Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 338212" data-attributes="member: 5890">Personally, I think that interpreting the words of that particular spell in as picky a manner as possible (and indeed, interpreting the words of most spells in as picky a manner as possible) is a good thing(tm).If the only activation situations are command word and, quite specifically, tossed ONTO a solid surface (as discrete from tossed at a solid surface, or tossed onto the surface of air above your opponents head etc), then it becomes very difficult to create a combat application of this spell. And I think that is the point.The spell reduces the mass and volume of an object so as to make it easier to carry. That's what it's intended for, and that's what it does. And THAT is why it doesn't, say, give damage for a rapidly expanding object, or specify breaking conditions of the object, or anything else.As soon as you start applying physics to the question, you end up with things suggested in this monstrosity:<a href="http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=112;t=005016" target="_blank">The rectangle of doom</a>.Finally - somewhere on these boards was an argument about how magical effects apply to the alteration of the target (aka - what happens when you continual light a rock, and then split it?). I suggested that when something can no longer be considered the original target, then the spell ceases working (So if someone targeted by haste dies, the corpse not hasted. If the continual light rock is split, it's no longer the original rock, so the spell stops etc). I'd suggest applying that to the scenario of shrinking a vial of alchemists fire and then pouring the alchemists fire out (or you end up with "I shrink the treasure chest and all it's contents, then take the contents out and put them in my pack, getting 12 shrink items for the price of one").</blockquote>

Verification