The sphere is weightless and just large enough to contain the creature or object inside. An enclosed creature can use its action to push against the sphere’s walls and thus roll the sphere at up to half the creature’s speed. Similarly, the globe can be picked up and moved by other creatures.
My original thought on this was that the sphere would be weightless with the character inside (IE, the final result is weightless), but then I realised that this wouldn't make much sense if they were able to roll the sphere.
If the sphere is weightless, then does it roll downhill, or does the weight of the character stop this from happening, like a Weebl?
The sphere is weightless. Nothing is said about anything inside it, although the example of the globe being pick-up-able is a bit confusing. As you said, it wouldn't really make any sense if you could roll the thing while being weightless. Then again, magic.
The sphere would roll downhill, because that's what spheres do. The thing inside provides the weight that allows gravity to pull the sphere downhill. If there were nothing or a weightless thing inside of the sphere, it would only go downhill so much as a (non-helium) balloon does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Um ... I'd say no. A ball only rolls well if the weight is equally distributed. If someone is inside the sphere, they'll be either standing or sitting, placing all the weight at the bottom, effectively keeping the ball from moving - unless it's very steep, or they're trying to move it.
Someone could propably math this out to a clearer answer, but that someone isn't me. The weird hieroglyphicals we call numbers, and the arcane machinations that can be done with them, are all beyond me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The sphere has an undetermined weight so it's up to DM, it would likely add the weight of the creature inside and would not roll by itself, unless forced by gravity such as a slope.
I figure it just means the sphere doesn’t add weight. So if you were strong enough to pick up the creature inside, you could grab the sphere and do so.
And I’d say the character in it would stop it rolling down the hill. Like a human paperweight.
I think that if the sphere could somehow be empty then it would have no weight and therefore would not roll downhill. If it always must contain a creature or object then I think that creature or object does continue to have its own weight and would sometimes cause the sphere to roll downhill.
What exactly happens on various slopes of a hill I think is just going to have to be the DM's call, the rules don't provide that much detail. For example, on a very shallow downhill grade I think that a creature could easily stand still in a certain location within the sphere -- should it require the creature's action to do this? That's probably too tough of a ruling. In fact, I think it's reasonable to allow the creature to roll the sphere uphill on such a gentle slope. Should movement speed be different uphill vs downhill? Again, the DM might want to adjudicate that but RAW it's just half of the creature's movement speed in any direction.
It obviously breaks down if the hill has a very steep slope. If we're talking about the side of a mountain that is somewhat close to rock climbing, then being able to move either direction at half of the movement speed makes no sense -- and in that case probably the sphere is going to roll downhill without the creature being able to do anything about it. RAW, none of this is factored in so it would be up to the DM to make a situational ruling.
This has made me wonder. Since the creature inside can’t be damaged by outside effects, could you use it to jump off a cliff? Cast it on yourself and just roll over the edge. Would you take the fall damage? Is that damage considered originating outside the sphere?
I would allow that as a use for the spell. Fall damage can be catastrophic, so inventive use of the spell is encouraged! I'd say that the sphere protects entirely against fall damage, which is why I'm 50/50 on whether they weigh what they normally weigh when the sphere is around them!
I may have to discuss with my group and see if we want it to be more of a magical floaty bubble or an invincible hampster ball!
(admittedly, my original reason for the question was because they will be fighting giants, and I thought that a giant casting this and then punting them could be a hilarious and game-changing combo! Still works, but would work better if they are weightless!)
(admittedly, my original reason for the question was because they will be fighting giants, and I thought that a giant casting this and then punting them could be a hilarious and game-changing combo! Still works, but would work better if they are weightless!)
Please do this. But to me this argues against making them weightless. Surely they weren’t trying to allow a golf ball hit on the moon scenario. A giant could practically kick them into orbit. They’d not come down until the spell ran out.
Please do this. But to me this argues against making them weightless. Surely they weren’t trying to allow a golf ball hit on the moon scenario. A giant could practically kick them into orbit. They’d not come down until the spell ran out.
I disagree, have you tried kicking a beach ball? Having no weight won't make it go far at all (unless, perhaps, if you are in a vacuum). It could still be hilarious though.
Catapult doesn't specify a nonmagical object, so theoretically the Sphere is considered eligible. It is also weightless, so it is eligible.
If I cast Catapult on a Resilient Sphere, will it:
1: Send the sphere along with its passenger flying 2: Send the sphere flying into the passenger, dealing damage to them as it hits them 3: Not work at all?
Please do this. But to me this argues against making them weightless. Surely they weren’t trying to allow a golf ball hit on the moon scenario. A giant could practically kick them into orbit. They’d not come down until the spell ran out.
I disagree, have you tried kicking a beach ball? Having no weight won't make it go far at all (unless, perhaps, if you are in a vacuum). It could still be hilarious though.
But, a beach ball does have weight. Very little, but not none.
I guess the person in the sphere does have mass, however, so your point largely stands and the person in the ball would fall down based on that. Assuming the physics works in the fantasy world the same way I remember it from high school.
But, a beach ball does have weight. Very little, but not none.
I guess the person in the sphere does have mass, however, so your point largely stands and the person in the ball would fall down based on that. Assuming the physics works in the fantasy world the same way I remember it from high school.
Yea but that's the thing, that just makes it even worse for the sphere. No weight -> no mass -> it will stop very quickly because of the air resistance.
But, a beach ball does have weight. Very little, but not none.
I guess the person in the sphere does have mass, however, so your point largely stands and the person in the ball would fall down based on that. Assuming the physics works in the fantasy world the same way I remember it from high school.
Yea but that's the thing, that just makes it even worse for the sphere. No weight -> no mass -> it will stop very quickly because of the air resistance.
No weight does not mean no mass. Astronauts in space are weightless, but they still have mass.
Please do this. But to me this argues against making them weightless. Surely they weren’t trying to allow a golf ball hit on the moon scenario. A giant could practically kick them into orbit. They’d not come down until the spell ran out.
I disagree, have you tried kicking a beach ball? Having no weight won't make it go far at all (unless, perhaps, if you are in a vacuum). It could still be hilarious though.
Just for fun, I'll join in on the physics debate here. In fact, a weightless object launched vertically will travel farther upwards than an object that has weight.
We're talking about a situation where an upward force is applied to an object for a brief period of time, such as when thrown or kicked. As soon as this force stops being applied, the object has an initial upward velocity. From this moment on, only two forces continuously act upon the object -- gravity and drag, both directed downwards.
Gravity can be estimated to be a constant force in this context. The magnitude of the acceleration that results from this force depends upon the mass (weight) of the object. A greater mass (weight) will cause a greater downward acceleration, which means that it will not go as high before changing direction and falling back towards the ground. In this theoretical case where there is no weight then there is no acceleration due to gravity. Either no weight means there is also no mass, or the mass is unaffected by gravity for some reason (magic?), etc.
The drag force due to air resistance is not a constant force -- it varies as the speed of the object varies. Also, two objects with the same mass travelling at the same speed but having different shapes will likely be subjected to different drag forces. But in this case we are comparing objects of the same shape, one with weight and one is weightless -- these should be subjected to the same variable drag forces. Since the weighted object has both the drag force and the force due to gravity slowing it down, it must not travel as high as the object that only has one of these forces acting upon it.
Interestingly, the weightless object would never return back towards the ground. The drag force is variable and as this wind resistance causes the object to rise slower and slower into the air, the drag forces become less and less until an equilibrium is reached where the object is suspended at 0 vertical speed and no longer has any forces acting upon it!
I'm no physician, but wouldn't drag affect a massless object more than a similar mass-possessing object going at the same speed? The force (mass * velocity) of the former object would be lesser, but the amount of drag would be the same as the latter object because it has the same surface area, so the drag would have more effect on it. Hence beach balls being harder to kick than soccer balls.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
i think beach balls not travelling as well when kicked is due to something else. Rebound forces, loss of kinetic energy due to the material of the object and so on. Once it's already travelling, the rate at which it slows down (horizontally) due to air resistance is actually probably somewhat similar to a soccer ball since they have a similar shape. I don't think that the mass of an object factors into drag forces. I'm not an expert in any of this though so I could be straight up wrong about some of this stuff . . .
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm curious how people read this bit:
The sphere is weightless and just large enough to contain the creature or object inside. An enclosed creature can use its action to push against the sphere’s walls and thus roll the sphere at up to half the creature’s speed. Similarly, the globe can be picked up and moved by other creatures.
My original thought on this was that the sphere would be weightless with the character inside (IE, the final result is weightless), but then I realised that this wouldn't make much sense if they were able to roll the sphere.
If the sphere is weightless, then does it roll downhill, or does the weight of the character stop this from happening, like a Weebl?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
The sphere is weightless. Nothing is said about anything inside it, although the example of the globe being pick-up-able is a bit confusing. As you said, it wouldn't really make any sense if you could roll the thing while being weightless. Then again, magic.
The sphere would roll downhill, because that's what spheres do. The thing inside provides the weight that allows gravity to pull the sphere downhill. If there were nothing or a weightless thing inside of the sphere, it would only go downhill so much as a (non-helium) balloon does.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Um ... I'd say no. A ball only rolls well if the weight is equally distributed. If someone is inside the sphere, they'll be either standing or sitting, placing all the weight at the bottom, effectively keeping the ball from moving - unless it's very steep, or they're trying to move it.
Someone could propably math this out to a clearer answer, but that someone isn't me. The weird hieroglyphicals we call numbers, and the arcane machinations that can be done with them, are all beyond me.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The sphere has an undetermined weight so it's up to DM, it would likely add the weight of the creature inside and would not roll by itself, unless forced by gravity such as a slope.
I figure it just means the sphere doesn’t add weight. So if you were strong enough to pick up the creature inside, you could grab the sphere and do so.
And I’d say the character in it would stop it rolling down the hill. Like a human paperweight.
I think that if the sphere could somehow be empty then it would have no weight and therefore would not roll downhill. If it always must contain a creature or object then I think that creature or object does continue to have its own weight and would sometimes cause the sphere to roll downhill.
What exactly happens on various slopes of a hill I think is just going to have to be the DM's call, the rules don't provide that much detail. For example, on a very shallow downhill grade I think that a creature could easily stand still in a certain location within the sphere -- should it require the creature's action to do this? That's probably too tough of a ruling. In fact, I think it's reasonable to allow the creature to roll the sphere uphill on such a gentle slope. Should movement speed be different uphill vs downhill? Again, the DM might want to adjudicate that but RAW it's just half of the creature's movement speed in any direction.
It obviously breaks down if the hill has a very steep slope. If we're talking about the side of a mountain that is somewhat close to rock climbing, then being able to move either direction at half of the movement speed makes no sense -- and in that case probably the sphere is going to roll downhill without the creature being able to do anything about it. RAW, none of this is factored in so it would be up to the DM to make a situational ruling.
This has made me wonder. Since the creature inside can’t be damaged by outside effects, could you use it to jump off a cliff? Cast it on yourself and just roll over the edge. Would you take the fall damage? Is that damage considered originating outside the sphere?
I would allow that as a use for the spell. Fall damage can be catastrophic, so inventive use of the spell is encouraged! I'd say that the sphere protects entirely against fall damage, which is why I'm 50/50 on whether they weigh what they normally weigh when the sphere is around them!
I may have to discuss with my group and see if we want it to be more of a magical floaty bubble or an invincible hampster ball!
(admittedly, my original reason for the question was because they will be fighting giants, and I thought that a giant casting this and then punting them could be a hilarious and game-changing combo! Still works, but would work better if they are weightless!)
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Please do this.
But to me this argues against making them weightless. Surely they weren’t trying to allow a golf ball hit on the moon scenario. A giant could practically kick them into orbit. They’d not come down until the spell ran out.
I disagree, have you tried kicking a beach ball? Having no weight won't make it go far at all (unless, perhaps, if you are in a vacuum).
It could still be hilarious though.
Ok, new question!
Resiliant Sphere & Catapult.
Catapult doesn't specify a nonmagical object, so theoretically the Sphere is considered eligible. It is also weightless, so it is eligible.
If I cast Catapult on a Resilient Sphere, will it:
1: Send the sphere along with its passenger flying
2: Send the sphere flying into the passenger, dealing damage to them as it hits them
3: Not work at all?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I would consider the sphere to be an magical effect and not an object and thus not have it work at all.
Same here
fair point, wishful thinking that XD
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
But, a beach ball does have weight. Very little, but not none.
I guess the person in the sphere does have mass, however, so your point largely stands and the person in the ball would fall down based on that. Assuming the physics works in the fantasy world the same way I remember it from high school.
Yea but that's the thing, that just makes it even worse for the sphere. No weight -> no mass -> it will stop very quickly because of the air resistance.
No weight does not mean no mass. Astronauts in space are weightless, but they still have mass.
Just for fun, I'll join in on the physics debate here. In fact, a weightless object launched vertically will travel farther upwards than an object that has weight.
We're talking about a situation where an upward force is applied to an object for a brief period of time, such as when thrown or kicked. As soon as this force stops being applied, the object has an initial upward velocity. From this moment on, only two forces continuously act upon the object -- gravity and drag, both directed downwards.
Gravity can be estimated to be a constant force in this context. The magnitude of the acceleration that results from this force depends upon the mass (weight) of the object. A greater mass (weight) will cause a greater downward acceleration, which means that it will not go as high before changing direction and falling back towards the ground. In this theoretical case where there is no weight then there is no acceleration due to gravity. Either no weight means there is also no mass, or the mass is unaffected by gravity for some reason (magic?), etc.
The drag force due to air resistance is not a constant force -- it varies as the speed of the object varies. Also, two objects with the same mass travelling at the same speed but having different shapes will likely be subjected to different drag forces. But in this case we are comparing objects of the same shape, one with weight and one is weightless -- these should be subjected to the same variable drag forces. Since the weighted object has both the drag force and the force due to gravity slowing it down, it must not travel as high as the object that only has one of these forces acting upon it.
Interestingly, the weightless object would never return back towards the ground. The drag force is variable and as this wind resistance causes the object to rise slower and slower into the air, the drag forces become less and less until an equilibrium is reached where the object is suspended at 0 vertical speed and no longer has any forces acting upon it!
I'm no physician, but wouldn't drag affect a massless object more than a similar mass-possessing object going at the same speed? The force (mass * velocity) of the former object would be lesser, but the amount of drag would be the same as the latter object because it has the same surface area, so the drag would have more effect on it. Hence beach balls being harder to kick than soccer balls.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
i think beach balls not travelling as well when kicked is due to something else. Rebound forces, loss of kinetic energy due to the material of the object and so on. Once it's already travelling, the rate at which it slows down (horizontally) due to air resistance is actually probably somewhat similar to a soccer ball since they have a similar shape. I don't think that the mass of an object factors into drag forces. I'm not an expert in any of this though so I could be straight up wrong about some of this stuff . . .