Floating Disk ongoing debate

[Raven777]

Sheriff: Ridiculous 42-post derail has been moved here.

On the entire levitating things aspect, here's an interesting scenario IF levitated objects do indeed remain levitating for one hour, unless1 lb worth of force drags them back down.

Get a box of coppers, each weighin 1/20th of a pound. Levitate each piece one by one and arrange them into a structure where any weight placed upon them gets evenly distributed to the other coins (may require some sort of check). If you now step onto them, your weight is distributed accross the coins, and thusly, you and the coins remain aloft as long as your weight in lb < 0.95n coins. Then either create the same structure, or use the collecting fuction of presitdigitation to rearrange the coins under you as to make the coin-structure to re-build itself in the disired direction.

You now have a rediculously slow method of moving yourself through the air.

This sounds like an extremely convoluted way of casting a 1st level effect.

[Brookshw]

This sounds like an extremely convoluted way of casting a 1st level effect.

Perhaps but you can't ride your own disc under its own propulsion (unless PF changed that), plus you'd be able to bypass the disk's 3 feet from the ground restriction.

[Segev]

And the sheer slowness of it, combined with the fact that a DM could reasonably call for a Craft check of some sort for the placement of all those coins such that weight is distributed just right, makes it not really conflict with the "no copying other spells" clause. It just is not floating disk. At all.

[Troacctid]

Perhaps but you can't ride your own disc under its own propulsion (unless PF changed that), plus you'd be able to bypass the disk's 3 feet from the ground restriction.

Says who? There's nothing in the description of Floating Disk that prevents you from using it as a Yoda-chair.

[Brookshw]

Says who? There's nothing in the description of Floating Disk that prevents you from using it as a Yoda-chair.

Not quite, the RAW is that it follows you and the only ability you have in directing it, other than your own movement, is to decide if its closer than the default. There is nothing about its propulsion that isn't tied to following you. Further the FAQ confirms the RAW in regards to it being unable to move on its own. I suppose if you wanted to Yoda chair you could via telekinesis or something maybe.

[Segev]

It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round.

From this, we can discern that:

• The floating disk moves within the range of the spell.
• It cannot move faster than your normal speed in order to keep up with you (so you'd best take only one move action per turn).

Nothing says you can't move it however you like, as long as it stays within range (of you) and does not move faster than your normal movement speed.

If you are standing or sitting upon it (or something it supports), it can move within the spell range. That range remains "zero" while you remain standing on it, so no matter where it moves, it is within range. It can accompany you at no more than your movement speed. Since you're on it, as it moves, you move, and it is thus accompanying you.

There's nothing in the rules preventing you from being on it when you move it within the spell range, nor from it accompanying you via moving you around. And if you want to say "just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can," let me remind you that it doesn't say you can breathe while the spell is in effect, either. It doesn't need to, because there's no contradiction to how things normally work in breathing while the spell is in effect. Likewise, there's no contradiction in you being the object it moves around.

[Brookshw]

You create a slightly concave, circular plane of force that follows you about and carries loads for you. The disk is 3 feet in diameter and 1 inch deep at its center.

Emphasis mine.

[Segev]

It follows you and moves horizontally within the spell's range. These are not conflicting, but they are not the same thing, either. It does both and either.

By default, undirected, it moves with you - follows you - at a distance of 5 ft. from your person (it's in an adjacent square). You can cause it to move within the range of the spell. This is distinctly not following you, so "follows you" must not be restrictive. It is one of the things that it does. Since "under my feet" is "within the range of the spell," it can move horizontally under your feet. Carrying you with it.

[Brookshw]

It follows you and moves horizontally within the spell's range. These are not conflicting, but they are not the same thing, either. It does both and either.

By default, undirected, it moves with you - follows you - at a distance of 5 ft. from your person (it's in an adjacent square). You can cause it to move within the range of the spell. This is distinctly not following you, so "follows you" must not be restrictive. It is one of the things that it does. Since "under my feet" is "within the range of the spell," it can move horizontally under your feet. Carrying you with it.

I disagree, the first, "follow" is the governing clause that indicates the nature of it's movement. The second "directed" is a sub clause that explains how and what ability you have to impact how it moves within the confines of the first. There does not appear to be any indication that you can ignore the first in favor of the second as I read it.

[Segev]

I disagree, the first, "follow" is the governing clause that indicates the nature of it's movement. The second "directed" is a sub clause that explains how and what ability you have to impact how it moves within the confines of the first. There does not appear to be any indication that you can ignore the first in favor of the second as I read it.

Anything that is directed movement away from you or even with respect to you is, by definition, not "following" you. Therefore, your restrictive reading makes all the rest of the spell's language about how it moves, other than "stays within 5 ft.," meaningless wasted word count that is overridden by the contradictory opening sentence.

In fact, "moves with you" is part of the definition of "follow," so while it seems strange to suggest that your car is "following" you to the destination to which you drive it, that is closer in definition than to claim that your car is "following" you if you remote control it to go from right next to you to 30 ft. away.

[Dalebert]

It's pretty clear from the description that following you at 5 ft is just it's default behavior UNTIL you command it otherwise. If it obeys you when you tell it to do something else, then it is clearly no longer following you at that moment. It cannot be doing both.

[Segev]

It's pretty clear from the description that following you at 5 ft is just it's default behavior UNTIL you command it otherwise. If it obeys you when you tell it to do something else, then it is clearly no longer following you at that moment. It cannot be doing both.

Exactly. So it can follow you AND it can move about within the limits specified by spell range and distance above the ground. When it is doing the latter, it is not doing the former. And the latter is not incompatible with moving about while you're standing on it. It does specify the maximum movement speed as being your movement speed, however, in all cases.

[Brookshw]

Anything that is directed movement away from you or even with respect to you is, by definition, not "following" you. Therefore, your restrictive reading makes all the rest of the spell's language about how it moves, other than "stays within 5 ft.," meaningless wasted word count that is overridden by the contradictory opening sentence.

In fact, "moves with you" is part of the definition of "follow," so while it seems strange to suggest that your car is "following" you to the destination to which you drive it, that is closer in definition than to claim that your car is "following" you if you remote control it to go from right next to you to 30 ft. away.

This is an argument based on your conclusion and circular as such. The indication we have for your ability to direct it is only in relation to distance, " If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you.", or in other words, the distance it follows you at, or can follow you at. No wasted words or other irreconcilable language. Further the indication of spell range creates a maximum following distance. There is no terminology that decouples the following requirement from the language of how it can be directed.

[Segev]

This is an argument based on your conclusion and circular as such.

I think I see where you are coming from here, and while I understand why you think so, I disagree. I will attempt to clarify.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, what you find circular is the idea that it moving you constitutes it following you as it "moves with you." If so, it's not a logical contradiction despite it being coupled.

The indication we have for your ability to direct it is only in relation to distance, " If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you.", or in other words, the distance it follows you at, or can follow you at. No wasted words or other irreconcilable language. Further the indication of spell range creates a maximum following distance. There is no terminology that decouples the following requirement from the language of how it can be directed.

Let's just bring the full text in here (quoted from the SRD):

You create a slightly concave, circular plane of force that follows you about and carries loads for you. The disk is 3 feet in diameter and 1 inch deep at its center. It can hold 100 pounds of weight per caster level. (If used to transport a liquid, its capacity is 2 gallons.) The disk floats approximately 3 feet above the ground at all times and remains level. 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. The disk winks out of existence when the spell duration expires. The disk also winks out if you move beyond range or try to take the disk more than 3 feet away from the surface beneath it. When the disk winks out, whatever it was supporting falls to the surface beneath it.

Let's break out the bolded parts, as I think those are the operative phrases under debate:

• that follows you about
• floats along horizontally within spell range
• accompany you
• If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you

You claim the first bullet point dominates all others, and thus if it is doing anything that cannot be construed as "follow[ing] you," it is not permitted to do that by the rules of the spell.

The remaining bullet points are not incompatible with that interpretation, however, they are utterly redundant and the third's opening phrase, "if not otherwise directed," is meaningless, because it cannot be otherwise directed.

If your interpretation is accurate, the sum of those bullets is that it follows you as fast as it can, up to the limits of the spell's range, and maintains a distance of 5 ft. from you unless it cannot keep up. If it cannot keep up, it will catch up as soon as it can, and if you go too far from it by outpacing it for too long, it winks out. (That last is due to clauses not in the bullets, but it's still true.) You are unable to direct it to "move about," so that wording is strange; it should not say that. It should say "it follows as closely as it can at a rate no greater than..." rather than what it does about "moving about."

Therefore, I can only conclude that the interpretation of the RAW which allows it to be commanded to move about without having to stay near you - including being able to move arbitrarily (horizontally) within the spell's range, regardless of whether that is towards, with, or away from you - is the intention. It certainly is a valid way to read the RAW.

Given this, it can move about within range. If you are standing on it, you move with it, and it thus literally cannot move out of range.

Your interpretation requires a strange reading of "moves about," and a restrictive application of the first sentence which is not necessarily implied by the rest of the spell. Your reading is at least mostly valid, but strains the wording to restrict it in this way. Therefore, I think your reading, while potentially valid, is the one with weaker credibility and certainly less in line with the intended use of the spell.

[Troacctid]

If you have a restrictive DM, you can always let an ally ride around on it like a sidecar. Or use Greater Floating Disk.

[Brookshw]

I think I see where you are coming from here, and while I understand why you think so, I disagree. I will attempt to clarify.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, what you find circular is the idea that it moving you constitutes it following you as it "moves with you." If so, it's not a logical contradiction despite it being coupled.

I'd be happy to elaborate

other than "stays within 5 ft.," meaningless wasted word count that is overridden by the contradictory opening sentence.

This is most certainly not wasted word count as it creates a parameter for it following you. There is no contradiction unless your position is true in so much that it doesn't have to follow you. Using your conclusion as part of your argument is a strong basis for an position being circular.

In fact, "moves with you" is part of the definition of "follow," so while it seems strange to suggest that your car is "following" you to the destination to which you drive it, that is closer in definition than to claim that your car is "following" you if you remote control it to go from right next to you to 30 ft. away.

First, the phrase "moves with you" if you meant it as a quote, is not actually used within the spell. I threw "follow" into google to see if it might be part of a definition and it wasn't as best I could tell though I did note: "move or travel behind". As best I can tell your application of "moves with you" is self referential to your own conclusion of how it could be moving with you by you being on it or it, possibly, being in front of you. If you're using a particular dictionary that might help explain how you've arrived at "moves with you" as part of the definition of "follow". Likewise, the bit about the car and "following" does not seem to be tied to anything other than the conclusion you've favored but not proven.

For the list I've included some comments in italics

Let's just bring the full text in here (quoted from the SRD):


Let's break out the bolded parts, as I think those are the operative phrases under debate:

• that follows you about
• floats along horizontally within spell range I don't think this is in contention, it follows a horizontal surface
• accompany you irrelevant, this word is in relation to it's speed, not it's direction or your ability to direct it.
• If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you

You claim the first bullet point dominates all others, and thus if it is doing anything that cannot be construed as "follow[ing] you," it is not permitted to do that by the rules of the spell.

The remaining bullet points are not incompatible with that interpretation, however, they are utterly redundant and the third's opening phrase, "if not otherwise directed," is meaningless, because it cannot be otherwise directed.

This doesn't necessarily follow. The horizontal term simply dictates how it travels in terms of three dimensional movement and is irrelevant to whether that's under you, in front of you, or behind you. Likewise it creates a restriction that it won't follow you if you decide to fly hundreds of feet up into the air. It's universally applicable and clarifies how it follows, no redundancy. Likewise, accompany you indicates that it can keep up with you meaning you won't accidentally leave it behind. No redundancy. Lastly, that you can decide the distance it follows you at is not redundant, for example it could keep it far away from a fight or out of the range of AOEs where the unattended possessions could easily be damaged (or unconcious body of a comrade who has been hurt as I've often seen). There are no redundant elements as each helps clarify the movement and provide valuable understanding.

Okay, while I'm in the process of typing this there appears to be a missing wallet crisis that requires my immediate attention so I can't reply to the rest. Remaining for our attention is that there is no indication that the ability to determine distance somehow allows a decision regarding direction. I still disagree with you on the wording but have to run. I'll post this now though in case you want to respond to anything I've mentioned thus far.

[The Random NPC]

From this, we can discern that:

• The floating disk moves within the range of the spell.
• It cannot move faster than your normal speed in order to keep up with you (so you'd best take only one move action per turn).

Nothing says you can't move it however you like, as long as it stays within range (of you) and does not move faster than your normal movement speed.

If you are standing or sitting upon it (or something it supports), it can move within the spell range. That range remains "zero" while you remain standing on it, so no matter where it moves, it is within range. It can accompany you at no more than your movement speed. Since you're on it, as it moves, you move, and it is thus accompanying you.

There's nothing in the rules preventing you from being on it when you move it within the spell range, nor from it accompanying you via moving you around. And if you want to say "just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can," let me remind you that it doesn't say you can breathe while the spell is in effect, either. It doesn't need to, because there's no contradiction to how things normally work in breathing while the spell is in effect. Likewise, there's no contradiction in you being the object it moves around.

There's noting in the rule preventing you from using it as a autokilling weapon either. Just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can, you have to provide evidence for your position, and I believe you have failed to do so.

[Dalebert]

Just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can

That's true, but "If not otherwise directed" means you can direct it to behave otherwise. How are you interpreting that phrase?

[Segev]

There's noting in the rule preventing you from using it as a autokilling weapon either. Just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can, you have to provide evidence for your position, and I believe you have failed to do so.

It also doesn't say you can move the disk while breathing, so does that mean you can't? Provide evidence within the spell to indicate this.


"It doesn't say you can't" is a perfectly valid thing to say if that which it fails to say you can't in no way would change or add functionality. "Can move something 3 feet off the ground" is its function. You are "something." For it to be impossible for you to stand on it and cause it to move, it would need to specify that it can't move you or somesuch.

Do you contend that, because the Fly spell does not say you can't fly upside-down, but doesn't say you can, either, you can only fly in a "standing up" orientation while using the spell? Because it doesn't say you can attack while flying, you can't (since "it doesn't say you can't" isn't a valid reason). It does call out that you can charge, so is that "obviously" the only way you can attack while using the spell? It doesn't say you can't search for traps while flying, but it doesn't say you can; does that mean you can't?

Floating Disk says it allows you to move the disk around within range of the spell. It says the disk can move along with you. It does not say it only does so to follow you; it says that it follows you, then elaborates with more that it does. If you are standing on the disk, when it moves, it moves what is on it along with it (you, in this case). It never leaves the range of the spell. It moves along with you (because it's moving you on top of it). It would have to specify that you cannot do this for this not to be permitted by the wording of the spell. The only argument to the contrary is the one that says "follow" is a restrictive word, and I don't see any way to read that as accurate; if it were, there are much simpler ways to word the spell without outlining things that are NOT possible while "following." Such as "mov[ing] about...within range."

[The Random NPC]

That's true, but "If not otherwise directed" means you can direct it to behave otherwise. How are you interpreting that phrase?

I am interpreting that phrase as that you can direct it to maintain either greater or less than a 5 foot interval. Though thinking on it more, I can see how you got your interpretation, I still believe that the follow only interpretation is the more valid one. Also I wouldn't be against someone ruling that it did work the way you think.

It also doesn't say you can move the disk while breathing, so does that mean you can't? Provide evidence within the spell to indicate this.


"It doesn't say you can't" is a perfectly valid thing to say if that which it fails to say you can't in no way would change or add functionality. "Can move something 3 feet off the ground" is its function. You are "something." For it to be impossible for you to stand on it and cause it to move, it would need to specify that it can't move you or somesuch.

Do you contend that, because the Fly spell does not say you can't fly upside-down, but doesn't say you can, either, you can only fly in a "standing up" orientation while using the spell? Because it doesn't say you can attack while flying, you can't (since "it doesn't say you can't" isn't a valid reason). It does call out that you can charge, so is that "obviously" the only way you can attack while using the spell? It doesn't say you can't search for traps while flying, but it doesn't say you can; does that mean you can't?

Floating Disk says it allows you to move the disk around within range of the spell. It says the disk can move along with you. It does not say it only does so to follow you; it says that it follows you, then elaborates with more that it does. If you are standing on the disk, when it moves, it moves what is on it along with it (you, in this case). It never leaves the range of the spell. It moves along with you (because it's moving you on top of it). It would have to specify that you cannot do this for this not to be permitted by the wording of the spell. The only argument to the contrary is the one that says "follow" is a restrictive word, and I don't see any way to read that as accurate; if it were, there are much simpler ways to word the spell without outlining things that are NOT possible while "following." Such as "mov[ing] about...within range."

I have four things to say to you.
1: I only said 2 things, saying, "it doesn't say you can't" is a poor argument, and that I believe you have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support your position.
2: I can't find that last quote in the spell at all, which description are you looking at. I'm looking at a PDF of the first printing.
3: We have two conflicting interpretations, according to my interpretation, you are adding functionality (I will admit that according to your interpretation, I'm needlessly restricting it).
4: Perhaps it's just the medium of communication, but I do not like the tone of your posts.

EDIT: As an aside, even with my interpretation, you can still do a similar thing. Climb onto your disk, then command it to maintain a 10 foot distance, it moves away from you, and since you are on it, it continues to move. Since we don't know how to control it, it may move randomly, or it may move in the shortest distance to fulfill it's objective. You may even be able to direct which direction to maintain the 10 foot distance. Of those 3 movements, only one prevents you from using it as a chair, the other 2 would allow you to control it's movement.

[Dalebert]

1: I only said 2 things, saying, "it doesn't say you can't" is a poor argument, and that I believe you have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support your position.

Generally, that's true. Spells only do what they say they can do. This spell says it can carry up to X amount of weight. So I interpreted his point as the spell already says you can sit on it, in effect, assuming you're within the weight limit. I concede that a DM could interpret the wording to adjust the distance it's following at, though that seems oddly specific to me, possibly to the point of getting silly. I'm picturing it getting hung on corners and such. It also seems like a basic need to be able to position it appropriately to load with heavy stuph. What if the treasure is in a corner? You can't walk into a wall to get it closer. I picture it as following your commands like an unseen servant except all it can do is move horizontally so those commands are restricted to "go next to that pile of treasure and wait" and never "go up" because it can't. And also like Unseen Servant, it winks out if it goes further than the range from you.

One weird point is they never specify it's max speed. I think that's just part of the sloppiness resulting from writing up so many spells and not trying to think of every little thing. It's implied that it can go at least as fast as your land speed in order to follow you so I'd probably go with that. Otherwise, it really could get ridiculous if you could ride it at some insane speed. I would even allow you to sit on it and say "follow that guy", though you would lag behind if their land speed was greater than the caster's.

[Segev]

I am interpreting that phrase as that you can direct it to maintain either greater or less than a 5 foot interval. Though thinking on it more, I can see how you got your interpretation, I still believe that the follow only interpretation is the more valid one. Also I wouldn't be against someone ruling that it did work the way you think.

Well, I obviously disagree, but I can at least accept that we both understand the other's position.

1: I only said 2 things, saying, "it doesn't say you can't" is a poor argument, and that I believe you have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support your position.

I don't know how to present more evidence when I think I've presented everything necessary. Let me try using Dalebert's post below yours to see if his words are clearer than mine.

Generally, that's true. Spells only do what they say they can do. This spell says it can carry up to X amount of weight. So I interpreted his point as the spell already says you can sit on it, in effect, assuming you're within the weight limit.

Add to this the phrases, "It floats along horizontally within spell range," and, "If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you," we have a default behavior "if not otherwise directed," and a behavior within its directed capability ("float[ing] along horizontally within the spell range").

That gives us, from the spell's text:
1. The ability to sit on it.
2. The ability to move it horizontally within the spell's range.
3. A default behavior "if not otherwise directed."

The third is only relevant to my point in that it spells out that it can be otherwise directed.

Since 1 and 2 are in place, as long as you are sitting on it, it is clearly within the spell's range. You therefore have the ability to direct it to move horizontally anywhere, as it never leaves the spell's range.

2: I can't find that last quote in the spell at all, which description are you looking at. I'm looking at a PDF of the first printing.

My apologies, I paraphrased when I thought I was quoting. The actual quote is: "It floats along horizontally within spell range". Combined with the fact that you can clearly direct it's motion, or the "if not otherwise directed" phrase wouldn't be necessary, you clearly can direct that floating.

3: We have two conflicting interpretations, according to my interpretation, you are adding functionality (I will admit that according to your interpretation, I'm needlessly restricting it).

Well, at least we can both see the other's point, even if we don't agree. I will point out that your later comment...

As an aside, even with my interpretation, you can still do a similar thing. Climb onto your disk, then command it to maintain a 10 foot distance, it moves away from you, and since you are on it, it continues to move. Since we don't know how to control it, it may move randomly, or it may move in the shortest distance to fulfill it's objective. You may even be able to direct which direction to maintain the 10 foot distance. Of those 3 movements, only one prevents you from using it as a chair, the other 2 would allow you to control it's movement.

...means I am not adding functionality, even by your interpretation. It just requires a more...creative...form of the command. Rather than "move over there," it's "move away from me in that direction...now stop." Since the action to direct it is not specified, it defaults to a move-equivalent action to control its location (as that is, I believe, how directing spell effects works; I could be mistaken as I cannot find controlling rules to reference and thus am operating from potentially imperfect memory; it could be "free" in the "talking is a free action" sense). But the point here is that I am not adding functionality, merely reducing the required mental gymnastics required to get to the same effect. To the point about "it may move randomly," I contend that anything that engenders something needing to be determined randomly is, by precedent, going to say so. This means that you're adding, if not functionality, then at least rules that are not present in the text, by suggesting the need for randomized control.

4: Perhaps it's just the medium of communication, but I do not like the tone of your posts.

My apologies; I get frustrated when people seem not to even be seeing my arguments, or to be reacting to them like I wrote them in some dialect of Klingon in which they are not proficient, and that may be showing. I assure you that my mental tone, in my own head, remained philosophical, if perhaps a bit intense.

One weird point is they never specify it's max speed. I think that's just part of the sloppiness resulting from writing up so many spells and not trying to think of every little thing. It's implied that it can go at least as fast as your land speed in order to follow you so I'd probably go with that. Otherwise, it really could get ridiculous if you could ride it at some insane speed. I would even allow you to sit on it and say "follow that guy", though you would lag behind if their land speed was greater than the caster's.

The actual line is: "It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round." That provides its maximum speed. It can move at your normal speed each round.

The one point of inclarity, to me, is if your "normal" speed is your listed Speed stat, and thus you cannot double move without out-pacing it, or your "normal speed each round" is "how fast you can go without augmentation or outside aid," in which case it can double-move or even run with you (or follow at your swim or fly or burrow speeds). As long as you stay in vertical range of it, at least. Burrowing, swimming, or flying up or down away from it would not permit it to follow you in that dimension, because it floats horizontally.

[Dalebert]

The actual line is: "It floats along horizontally within spell range and will accompany you at a rate of no more than your normal speed each round." That provides its maximum speed. It can move at your normal speed each round.

Hmm. Not sure how I missed that.

The one point of inclarity, to me, is if your "normal" speed is your listed Speed stat, and thus you cannot double move without out-pacing it, or your "normal speed each round" is "how fast you can go without augmentation or outside aid," in which case it can double-move or even run with you (or follow at your swim or fly or burrow speeds). As long as you stay in vertical range of it, at least. Burrowing, swimming, or flying up or down away from it would not permit it to follow you in that dimension, because it floats horizontally.

I would say your run speed isn't your "normal" speed, but since anyone can move twice in a round, and since it doesn't specify otherwise, the disk should be able to as well. My call as a DM would be the disk can't "run".

[Brookshw]

My apologies; I get frustrated when people seem not to even be seeing my arguments, or to be reacting to them like I wrote them in some dialect of Klingon in which they are not proficient, and that may be showing. I assure you that my mental tone, in my own head, remained philosophical, if perhaps a bit intense.

Oh we're most certainly listening, apologies from this side if you thought you were being ignored.

I believe the key point of contention here is the sentence

If not otherwise directed, it maintains a constant interval of 5 feet between itself and you.

I believe this can be represented as:
Not[Otherwise directed] = [Constant interval of 5 feet].
Here I think you've made an invalid inference by asserting that you're permitted to move it in other fashions. The proper inversion I believe should be
[Otherwise directed] = Not[Constant interval of 5 feet].
By this the only thing that changes is the constant interval. The argument you've put forth as I'm understanding you breaks would work itself out as
[Otherwise directed] = Not [Constant interval]
Not [Constant interval] = Not [Follow]

However [Constant interval] =/= [Follow] which is where it gets problematic. These two phrases would have to have equivalency if you were to be correct, but I don't see evidence for such a thing.

Further I think there's some evidence to be gained from Greater Floating Disk

This spell functions like _Tenser's Floating disk (PH 294), except that the created disk does not need to stay within 3 feet of the surface beneath it. However, the disk must remain within 15 feet of you at all times. You can concentrate (as a standard action) on the disk to make it move with a fly speed of 20 feet (perfect). This allows you to sit on the disk and command it to carry you about.

Emphasis mine.

The distinction between the two, normal and greater version, specifies that it's the introduction of a flight speed that allows you to ride it around. If the capacity existed in the normal version for it to carry you around there would be no reason to include the sentence "This allows you to sit on the disk and command it to carry you around".

[Dalebert]

I believe this can be represented as:
Not[Otherwise directed] = [Constant interval of 5 feet].
Here I think you've made an invalid inference by asserting that you're permitted to move it in other fashions. The proper inversion I believe should be
[Otherwise directed] = Not[Constant interval of 5 feet].
By this the only thing that changes is the constant interval. The argument you've put forth as I'm understanding you breaks would work itself out as
[Otherwise directed] = Not [Constant interval]
Not [Constant interval] = Not [Follow]

I understand the logic but it seems like you're over-thinking it. If they really cared, I think they would have specified instead of just leaving every reader to do that logic puzzle above, such as "Your only control over the movement of the disk is to change the size of the interval it follows you from." That once sentence would resolve this IF they thought there was possible ambiguity.

Further I think there's some evidence to be gained from Greater Floating Disk

I honestly don't think that means much. There's not much at all to be gained by riding the 1st level version whereas the other allows personal flight. Aside from some rare and very context-dependent circumstances, being able to ride on a disk that can't be higher than 3 feet and can't move any faster than you is fairly useless. If they cared about you not doing it, they'd have specified with one or two additional sentences in the desc rather than leaving ambiguous. I posit that pointing out the caster can ride this one isn't to say you can't ride the other as much as not seeing any point in doing so due to its significant limitations compared to the higher level version. There's really almost never a point in riding the 1st level version other than maybe style points.

[Brookshw]

I understand the logic but it seems like you're over-thinking it. If they really cared, I think they would have specified instead of just leaving every reader to do that logic puzzle above, such as "Your only control over the movement of the disk is to change the size of the interval it follows you from." That once sentence would resolve this IF they thought there was possible ambiguity.

Well no, it' takes very little thinking to assume that when they say "follows you" they mean "follows you" rather than having to trick out some other meaning of what the spell does. The above is rather a responses to attempts to infer additional properties that wouldn't be necessary since, if they really cared they could have said "direct able" rather than follow. They probably decided that there was some ambiguity though considering they clarified in the FAQ that while you can sit on it, it can't fly you around. Not really sure what you're getting at here since it's not providing any evidence that it can be used to Yoda chair.

Spoiler

Show

Editors not: Perform: Dance, Gungam Style can now be used to substitute for a ride check.

I honestly don't think that means much. There's not much at all to be gained by riding the 1st level version whereas the other allows personal flight. Aside from some rare and very context-dependent circumstances, being able to ride on a disk that can't be higher than 3 feet and can't move any faster than you is fairly useless. If they cared about you not doing it, they'd have specified with one or two additional sentences in the desc rather than leaving ambiguous. I posit that pointing out the caster can ride this one isn't to say you can't ride the other as much as not seeing any point in doing so due to its significant limitations compared to the higher level version. There's really almost never a point in riding the 1st level version other than maybe style points.

You honestly don't think that when they called out the differences between the greater and normal version, that specifying your ability to ride it around is a function of the greater not present in the normal, means much? Okay...

Not sure where you getting to with the rest there, it's the RAW that's under dispute, not how much of a game breaking effect it would have if you could fly around on a normal floating disk. Anyway, since one of the things specified in the normal version but is present in the greater is, in addition to being able to ride it around, is the concentration and move action requirement, if you could fly around on the normal version that would give you a mount and edge in the action economy, not some rare and context dependent circumstance. Additional advantages against trip attacks since you'd be sitting (I'd certainly call that a stabilization bonus) and could defend yourself with a ride check (okay, ride's probably not a caster's bread and butter). Ignoring difficult terrain so no movement penalties for transversing it gives you better abilities to kite things around and it's harder to be followed, couldn't be tracked, able to avoid ground based traps, eh, I could go on but they're not rare and pretty common for many cases.

[Dalebert]

You honestly don't think that when they called out the differences between the greater and normal version, that specifying your ability to ride it around is a function of the greater not present in the normal, means much? Okay...

Not sure where you getting to with the rest there, it's the RAW that's under dispute, not how much of a game breaking effect it would have if you could fly around on a normal floating disk.

I was trying to get at the RAW. I was disputing the reason why they mention riding on the greater version. You said it was verifying that you can't ride the other. I thought they mention it because they don't expect you to have any particular reason to ride the crappier version because it's about the same as walking. But you did point out some good reasons that I honestly hadn't thought of. I'm inclined to agree that you shouldn't be able to ride it around given those.

Where is this FAQ that clarifies this? That could have settled it rather quickly. I DLed the PH3.5 FAQ and did a search for "floating" with no result.

[nyjastul69]

I was trying to get at the RAW. I was disputing the reason why they mention riding on the greater version. You said it was verifying that you can't ride the other. I thought they mention it because they don't expect you to have any particular reason to ride the crappier version because it's about the same as walking. But you did point out some good reasons that I honestly hadn't thought of. I'm inclined to agree that you shouldn't be able to ride it around given those.

Where is this FAQ that clarifies this? That could have settled it rather quickly. I DLed the PH3.5 FAQ and did a search for "floating" with no result.

I found a post on another forum claiming it is on page 91 of the 3.5 D&D FAQ. They quoted the bit I'm quoting.

FAQ quote
Can you ride your own Tenser’s floating disk?
No. While you could command your Tenser’s floating disk to move close enough for you to sit upon it, it has no ability to move under its own power. It can follow you only at a maximum rate equal to your normal speed.

I understand the FAQ's relevance as a rules/reference document. I also can't open the FAQ file on my phone so I can't confirm whether the quote I posted is accurate.

[Segev]

I do not think we are going to come to agreement. This is not to dismiss your point, but to acknowledge that we fundamentally disagree on that one sentence.

I still contend that, absent language specifying that it "follows you at a constant disatnce, the first sentence is not restrictive, but descriptive of a default behavior.

The restrictions of how you may direct it are clearly spelled out: it cannot move faster than your normal speed, and if it moves outside of the spell's range from you, it winks out.

It also includes no rules for randomizing (or determining fromexternal conditions) direction of motion if you are on it, whih your interpretation would seem to require.

Still, clearly the FAQ writer agreed with you in at least what he thought the intent was.

As for the call-out in Greater Floating Disk, it could indicate that the writer of that spell thought that the lesser version forbade it, but that does no make it so. It notably does not say, either, that it allows riding "unlike Floating Disk," so the call-out could be in reference to the fact that its above the ground flight speed can carry you aloft, but only at he reduced speed of 20ft.

[Brookshw]

I was trying to get at the RAW. I was disputing the reason why they mention riding on the greater version. You said it was verifying that you can't ride the other. I thought they mention it because they don't expect you to have any particular reason to ride the crappier version because it's about the same as walking. But you did point out some good reasons that I honestly hadn't thought of. I'm inclined to agree that you shouldn't be able to ride it around given those.

Where is this FAQ that clarifies this? That could have settled it rather quickly. I DLed the PH3.5 FAQ and did a search for "floating" with no result.

I believe its pg 91 but I'm in the middle of an orchard picking apples and can't fully confirm that from my phone.