, although you can lift your ally over objects or out of enemy reach, as long as your ally remains within this spell’s range. If your ally lands adjacent to an opponent, he can spend an immediate action to make a melee attack against that opponent with a +2 bonus on the attack roll.


I say just treat it like you treat brooms/couldrons/carpets of flying.


In that regard Temperans, I've always treated those items as the creature being mounted.


I have seen this listed as a standard way for the caster to trade a move action for moving a melee character into position. As the melee is not moving on their turn, they get to full attack, but probably want to 5' step off the disk to avoid being accidentally moved if the caster fails to enforce the disk's position. [Remember, the disk returns adjacent if you don't direct it.]

EDIT: Also, since the disk can only move at the rate you can move. But if you double-move, the disk cannot keep up. Keeping your melee type stuck on the disk means moving the party at that slow speed and is not desired for most parties. Using it for an ambush, or just before opening that door you the enemy is behind, however, works much better.

/cevah


Really, I've never seen it done, though since I play with the same group of people for most games that's hardly surprising.

Still I'm almost certain it's not intended by the rules.

However, this trick, like being on a mount, would allow the melee character to do something else with their move action besides moving. Which could be useful. I just don't think it will get you a full attack.

Liberty's Edge

Everyone here has been kind enough to submit my opinion for me already. HUZZAH!

For real though, as has been stated, treat them as riding a mount and it will make things much easier to deal with and understand.


Hmm it would be great for an archer since they wouldn't need to worry about moving anymore. Mobile turrets for the win.


To try to understand the not-RAW position, I need to ask a couple questions.

If you treat the disc as a mount, do you move it on the caster's initiative or the rider's?

Does the rider move the disk, or does the caster?


I think the mount idea is perfectly reasonable. 6 seconds is all a round is, no matter when your movement happens it will happen during those 6 seconds giving them a move action (and likely higher ground) is more than enough for a level one spell.

I do not think giving pounce to whomever stands there plus higher ground as a level in one spell in edition to the other benefits was ever or would ever be the intention of this spell and these thought processes are usually when we get nerfs from beyond


willuwontu wrote:

To try to understand the not-RAW position, I need to ask a couple questions.

If you treat the disc as a mount, do you move it on the caster's initiative or the rider's?

Does the rider move the disk, or does the caster?

I believe, upon reflection, that I would change my position vis-a-vis mounted attack. I have several reasons, listed in any order:

mounted attacks allow for a couple of circumstantial options that could not be done on a floating disk since the "rider" of the disk has zero control of its movement

the caster will have to either move themselves or spend an action to move the disk plus rider, but the rider will not act in concert with the disk like mounted riders do and the caster is restricted to a single move action with the disk by RAW negating the option to "charge" (remember that you are only allowed to charge as a standard action if you are restricted from making full round actions, but not if you choose to restrict yourself, such as in this case to prevent the spell from ending)

if the caster somehow makes him/herself large sized, then the trick will not work well since the disk follows the caster (placing the disk behind the caster during movement) unless the caster moves past the target and likely incurring AOOs

using mounted rules in combination with this spell is not RAW and I support that more

I could be convinced that while on a disk that is floating about three feet off the ground as a stable platform that the rider would qualify for the higher ground attack bonus of +1 (and would probably rule this way in my own game)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The rider of a moving floating disk should also need a non-trivial acrobatics check to keep his balance on that pesky thing.

The floating disk conundrum is not the only situation where a character is being moved rather than using his own action to move. A passenger on a wagon or a boat or a flying carpet that moves at the driver's initiative are all being moved, and could easily find themselves adjacent to an enemy at the end of that move, and try to argue that they should be able to do a full attack.

AFAIK the rules don't address the difference between moving yourself and being moved by somebody else (and hence on a different initiative count).

Rather than treat it as being mounted, you could simply state that being moved more than 5' by an outside agency counts as using a move action. You could still allow non-movement move actions, but the action of being moved would interfere with full attacks (and other full-round actions) and prevent a kind of double move.

But all that is a DM call. RAW is silent on being moved.


It wouldn't be that bad to still be moved and have it count as a move action. Higher ground and ignoring a lot of difficult terrain effects for the rider.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, I'm with Wheldrake on this one.

Treat the PC as needing to take a Move Action at the start of their own turn to keep their balance with an Acrobatics Check, and then treat them as mounted, otherwise, have them fall off the disc and land adjacent to it.

Nice and simple.


Not sure if it helps, there is a Feat called Magic Trick allowing the caster to ride on the Floating Disc. The skill needed is Fly. So I'd treat it more like flying rather then mounted.


For what it's worth you can also move inanimate objects at your speed just fine as well. A person should have no problem staying the disc if a chest full of gold doesn't have an issue. You can even move liquids. Making a person give a check and spend an action to do what their corpse would do without a check is silly.

The mounted rules work well enough as an abstraction that you can't attack while moving. Use those if you want to be restricitive, but RAW there's nothing that prevents the full attack action from being used.


This idea of moving others has been around for decades. See these:
Willingly Failing to Resist Combat Manouvers
Tensers Floating disk and an Archer is this legal?

Spending your action to give someone else a move has been a thing for quite a while. I have almost never seen it used, but how is moving your fighter next to the enemy different from moving an enemy next to the fighter?

/cevah


Cevah wrote:

Spending your action to give someone else a move has been a thing for quite a while. I have almost never seen it used, but how is moving your fighter next to the enemy different from moving an enemy next to the fighter?

/cevah

The main difference is that the enemy is attempting to resist so it's not guaranteed to work.


Nor is it a coordinated effort on the enemy ally situation.

However to answer your question better, Cevah, how is it any different to have your mount move you versus an enemy moving to you? And yet there clearly is a difference.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This difference exists because our pals at Paizo never stopped to consider the ramifications of being moved and the synergy with the full attack action.

So either you run a strict RAW situation, and being moved by a floating disk (or other similar situation) doesn't cost a move action, allowing the disk rider a full attack...

Or you make a DM call and prevent it from happening in your game.

Cevah is right, this has been debated for years. Probably back in the DD3.5 days as well. AFAIK there is no RAW ruling on being moved, whether by floating disk or otherwise.

Note that dim-dooring wizards can put this tactic to good use as well, due to a similar loophole in the action economy.


Okay so just for comparison, Telekinetic Charge is a standard action, the ally can move more than their move speed, and can get an extra attack (as an imidiate action).

Floating Disk is a standard action to create, the ally would have to move at the caster's speed (usually 30ft), the caster would most likely have to put himself in danger.

***********
Floating Disk is definetly the more versatile of the 2 spells, and the gimmick would add even more versatility.

So RAW there appears to be no negatives, and the whole thing probably functions as if you were being driven in a cart.

Some possible solutions might be: Using acrobatics check to keep balance when attacking/moving, similar to "moving through narrow areas"; The movement provokes AoO as normal; The character getting a penalty on ranged attack rolls similar to mounted archery.

************
Also using a mount is either a move (the animal is frightened by combat/not combat trained) or free action. The 1 melee attack rule is stated to be based on "the horse acts with you, not before you"; so any other motion would give a melee a full-attack. Ranged weapons can always attack, but with either a -4 (1 attack) or a -8 (full-attack).

My point is charging a move action seems wrong, and giving some penalty would probably work better.


The PC would also need to spend an initial move action at some point to mount the flying disk...

and I have personally seen the schtick of throwing a PC via telekinetic charge at bad guys to be a really good maneuver, especially since the wizard does even need to get close to the action for it to be effective and it has a much greater range in a single round than tooling around behind the wiz as he moves at 30 feet and then the disk has a problem keeping up in the round.

Just trying to keep the facts straight for your analysis...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Okay so just for comparison, Telekinetic Charge is a standard action, the ally can move more than their move speed, and can get an extra attack (as an imidiate action).

Floating Disk is a standard action to create, the ally would have to move at the caster's speed (usually 30ft), the caster would most likely have to put himself in danger.

***********
Floating Disk is definetly the more versatile of the 2 spells, and the gimmick would add even more versatility.

So RAW there appears to be no negatives, and the whole thing probably functions as if you were being driven in a cart.

Some possible solutions might be: Using acrobatics check to keep balance when attacking/moving, similar to "moving through narrow areas"; The movement provokes AoO as normal; The character getting a penalty on ranged attack rolls similar to mounted archery.

************
Also using a mount is either a move (the animal is frightened by combat/not combat trained) or free action. The 1 melee attack rule is stated to be based on "the horse acts with you, not before you"; so any other motion would give a melee a full-attack. Ranged weapons can always attack, but with either a -4 (1 attack) or a -8 (full-attack).

My point is charging a move action seems wrong, and giving some penalty would probably work better.

If you have to use a level 4 spell with more action investment to compare to a level one spell with am admitted no downsides already... don't you think charging a move action is the exact opposite of wrong?


Cavall wrote:
If you have to use a level 4 spell with more action investment to compare to a level one spell with am admitted no downsides already... don't you think charging a move action is the exact opposite of wrong?

Yes I see it as wrong, because of multiple reasons: The wizard must go to the front line for it to work, it is not a creature that's "afraid of combat", it shows versatility/creativity (something that should be rewarded not punished), etc.

There is also the fact no one would prevent you from full attacking while on the back of a wagon, but doing it on top of a floating disk is suddenly super hard?

If you dont want melee pseudo pounce just rule that you can't do a melee full-attack after being moved. Suddenly repostion/bull rush got a super buff vs melee characters; also ship battles got nerfed for everyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:


There is also the fact no one would prevent you from full attacking while on the back of a wagon, but doing it on top of a floating disk is suddenly super hard?

If you dont want melee pseudo pounce just rule that you can't do a melee full-attack after being moved. Suddenly repostion/bull rush got a super buff vs melee characters; also ship battles got nerfed for everyone.

What?!

I do exactly that. If the wagon is moving towards someone else and happens to stop with a PC next to an NPC they don't suddenly get a full attack. Part of that turn was spent moving, even if the PC didn't have to move themselves. This doesn't get you a full attack.

With respect to bull rush and reposition it's different since those are against the characters will. And ship battles are completely irrelevant since two characters on the same boat will not be moving relative to each other if standing still on the boat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
I do exactly that. If the wagon is moving towards someone else and happens to stop with a PC next to an NPC they don't suddenly get a full attack. Part of that turn was spent moving, even if the PC didn't have to move themselves. This doesn't get you a full attack.

This is precisely what I proposed earlier in the thread. The PF rules don't cover the ways being moved (whether by riding a disk, a wagon or a magic carpet) interact with full attack actions (or any full-round action) so IMHO it's up to the DM to impose limits... or not.

Either you rule that only single attack actions are possible, or you allow full attacks after being moved. It's a DM call, and nowhere in the RAW will you find help on this issue.

As usual, archers get around any such limitations, since they can fire a full attack sequences from anywhere. That's just PF archery for you.


Wheldrake wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I do exactly that. If the wagon is moving towards someone else and happens to stop with a PC next to an NPC they don't suddenly get a full attack. Part of that turn was spent moving, even if the PC didn't have to move themselves. This doesn't get you a full attack.

This is precisely what I proposed earlier in the thread. The PF rules don't cover the ways being moved (whether by riding a disk, a wagon or a magic carpet) interact with full attack actions (or any full-round action) so IMHO it's up to the DM to impose limits... or not.

Either you rule that only single attack actions are possible, or you allow full attacks after being moved. It's a DM call, and nowhere in the RAW will you find help on this issue.

As usual, archers get around any such limitations, since they can fire a full attack sequences from anywhere. That's just PF archery for you.

This is all true Wheeldrake, but I just keep coming back to mounted combat is the closest rules analog to a general set of rules for "being moved without using your actions" so it makes sense to me to extend the restrictions.

But you are correct that the situation is never explicitly covered.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would say that mounted combat is a very special case, and I have argued in other threads that the only way being mounted makes any sense is if you consider the mount and the rider to be a single entity, so that both spend their move actions together. This is never specified either, but it seems to me to be a "given" every time I go back and try to pull together the rules governing mounted combat.

The floating disk reminds me of the situation when a dim-dooring wizard brings his pals along for a fight. The spell specifies that the wizard can't take any actions after dim-dooring (without a special feat) but remains silent on the actions of his pals, who hence get full attacks out of the deal.


I see Dimension Door as a special case as it's instantaneous teleportation movement, that happens to cause the caster to not be able to act.

Regular physical movement takes time, is essentially why mounted combat (and in my view other forms of being moved) prevent you from making full attacks.


So being shoved across a room your still good but carried is a no? And talking about wagons and such that doesn't fit with the rules on vehicles at all which don't give any restrictions for making attacks against other vehicles or people on other vehicles.

And while people on the same ship might be moving the same rate relative what about ship to ship or otherwise? Do Siege engines not work since no-one aboard a a moving ship can take a full-round action if it involves someone on another ship?


Talonhawke wrote:
And while people on the same ship might be moving the same rate relative what about ship to ship or otherwise? Do Siege engines not work since no-one aboard a a moving ship can take a full-round action if it involves someone on another ship?

last I checked siege engines were ranged weapons, meaning like the aforementioned archers their ability to perform full round actions is not impeded by movement.

as for vehicle combat, what rules are you looking at?

Everything I see says that if you're not crewing then you can act as per the normal rules. So, if you're making a ranged attack you're fine if you're making a melee attack you would only be able to make a single attack based on how far you've moved. Since those are the "normal rules".


I'm confused if being moved via moving on a cart means I can only make 1 melee attack because i'm in motion how do you determine what range penalties apply if a vehicle is moving at extreme speeds? A sail boat might be moving at 180ft per round at max speed If I have a Bab of 6 and rapid shot with short bow and before the movement I was 200 feet away what ranged penalties should each shot take?

None would be the answer based on the rules we do have in the game since if my turn is after the pilots I am 20 feet away when I make my attacks. Even though based on movement at least one of them should have happened at a -4 if I'm shooting while moving. Mounted combat rules don't apply to riding in a cart and applying moving the same amount based on relative location doesn't mean jack since two guys on horses can move side by side on their turns and still only get one attack on each other.


It depends on how realistic the DM wants to make things. Some D20 systems introduce rules that get used for combat where the motion and distances make using the normal rules challenging at best. If the normal combat rules don't make sense for the scenario then use different rules.

I personally like the way vehicle combat is handled in d20 modern. When it comes to ship to ship combat (naval or space) the combat rules in the Starwars D20 system handles it in a way I find elegant.

as for your questions. Distances are measured at the moment you take your attack regardless of what has happened. If you're making a ranged attack then you just apply penalties as normal in addition to any circumstances that would modify it.

If you're trying to make a melee attack then:
1. are you in range?
2. have you moved during the round?

If you're not in melee range then you can't attack. If the movement you experienced prevents you from making a full attack then you can't make a full attack. You don't lose your move action, you just may not be able to do anything useful with it.

Yes, these rules do cause weird things to happen in certain edge cases. The DM is free to change things if they don't like the result. If the whole fight seems like a weird edge case, then maybe the DM should use a different set of combat rules that better represent the scenario. While pathfinder may not have adequate rules you can take advantage of the fact that it's still a d20 system. You can steal the relevant set of rules from any other d20 system and for the most part it will work fine. You may have to sub what skills get used if they aren't skills that normally exist in pathfinder.


Talonhawke wrote:

So being shoved across a room your still good but carried is a no? And talking about wagons and such that doesn't fit with the rules on vehicles at all which don't give any restrictions for making attacks against other vehicles or people on other vehicles.

And while people on the same ship might be moving the same rate relative what about ship to ship or otherwise? Do Siege engines not work since no-one aboard a a moving ship can take a full-round action if it involves someone on another ship?

The d20 system simply wasn't designed to accommodate these sorts of situations, as LordKailas notes.

So things done against you're will like being repositioned don't preclude you from making a full attack. But only because that would be abused to stop things from getting full attacks. In the same way that without the Greater version of the feats the movement doesn't even provoke AoO.

And as Lord Kailais again mentioned, being moved doesn't stop you from using your move action to do something, you just can't combine it with your standard to get a full attack.


Outside of mounted combat where is a rule stating that non-character movement precludes the use of a full attack action? I get that I can't use my move action to move and full attack but what about the myriad other ways i could go from point A to point B? And why do some seem to get a pass (IE bullrush) but others don't (being on an apple cart driven by random citizen). All are happening in the same round outside of my own set of actions and are not called out as invalidating my actions in any way in the rules other than when i am on a mount and directing in to move.


Claxon wrote:

And as Lord Kailais again mentioned, being moved doesn't stop you from using your move action to do something, you just can't combine it with your standard to get a full attack.

That isn't anywhere in the rules except under mounted combat and isn't implied to affect any other situation.

Not to mention you two are on different points Kalias says you can make a full attack as long as it's ranged, you are saying i cannot if I have been moved. So here we have 2 differing opinions on the same rule (likely based on what mounted combat allows) that could drastically effect the game. Keep in mind mounted combat is based on actions happening during your turn not on other combatants. Your not waiting to attack the guy next to the carriage if you arrived there before your turn started.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Both Dimensional Steps and Dimensional Hop allow the person doing it to move after, unlike Dimension Door. And they also allow others to be brought along. These others could then full attack if they were brought to the enemy. The cleric's Dimensional Hop even will allow the cleric to make a single attack after use.

/cevah


Talonhawke wrote:
Claxon wrote:

And as Lord Kailais again mentioned, being moved doesn't stop you from using your move action to do something, you just can't combine it with your standard to get a full attack.

That isn't anywhere in the rules except under mounted combat and isn't implied to affect any other situation.

Not to mention you two are on different points Kalias says you can make a full attack as long as it's ranged, you are saying i cannot if I have been moved. So here we have 2 differing opinions on the same rule (likely based on what mounted combat allows) that could drastically effect the game. Keep in mind mounted combat is based on actions happening during your turn not on other combatants. Your not waiting to attack the guy next to the carriage if you arrived there before your turn started.

Sorry, my wording may have been bad in the past.

Only melee attacks are prevented from full attacking under these circumstances.

I effectively apply mounted combat rules to anytime you are sitting on an object or creature and being moved.

The rules are otherwise silent about what happens in the various situations.

This issue boils down like this (as I see it):

Moving takes time whether you move yourself or ride a horse or are sitting on a moving cart. This time spent moving prevents you from full attacking. This is because everything happens approximately at the same time in a round, even though things are done in discrete turns, but that's because there is no sensible way to run the game if everyone tried to do everything at the same time. But preventing melee full attacks is a nod to the fact that you didn't spend the whole round next to your target.


I've been enjoying following this discussion. I think there's an important distinction we are missing in a lot of posts though.

If you are moves and didn't spend your action to move there is nothing in the rules (aside from mounted combat rules) that changes whether or not you can make a melee full attack. RAW you can absolutely make a full attack. However, SHOULD you be able to do so? probably not. Mounted combat gives a more realistic model and is probably a good HOUSERULE for such things.

On the other hand, martial characters have trouble keeping up with higher level spellcasters once the ability to make a full attack or not means a lot. For game balance is it really a bad thing to allow any martial to get a pseudo pounce with the help of a buddy? As opposed to it being the preview of only a few specific martial classes\archetypes...?


As I read through this today, the word vehicle rang some bells in my memory, so I did a quick search for pathfinder vehicle rules (using those exact words will get you the same ruleset). Ultimate Combat has them and there are some sample vehicles included, such as a chariot, to extrapolate how to apply them to anything not riding an actual animal. That said, Floating Disk is a spell so it stretches the bounds of the ruleset to consider it propulsion via magic (however flying carpet would not so as it describes its method of propulsion as the spell overland flight, but is not the spell). In addition, it is conspicuously quiet on what an "occupant" of a vehicle can do, here is the passage: All occupants except for crew members and creatures used for propulsion can take actions and threaten areas as regular creatures. Crew members can take no actions nor threaten areas—their actions and concentration are all consumed by the act of providing propulsion or upkeep for the vehicle.

As best as I can parse this, occupants are unaffected by the movement of the vehicle since they can "take actions". When I consulted the ride skill it only affects characters (PC or NPC) that are riding animals (it says so in the description) so that is not much help. However the wording of mounted combat and the associated feats indicate that it also only applies as the skill, only to characters (PC or NPC) which are riding animals (it even specifies a penalty for "unsuitable" animals to ride in the skill). There is one notable difference between ride/mounted combat and occupants on a vehicle: the occupants on a vehicle do not need to split any of their attention between controlling their mount as an action, in fact it goes out of its way to specify they are not penalized at all unless they are driving or crewing a vehicle.

Final note, Floating Disk is a spell and that allows it to fall outside of the conventional rules for hitching a ride since it does not have any references to ride/mounted movement. Given the lack of specific rules covering this situation and that the spell does not include verbiage allowing a rider (just limited by the weight), I am inclined to lean in the camp of riders have full actions when their turn in the initiative comes up (the spell provides the restrictions which cover its movement), but that is me and I try to stick to RAW modified by RAI when it makes more sense than not and not specifically pointed out.


baggageboy wrote:

I've been enjoying following this discussion. I think there's an important distinction we are missing in a lot of posts though.

If you are moves and didn't spend your action to move there is nothing in the rules (aside from mounted combat rules) that changes whether or not you can make a melee full attack. RAW you can absolutely make a full attack. However, SHOULD you be able to do so? probably not. Mounted combat gives a more realistic model and is probably a good HOUSERULE for such things.

On the other hand, martial characters have trouble keeping up with higher level spellcasters once the ability to make a full attack or not means a lot. For game balance is it really a bad thing to allow any martial to get a pseudo pounce with the help of a buddy? As opposed to it being the preview of only a few specific martial classes\archetypes...?

I don't think the point is being missed. It's been mentioned a lot. I think the real point is the discussion of moving a friend with a level 1 spell should be using the mounted rules or not. In other words the discussion is now in the "should this be house ruled as such" territory.

The spell shouldn't be better than the actual mount spell


Claxon wrote:


This issue boils down like this (as I see it):

Moving takes time whether you move yourself or ride a horse or are sitting on a moving cart. This time spent moving prevents you from full attacking. This is because everything happens approximately at the same time in a round, even though things are done in discrete turns, but that's because there is no sensible way to run the game if everyone tried to do everything at the same time. But preventing melee full attacks is a nod to the fact that you didn't spend the whole round next to your target.

Which you also wouldn't be if

1.You are moved by an opponent for any reason.
2. The target moved to you during their turn.
3. You were moved via a spell effect such as DD (which would eat up more time in the round via being a Standard action over a move)

But you would be if you and the target both moved in a straight 30 foot line adjacent to each other and I'm willing to bet you wouldn't suddenly give the 2 mounted guys doing this full attacks on each other.


Well, this is the rules forum. By the rules as written two characters riding side by side would not be able to get full attacks on each other because the rules state that mounted characters are not able to make full attacks if they move more then 5 feet.

It's pretty explicit in this case.

I even agree that the rules are not perfect and that some weird nonsensical things can happen in edge cases. You either have to accept that this will happen or if it really bothers you and you're running the game, then make your own ruling on it. Use a different set of rules that do make sense to you for the given situation. As a DM you are completely within your right to do this. You are free to change and/or remove any rule you want and as long as your players don't get upset about it its fine. But it's a losing battle to come on here and argue against something that's explicitly stated.

P1: you can't do X when Y happens
P2: yes, but in this case Y is happening over here at the same time Y is happening over there, so now I should be able to do X.
P1: The rules say you can't do X when Y happens and Y is happening so you can't do X.
P2: but that doesn't make sense


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?


To the proponent of being on the disk counting as a move action hence being able to attack only once rather all the iterative attacks of a full attack, how would you resolve a disk big enough to have two passangers moving and then later on in the same round one of the passangers attacking the other? Does he get a full attack or only one attack?
What if one of the two passangers gets to act before the disk moves? Does he get full attack?
Then the disk moves with the two of them on it. Then the second passanger gets only one attack? But if he delay to act on the top of the next round, he gets to make a full attack?


If the disk accomp the caster, then the caster has to stay adjacent to the rider. Which means that the caster effectively becomes "mounted." If we take that reading, then I wouldn't put any addtional restrictions, since the caster is effectively stuck next to the rider.


just wanted to drop this bomb at the thread here and run off, have fun...


You must have run off before reading the thread and seeing it's been talked about before

1 to 50 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.