My reasoning is that the disc must have some frictional force, or otherwise it's useless for moving treasure around. If I ruled that a force sufficient to push a floating man 4' was enough to knock a 200-lb man off the disc, I'd have to also rule that treasure on the disc could slip and slide off pretty easily. Since safely transporting objects is the core use of the spell, I found that it would be absurd that the disc would be frictionless.Caliban1972 said:
Rules Lawyering
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My only issue with the ruling lies in the interpretation of the disc's height.
"The disc will be created at the height of the caster's waist, and will remain at that height, following the caster wherever he goes."
I read that as saying that the disc cannot change it's vertical height (relative to the surface over which it floats). It will attempt to follow horizontally but cannot follow vertical changes except where a reasonable slope or set of stairs allows it.
Within that limitation, i'd be willing to try out the disc-as-perpetual-motion-machine idea. Of course, i have a special fondness for floating disk antics; i once created a fat NPC wizard (3rd ed) who rode around on a permanent floating disk using a variation of the mage hand spell for propulsion.
"The disc will be created at the height of the caster's waist, and will remain at that height, following the caster wherever he goes."
I read that as saying that the disc cannot change it's vertical height (relative to the surface over which it floats). It will attempt to follow horizontally but cannot follow vertical changes except where a reasonable slope or set of stairs allows it.
Within that limitation, i'd be willing to try out the disc-as-perpetual-motion-machine idea. Of course, i have a special fondness for floating disk antics; i once created a fat NPC wizard (3rd ed) who rode around on a permanent floating disk using a variation of the mage hand spell for propulsion.
If my players ever found themselves with enough free time to test out magical physics problems of such a speculative nature, I clearly must have let the narrative stall out to such a degree that I'd quit doing my job as a DM. Of course, this all depends on what your group is after - some prefer more puzzles or less tactical combat, we tended to favor action and suspense, though not at the expense of mechanics.
I never had much trouble with rules lawyers in the games I ran ,even though the groups I've run have included actual lawyers (myself and others). I appreciated anyone willing to point out rules or interpretations that they thought should be different, but normally it was something we hashed over outside of the game sessions.
It was in the Living Greyhawk and other such tournament settings that I ran into people willing to sacrifice the entire game experience upon the altar of the rules, and while I understood that in such an environment the rules were paramount, there is the unavoidable fact that an RPG by its nature tries to use limited rules to model unlimited possibilities. At some point you have to admit the need for individual interpretation of a specific set of facts, rather than trying to shoehorn everything into the same predetermined outcome.
I never had much trouble with rules lawyers in the games I ran ,even though the groups I've run have included actual lawyers (myself and others). I appreciated anyone willing to point out rules or interpretations that they thought should be different, but normally it was something we hashed over outside of the game sessions.
It was in the Living Greyhawk and other such tournament settings that I ran into people willing to sacrifice the entire game experience upon the altar of the rules, and while I understood that in such an environment the rules were paramount, there is the unavoidable fact that an RPG by its nature tries to use limited rules to model unlimited possibilities. At some point you have to admit the need for individual interpretation of a specific set of facts, rather than trying to shoehorn everything into the same predetermined outcome.
The "Elven Orbital Bombardment Machine" was the brainchild of one of our elf characters. How it's done in B/E, I think: 2 Elves + 2 Bags of Holding filled with barrels of oil + Levitate + Floating Disc + Invisibility (10ft).fanklok said:
Elf #1 casts Floating Disc, then Levitate.
Elf #2 casts Invisibility (10ft), and gets on the Disc. (Invisibility is optional protection against flying monsters.)
Together they soar to a great height (I think 1000ft), making sure they have time on Levitate / Floating Disc to perform the bombardment, and still get down safely.
Elf #2 drops barrels of oil, with a length of fuse sufficient for the length of the drop. Elf #1 could also drop barrels, but is more or less the designated lookout in case a dragon stops by.
Assuming the 1000ft drop, a barrel of oil will deal 100d6 damage on impact, then burn an area (20ft square?) for 1d8 for a number of turns. 2 Bags of Holding can carry a lot of oil, so bombardment can continue unabated as long as the Levitate / Floating Disc holds out.
The reason it wouldn't work in game context is wind - the ruling was "of course you can do that, but there's no way it's going to be accurate." Experiments dropping large rocks with Giant Strength showed similar results, and it makes tons of sense. Perhaps if we tried adding stabilizing fins to the barrels...
The disk moves toward the caster when the distance between them is greater than 6ft; there is no equivalent "caster moves towards the disk" in the spell description. Using your torsion spring interpretation, you would trap the caster by closing a door between him/her and the disk.Mantua429 said:
My version was better, those would only keep it on target for a horizontal flight but vertical will still get blown off by wind. Instead think Ghost/SPecter from Starcraft except magic. You'll probably need to invent a new spell or two. One enchants the barrel/projectile and the other "enchants" the target as long as what ever is being shot/thrown/tossed at what ever the target is within the possible range it will gravitate to it.CaptainCrunch said:
That's the thing, the "flycycle" ruling in the article means that either levitate is useless in strong winds, because the wizard will be blown about, or that levitate can be used in strong winds to mimic fly, a higher level spell. While I encourage creative use of spells in my games, especially low-level spells, I'm a bit more cautious about using them to render higher-level spells redundant.Georgie_Leech said:
Yeah, we once used a Spelljammer ship and a tons of coarse gravel to destroy an army of undead. The great thing about shambling hordes and numerous small projectiles is that you don't really have to aim. Even if your DM rules that only one in every 100 rocks finds a target, the odds are in your favor.CaptainCrunch said:
I really feel that if you placed a fixed object between the wizard and the disk (your 10' pole) instead of the rider and the wizard, it would result in a constant speed of travel. (A safe decision that benefits the party and rewards ingenuity) Or they have created a reaction that propels them forward at ever increasing speeds that would probably harm both participants. (also rewarding in a way...... *splat dead*)
That is if you can safely secure a pole between the edge of the disk and the mid section of the caster.
ot; Great article as always. I usually get something useful out of every one of these. I think this article is good for players and DMs and should be shared with entire groups.
*Threatens group into reading.*
That is if you can safely secure a pole between the edge of the disk and the mid section of the caster.
ot; Great article as always. I usually get something useful out of every one of these. I think this article is good for players and DMs and should be shared with entire groups.
*Threatens group into reading.*
It was mainly designed to deal with large armies, and monsters big enough to try to aim at from high up. Adding targeting spells into the mix would just burn through more spells than it's worth, which is why the Dwarven Doom Platform is probably going to be a better option.fanklok said:
Dwarven Doom Platform
A spellcaster of sufficient level enchants a large platform with Levitate or Fly, such that it can carry a specially designed Dwarven siege machine that can aim accurately, straight down, from a significant height (and at least one person to operate it).
It's usage would be more as a portable engine of mass destruction (Fly), or a static base defense for use against a large force (Levitate). Since the operator is out of range of arrows and crossbow bolts, it's effectively a "kill lots of things until you run out of ammo" machine. As with the Elven Orbital Bombardment Machine, it's only weakness is flying monsters (or flying enemy wizards with Dispel and Feather Fall.)
Here's another fine example of rule lawyering used to create massively advanced systems. And this one doesn't even use magic:
http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php?date=2010-09-02
http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php?date=2010-09-02
While I do think it's a good rule to be cautious in allowing a low-level mechanic to trump a higher-level one. I think the levitate/fly one is pretty safe from that.Falseprophet said:
Does a hot air balloon make an airplane redundant?
Despite only being a single spell level higher, fly is clearly and will always be much better than say a gliding levitate. The differences are freedom of movement, speed and target versatility(you can only cast levitate on yourself [footnote]In B/X Edition which the ruling stems from.[/footnote]).