My thought is that it would actually apply gravity since there is none in space. Like bringing Earths gravity to the moon. This is a valid question and I have my idea but I want to hear your answers xvideos.
I suggest you read the Gravity section on Spell Jammer in the link provided. This is classic (2nd Ed) material but still valid if you choose to use it.
The 5e Spelljammer rules are similar but shorter, to the link GodwinXZ posted.
So the short of it, at least in games using Spelljamming rules, you don't have variable gravity (the moon does have gravity it's just 1/6 the Earths). I don't think Reverse Gravity on something like Earth's moon would "reverse" 1/6 into 6 Gs. Rather the Moon's gravity in the area of effect would be -1/6 so people would fall away from the moon at 1/6 the rate of falling in Earthlike gravity. Reverse gravity reverses existing gravity. But this is moot since variable gravity doesn't seem to be a thing in the one place the rules talk about it the possibility. I don't know of any D&D that discusses variable gravity, but there may be some 3rd party stuff, especially folks using 5e to bolt on a sci fi world.
I think a more fun absurd question is what would reverse gravity do in deep void space (you don't "really" have this in either Spelljammer set, but no one has to play by those rules) with a true lack of any practical gravity. Like maybe for a minute you could have everything within a 50 ft radius 100 ft long cylinder suffer the effects of being in a singularity/black hole. That might be overpowered though; but still kinda cool.
RAW, the spell does what it says, which makes no mention of gravity. Targets “fall” to the top of the spell’s area of effect irrespective of what gravity actually is.
Narratively though, and how I would rule in a situation where gravity matters, the spell just flips the sign of gravitational acceleration. In zero G, it would do nothing, since positive 0 and negative 0 aren’t different things outside of floating point numbers.
That there is “no gravity” in space is a myth - gravity exists everywhere, between every single thing. Right now, as you read this, you and I are exerting gravity on one another with a force proportional to the product of our masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between us. That force is basically nonexistent, but it does exist.
When you are in the void of space, those distances are extremely large, so the effect of gravity is minimal. Reversing minimal effects would result in no noticeable difference—the inverse of an unnoticeable tiny number is still an unnoticeable tiny number, just in the other direction.
In orbit, however, there might be a pretty darn big notice. Gravity still works on objects in orbit - that is why they orbit. Gravity is pulling the object down toward the celestial body, but they are moving so fast forward that the trajectory of their fall circles the body, rather than crashes into it.
Reversing Gravity on something in orbit could be catastrophic for that object. Now they are falling at a high velocity… but instead of being pulled toward the celestial body, and thus staying in orbit, they will be moving forward super fast while being pushed away from the celestial body. That very likely would fling the object off into space at high speed.
Hmmm...it is a poorly written spell, given that it does fall apart when there is no defined "up". Unless you have a defined up (I do, a la Star Trek, to make things easier to narrate), then I'm afraid the RAW is just broken for this spell.
In terms of flavour, there is no (effective) gravity to reverse, so it has no effect.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That there is “no gravity” in space is a myth - gravity exists everywhere, between every single thing. Right now, as you read this, you and I are exerting gravity on one another with a force proportional to the product of our masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between us. That force is basically nonexistent, but it does exist.
This is true in physics, which is why I spoke of "practical gravity." But while physics may be true, singularities are cool.
But since I'm not a Critter, I'm wondering whether gravity and relativity were messed around with when Mercer had his quantum inspired Dunamancy drawing board moment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Where there is no gravity, the spell should fail in that there is no gravity to reverse.
Therein lies the rub - the actual spell makes no reference to gravity. The title mentions gravity, but that's flavour text and the description of what it does doesn't actually mention gravity at all. The RAW effect of the spell doesn't actually interact with gravity at all. It just says that they go up X amount of feet and then stops ascending and oscillates. That's why it's poorly written for this circumstance, the effect is not actually modifying gravity, but assumes that there is always gravity.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Where there is no gravity, the spell should fail in that there is no gravity to reverse.
Therein lies the rub - the actual spell makes no reference to gravity. The title mentions gravity, but that's flavour text and the description of what it does doesn't actually mention gravity at all. The RAW effect of the spell doesn't actually interact with gravity at all. It just says that they go up X amount of feet and then stops ascending and oscillates. That's why it's poorly written for this circumstance, the effect is not actually modifying gravity, but assumes that there is always gravity.
As a general rule, when complaining about RAW, it helps to read the rules as written before posting. Reverse Gravity’s first line is literally “This spell reverses gravity in a 50-foot-radius, 100- foot high cylinder centered on a point within range.”
It then goes on to say the creature falls - which uses the falling rules; falling “up” with “up” clearly meaning in context “against the dominant force of gravity”.
Hmmm...it is a poorly written spell, given that it does fall apart when there is no defined "up". Unless you have a defined up (I do, a la Star Trek, to make things easier to narrate), then I'm afraid the RAW is just broken for this spell.
In terms of flavour, there is no (effective) gravity to reverse, so it has no effect.
Either there is gravity in the area or there is not.
Where there is gravity, there is a defineable 'up.'
Where there is no gravity, the spell should fail in that there is no gravity to reverse. However that would arguably be a function of the region more than of the spell. And any DM is free to make such a declaration.
This is not true. Gravity is literally everywhere.
A spacecraft in orbit experiences "zero-G" because the centripetal acceleration from its orbit cancels the force of gravity resulting in a net force of zero and thus the feeling of "zero-G" but NOT no gravity. Similarly, if you jump from an airplane and there is no wind resistance - you will feel "zero-G" at least until the moment you hit the surface. :)
Gravity is not the feeling of being pulled down to the ground - it is the force acting on the object in a gravity field. Gravity is everywhere, how you "feel" it depends on the balance of forces due to gravitational fields and motion.
Anyway, Reverse Gravity would probably just change the sign of the local gravitational field - the effect would be up to the DM to resolve depending on how much they want to use physics vs magic and fantasy in resolving the situation. There is no requirement that "gravity" in a fantasy world be the same as gravity in the real world.
Where there is no gravity, the spell should fail in that there is no gravity to reverse.
Therein lies the rub - the actual spell makes no reference to gravity. The title mentions gravity, but that's flavour text and the description of what it does doesn't actually mention gravity at all. The RAW effect of the spell doesn't actually interact with gravity at all. It just says that they go up X amount of feet and then stops ascending and oscillates. That's why it's poorly written for this circumstance, the effect is not actually modifying gravity, but assumes that there is always gravity.
As a general rule, when complaining about RAW, it helps to read the rules as written before posting. Reverse Gravity’s first line is literally “This spell reverses gravity in a 50-foot-radius, 100- foot high cylinder centered on a point within range.”
It then goes on to say the creature falls - which uses the falling rules; falling “up” with “up” clearly meaning in context “against the dominant force of gravity”.
I would argue the spell does nothing, but not because it "reverses gravity" but because it uses falling rules. If you cannot functionally "fall" in an area, then you would not be affected by a mechanic that causes you to fall. in a situation where gravity is not "normal", you would need to know how that abnormal gravity affects falling rules to properly apply this spell.
Hmmm...it is a poorly written spell, given that it does fall apart when there is no defined "up". Unless you have a defined up (I do, a la Star Trek, to make things easier to narrate), then I'm afraid the RAW is just broken for this spell.
In terms of flavour, there is no (effective) gravity to reverse, so it has no effect.
Either there is gravity in the area or there is not.
Where there is gravity, there is a defineable 'up.'
Where there is no gravity, the spell should fail in that there is no gravity to reverse. However that would arguably be a function of the region more than of the spell. And any DM is free to make such a declaration.
This is not true. Gravity is literally everywhere.
A spacecraft in orbit experiences "zero-G" because the centripetal acceleration from its orbit cancels the force of gravity resulting in a net force of zero and thus the feeling of "zero-G" but NOT no gravity. Similarly, if you jump from an airplane and there is no wind resistance - you will feel "zero-G" at least until the moment you hit the surface. :)
Gravity is not the feeling of being pulled down to the ground - it is the force acting on the object in a gravity field. Gravity is everywhere, how you "feel" it depends on the balance of forces due to gravitational fields and motion.
Anyway, Reverse Gravity would probably just change the sign of the local gravitational field - the effect would be up to the DM to resolve depending on how much they want to use physics vs magic and fantasy in resolving the situation.There is no requirement that "gravity" in a fantasy world be the same as gravity in the real world.
1) You are using RL physics in a setting where they are very much not a given. For example, there is no actual momentum in 5e. Ships literally only move when ordered to, can move up to their full movement from dead stop, but not any faster and stop instantly if not given movement orders. Ditto with creatures. Flying creatures that do not have specified hover ability have stall speeds of nil, meaning that as long as they move forward, no matter how slow, they stay airborne. However they can pull out of any controlled dive perfectly safely, so long as it is within their remaining regular movement.
2) Where there is gravity, there is gravity. So that situation would be covered.
3) There is nothing prohibiting a DM from declaring any given region, regardless of location, 'gravity free.'
Just noting .. the last lines of my reply stated " the effect would be up to the DM to resolve depending on how much they want to use physics vs magic and fantasy in resolving the situation.There is no requirement that "gravity" in a fantasy world be the same as gravity in the real world."
As for "D&D movement" ... the division of 6 second game rounds into turns evaluated in initiative order is just a mechanism to make a 6 second round of actions that are happening continuously and simultaneously actually playable. The characters don't actually run 30', stop and wait 6 seconds for other folks to do stuff, then run another 30'.
Narratively the action is continuous, mechanically it is split into initiative.
"The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. "
"In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand."
P.S. As for flying, as long as a creature is capable of flight it remains in the air, it doesn't need to move.
"Flying creatures enjoy many benefits of mobility, but they must also deal with the danger of falling. If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell."
Creatures only fall if they are knocked prone, have its speed reduced to zero or are otherwise deprived of its ability to move. A flying creature has no requirement to move at all on their turn. Moving zero is not the same as having their speed reduced to 0. The ability to "hover" is a specific rule granted by certain magic items and to certain creatures allowing them to remain in the air even if their speed is reduced to zero (e.g. beholder)
It's pretty simple. If you're running strictly RAW, the spell does exactly what it says: It reverses the extremely minimal gravity in the area, which shouldn't have any noticeable effect on anyone, and then everyone falls really hard in the direction the DM decides is up, regardless of what you'd expect from such a minimal gravitational force. (If the DM hasn't decided which direction is up, they need to decide as the spell is being cast. Some direction is always up, even if you haven't thought about it, just like the sun is always somewhere in the sky even if the party has been underground for a week.)
Disclaimer noted. Keep in mind though that I did cover the situation where gravity does exist with 'where gravity does exist, there is a define-able centre of gravity and thus a defined 'up''
Might be separate threat worthy, however, RAW, if a ship is not given orders to move, it is stationary that round, regardless of its prior round's movement. Mounts are usually similar.
There is no physics based vector style movement. Similarly, if a flying creature does not move, has it not reduced its own speed to 0? Hovering is being stationary in the air. This still usually involves some sort of exertion of force to prevent falling. Creatures that can hover are not reliant on forward motion for lift.
Lol ... now you are getting into the physics of a magical setting :) : "Creatures that can hover are not reliant on forward motion for lift."
In 5e, flying creatures only fall if knocked prone, have their speed reduced to 0 (which is not the same as how much they move) or are otherwise deprived of the ability to move.
So, explicitly RAW, a flying creature will not fall if it decides not to move on a turn. However, if somehow deprived of its fly speed (eg hold spells, grappled, restrained), a flying creature will fall if they don't have the ability to "magically" hover. e.g. a grappled beholder or one affected by hold monster will not fall, on the other hand a grappled or held aarakokra will fall since it has no hover speed and relies on its wings to hold it up. "Hover" in 5e is not the same as hover in common usage.
In the monster manual, most if not all the creatures who have the ability to "hover" are those who do not use wings for flight (banshee, air elementals, demi-lich, spectre, beholder etc).
My thought is that it would actually apply gravity since there is none in space. Like bringing Earths gravity to the moon.
This is a valid question and I have my idea but I want to hear your answers xvideos .
I suggest you read the Gravity section on Spell Jammer in the link provided. This is classic (2nd Ed) material but still valid if you choose to use it.
https://endless-aetherium.fandom.com/wiki/Spelljamming_Rules
The 5e Spelljammer rules are similar but shorter, to the link GodwinXZ posted.
So the short of it, at least in games using Spelljamming rules, you don't have variable gravity (the moon does have gravity it's just 1/6 the Earths). I don't think Reverse Gravity on something like Earth's moon would "reverse" 1/6 into 6 Gs. Rather the Moon's gravity in the area of effect would be -1/6 so people would fall away from the moon at 1/6 the rate of falling in Earthlike gravity. Reverse gravity reverses existing gravity. But this is moot since variable gravity doesn't seem to be a thing in the one place the rules talk about it the possibility. I don't know of any D&D that discusses variable gravity, but there may be some 3rd party stuff, especially folks using 5e to bolt on a sci fi world.
I think a more fun absurd question is what would reverse gravity do in deep void space (you don't "really" have this in either Spelljammer set, but no one has to play by those rules) with a true lack of any practical gravity. Like maybe for a minute you could have everything within a 50 ft radius 100 ft long cylinder suffer the effects of being in a singularity/black hole. That might be overpowered though; but still kinda cool.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
RAW, the spell does what it says, which makes no mention of gravity. Targets “fall” to the top of the spell’s area of effect irrespective of what gravity actually is.
Narratively though, and how I would rule in a situation where gravity matters, the spell just flips the sign of gravitational acceleration. In zero G, it would do nothing, since positive 0 and negative 0 aren’t different things outside of floating point numbers.
That there is “no gravity” in space is a myth - gravity exists everywhere, between every single thing. Right now, as you read this, you and I are exerting gravity on one another with a force proportional to the product of our masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between us. That force is basically nonexistent, but it does exist.
When you are in the void of space, those distances are extremely large, so the effect of gravity is minimal. Reversing minimal effects would result in no noticeable difference—the inverse of an unnoticeable tiny number is still an unnoticeable tiny number, just in the other direction.
In orbit, however, there might be a pretty darn big notice. Gravity still works on objects in orbit - that is why they orbit. Gravity is pulling the object down toward the celestial body, but they are moving so fast forward that the trajectory of their fall circles the body, rather than crashes into it.
Reversing Gravity on something in orbit could be catastrophic for that object. Now they are falling at a high velocity… but instead of being pulled toward the celestial body, and thus staying in orbit, they will be moving forward super fast while being pushed away from the celestial body. That very likely would fling the object off into space at high speed.
Hmmm...it is a poorly written spell, given that it does fall apart when there is no defined "up". Unless you have a defined up (I do, a la Star Trek, to make things easier to narrate), then I'm afraid the RAW is just broken for this spell.
In terms of flavour, there is no (effective) gravity to reverse, so it has no effect.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This is true in physics, which is why I spoke of "practical gravity." But while physics may be true, singularities are cool.
But since I'm not a Critter, I'm wondering whether gravity and relativity were messed around with when Mercer had his quantum inspired Dunamancy drawing board moment.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
My interpretation is that it reverses any gravity present. So the spell would work but with limited to no affect.
Therein lies the rub - the actual spell makes no reference to gravity. The title mentions gravity, but that's flavour text and the description of what it does doesn't actually mention gravity at all. The RAW effect of the spell doesn't actually interact with gravity at all. It just says that they go up X amount of feet and then stops ascending and oscillates. That's why it's poorly written for this circumstance, the effect is not actually modifying gravity, but assumes that there is always gravity.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
As a general rule, when complaining about RAW, it helps to read the rules as written before posting. Reverse Gravity’s first line is literally “This spell reverses gravity in a 50-foot-radius, 100- foot high cylinder centered on a point within range.”
It then goes on to say the creature falls - which uses the falling rules; falling “up” with “up” clearly meaning in context “against the dominant force of gravity”.
This is not true. Gravity is literally everywhere.
A spacecraft in orbit experiences "zero-G" because the centripetal acceleration from its orbit cancels the force of gravity resulting in a net force of zero and thus the feeling of "zero-G" but NOT no gravity. Similarly, if you jump from an airplane and there is no wind resistance - you will feel "zero-G" at least until the moment you hit the surface. :)
Gravity is not the feeling of being pulled down to the ground - it is the force acting on the object in a gravity field. Gravity is everywhere, how you "feel" it depends on the balance of forces due to gravitational fields and motion.
Anyway, Reverse Gravity would probably just change the sign of the local gravitational field - the effect would be up to the DM to resolve depending on how much they want to use physics vs magic and fantasy in resolving the situation. There is no requirement that "gravity" in a fantasy world be the same as gravity in the real world.
I would argue the spell does nothing, but not because it "reverses gravity" but because it uses falling rules. If you cannot functionally "fall" in an area, then you would not be affected by a mechanic that causes you to fall. in a situation where gravity is not "normal", you would need to know how that abnormal gravity affects falling rules to properly apply this spell.
Just noting .. the last lines of my reply stated " the effect would be up to the DM to resolve depending on how much they want to use physics vs magic and fantasy in resolving the situation. There is no requirement that "gravity" in a fantasy world be the same as gravity in the real world."
As for "D&D movement" ... the division of 6 second game rounds into turns evaluated in initiative order is just a mechanism to make a 6 second round of actions that are happening continuously and simultaneously actually playable. The characters don't actually run 30', stop and wait 6 seconds for other folks to do stuff, then run another 30'.
Narratively the action is continuous, mechanically it is split into initiative.
"The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. "
"In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand."
P.S. As for flying, as long as a creature is capable of flight it remains in the air, it doesn't need to move.
"Flying creatures enjoy many benefits of mobility, but they must also deal with the danger of falling. If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell."
Creatures only fall if they are knocked prone, have its speed reduced to zero or are otherwise deprived of its ability to move. A flying creature has no requirement to move at all on their turn. Moving zero is not the same as having their speed reduced to 0. The ability to "hover" is a specific rule granted by certain magic items and to certain creatures allowing them to remain in the air even if their speed is reduced to zero (e.g. beholder)
It's pretty simple. If you're running strictly RAW, the spell does exactly what it says: It reverses the extremely minimal gravity in the area, which shouldn't have any noticeable effect on anyone, and then everyone falls really hard in the direction the DM decides is up, regardless of what you'd expect from such a minimal gravitational force. (If the DM hasn't decided which direction is up, they need to decide as the spell is being cast. Some direction is always up, even if you haven't thought about it, just like the sun is always somewhere in the sky even if the party has been underground for a week.)
Lol ... now you are getting into the physics of a magical setting :) : "Creatures that can hover are not reliant on forward motion for lift."
In 5e, flying creatures only fall if knocked prone, have their speed reduced to 0 (which is not the same as how much they move) or are otherwise deprived of the ability to move.
So, explicitly RAW, a flying creature will not fall if it decides not to move on a turn. However, if somehow deprived of its fly speed (eg hold spells, grappled, restrained), a flying creature will fall if they don't have the ability to "magically" hover. e.g. a grappled beholder or one affected by hold monster will not fall, on the other hand a grappled or held aarakokra will fall since it has no hover speed and relies on its wings to hold it up. "Hover" in 5e is not the same as hover in common usage.
In the monster manual, most if not all the creatures who have the ability to "hover" are those who do not use wings for flight (banshee, air elementals, demi-lich, spectre, beholder etc).
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/faq/88/what-are-lagrange-points/
In short, they are points where the relevant forces cancel out.
Now cast Reverse Gravity. What happens?