Talk:Hover (3.5e Creature Ability)
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Ratings
|
Eiji-kun favors this article and rated it 4 of 4! |
|---|---|
| Used it. Love it. Want it.
And now it inspires a spell. |
|
Ganteka Future likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| This is an article worthy of the attention of anyone who likes designing monsters. Easy to apply to a monster and easy to understand and reference. I guess you could have it as a class feature, too. Anyways, designers, remember this ability. |
Hovering Tiny or Smaller
Suggestion: Have hovering be as reach, minimum 5 ft. Otherwise hovering tiny or smaller things can't. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Object, or Ground?
Try hovering over it and you'll see which it is.
How many tables do you have to put in a room to be able to hover 5 feet above the tables rather than 5 feet above the floor beneath the tables? --Foxwarrior (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand the example. It looks like you've just made steps using tables, so.... you'd go up them. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think he's saying that objects only block you in this writeup, and there's nothing indicating what is sufficiently large to count as floor/ground instead of object. So you can hover over a table without changing elevation, because it's an object that doesn't impede your path... and it doesn't seem to matter if it's a floor full of tables or not by the writeup. An alternate example of the term weirdness might be "can you hover over a narrow beam across a chasm?". The answer is probably supposed to be no, but since it's "ground" for anyone walking on it maybe you can. Or maybe you need to make a balance check to do it. I don't know.
- Clarification like "you can hover above anything above anything wide enough to fill half your space" or something to that effect covers hovering up table stairs and not hovering across sufficiently narrow beams, without reference to ground or object. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why do that though? Why not just have a hovering creature make balance checks for a narrow surface to stay hovering over any particular object. Balance checks are simple enough. Hmmm must ask DM if he'll let me use higher dc balance checks to turn levitate into flight. -grogtoad
- Then you add that you have to balance on things smaller than that, if that's a thing that you want. As written, you don't hover over objects at all. If you don't do something like this then it's unclear from text whether you can hover over a table or chair or an elephant not. The goal is to remove that ambiguity or rules absence, not to prevent cool things from happening in line with author goals. - Tarkisflux Talk 03:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Personnally I'm fine with hover being based on surfaces, and not just on the ground or floor. If you want to make a pyramid of 3-foot-high tables, then I don't see a reason why you couldn't use that to get up high. I'll add a simple ruleset involving sufficiently large objects and surfaces. --Sulacu (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- It can easily be compared to any surface large enough for you to stand on in the first place. So you can stand on ground, or on spiky ground. You can stand on beams, and you might need a balance check for a sufficiently thin beam. And only epic balance checks will let you hover over individual hairs and clouds. The advantage being of course that you avoid the hazard such a surface presents, like burning to death on lava, or getting stabbed by spikes. Etc etc. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
