Enlarge and Reduce question

[BMF]

I agree with the idea that an enlarged or reduced creature should have the size modifiers applied to it from the MM. I do that in my games and what I've found is that not all creatures can be enlarged to the next size category by that spell. a 13-foot troll is still only Large, for example.

But a 9-foot human, in my opinion, is Large too.

I think the spell decscription even specifically says that no size modifiers apply other than the Str. increase.

I agree that that is dumb. Again, a 9-foot human is a Large creature and a 4-foot troll shouldn't have a 10-foot reach.

Is it too powerful for a 1st level spell?? Is it unbalancing to do that???

Well, the sorcerer/fighter I'm playing right now has true strike and shield for 1st level spells. Not enlarge and reduce. So I don't guess so....

 

[reapersaurus]

While i do agree that the spell would be overpowered if it granted the increase in size category to the person, I believe one of the reasonings why it didn't was that the enlarged person MAY be big now, but he's not used to it, and can't use his size in an advantageous way.

However, I think what SHOULD be allowed is that what the person WEARS should be affected by the spell.

So their damage-category of the weapon should go up one.

They factually are large enough to wield their now-enlarged weapon, and unless the spell affects the density of the weapon, it should do more damage when striking something than a non-enlarged weapon.

 

[dcollins]

I agree with you on several points. Logically, you should get AC and reach modifiers as you grow in size.

With regard to enlarge, I'm willing to defend the spell as written -- if you remember that size-category modifiers always assume a full doubling of height, and enlarge can at most grant a +50% height. If you pro-rate all the modifiers across all size categories, the results come out just about exactly as per the current rules (including no reach increase). See this web page for more: http://home.attbi.com/~superdan.net/dndmisc/enlarge.html

Reduce which does accomplish a full halving of height, is of course much harder to defend on this basis.

 

[KarinsDad]

With regard to enlarge, I'm willing to defend the spell as written -- if you remember that size-category modifiers always assume a full doubling of height, and enlarge can at most grant a +50% height. If you pro-rate all the modifiers across all size categories, the results come out just about exactly as per the current rules (including no reach increase). See this web page for more: http://home.attbi.com/~superdan.net/dndmisc/enlarge.html

Reduce which does accomplish a full halving of height, is of course much harder to defend on this basis.

Actually, Enlarge is hard to defend on this basis.

Large creatures typically start at 9 feet tall. So, a 6 or 7 foot tall human increased in height by 50% would result in a 9 or 10.5 foot tall human. The same size as other large creatures.

Additionally, Enlarge has another more serious problem.

If you double the height of a creature, it should effectively be 8 times as massive and 8 times as strong. Theoretically.

Even the Monster Manual tends to agree with this. For example, a Stone Giant is 12 feet tall, twice the height of a human. But, it has a Strength of 27. Since every 5 Strength doubles lifting capacity, this means that it is 8 times as strong as a 12 Strength 6 foot tall human at twice the height. This does not even include the doubling of lifting capacity rule (PHB page 142) for the Stone Giant (i.e. large creature). He is twice as tall as a human, but can lift 16 times as much (assuming 12 Str human). Hmmmm.

So, given this, if an Enlarge spell could double a human up to Stone Giant height (i.e. 100% increase), it should increase his Strength by 15 and double his lifting capacity beyond that, not increase his Strength by 5. Even a 10 increase in Strength would be a good compromise.

Hence, the Enlarge spell would have been better served with a +1 to Str per 10% increase (i.e. the same as a +10 if it doubled the height or increased it by 100%).

The results of the spell do not agree at all with the mechanics of the game. A character 50% taller and 240% heavier being 30% stronger just doesn't make much any sense at all.

In a lot of cases, he would have problems carrying his enlarged equipment. For example, a 10 Strength character medium encumbered at 60 pounds would suddenly have a 12 Strength and be carrying 144 pounds of enlarged equipment, making him encumbered to the point that he cannot even move.

Sigh.

Did anyone at WotC even attempt the math on this?

 

[Plane Sailing]

FWIW my House Rule version of Enlarge does this:

Increases a Medium creature to Large size, giving reach, -1 hit and -1 to AC and -4 to hide and +4 to grapple/bullrush etc for duration. It does not increase Str or any other attributes.

Reduce decreases a Medium creature to Small size, giving +1 hit and +1 AC and +4 to hide and -4 to grapple/bullrush etc for the duration. It does not change any attributes.

In both cases the mass of the participant and their attributes stay the same. Consider it inflation or deflation if you will.

These both become useful spells, without being too good. Fits nicely with existing mechanics without having to fuss around with percentages and attempt to justify side effects. Enlarge and Reduce cancel each other (whereas the existing spells have strange intermediate side effects if both cast).

Cheers

 

[hong]

It's amazing how many of the issues with spells can be resolved by switching to the OA shaman/wu jen spell lists.

Enlarge isn't on the wu jen list. Nor are reduce, colour spray, fly, contact other plane, contingency, Tenser's transformation, Mordenkainen's sword, magic jar, phantasmal killer, prismatic spray/sphere or finger of death. Disintegrate still exists, but it's bumped up from 6th to 7th level. Fly is replaced by fire wings, which turns your arms into giant fiery wings -- you can fly, but can't use your arms/hands for anything much. That's not to say that the wu jen is weak, but its spell list seems to be more tailored towards helping a party overcome challenges, as opposed to letting the caster take care of everything.

 

[Anders]

The enlarge and reduce spells are in my opinion next to worthless if all they ever do is to add or subtract a maximum of 2 point of Strength. Not to mention the 2nd-level psionic power of expansion. Sure it does add a maximum of +5 enlargement bonus to Strength, but so does bull's strength* and animal affinity*.

__________________
*Of course, all munchkin players knows that enlargement bonuses stack with enhancements and the "natural" bonus from animal affinity making such 1st-level spells as the mentioned enlarge so much more attractive.

The growth is not illusonary or unreal in the magophysical sense of the word**, and thus these spells actually affect the Size of the creatures not only our perception of them. A 1st-level spell that does exactly nothing until 2nd-caster level is just worthless, and at 3rd caster level, most intelligent wizards may cast any of the "1d4+1" ehancement bonus spells instead.

__________
**If you're DMing with 100% munchkin players, insist on that the actual growth is, in fact, illusonary, thus denying them reach, AC and what have you. The +2/-2 Strength will be so abused as it stands with them that further spell effects aren't needed.

And take a look at the psionic power of expansion, you can actually get a 100% size increase here. So a 12 foot human weighing about 1,496 lbs is such an unreal size alterated creature that she can not use her ungainly long limbs to reach an extra 5-foot atop of the normal standard five? Are she thinking: "No, wait, I can't strike with my full arm's length, only half, since it would mess up the balance in cosmos if I did!", or what?

According to some of you here, she must think like that to satisfy the urge to follow every letter in a WoTC text to keep it balanced for everyone***.

____________
***The afore mentioned company makes such balanced rules that no conflicts whatsoever will arise if we just follow the letters in the varies rules books. <Insert Irony Laughs Here>

To adress this phenomena, I as a DM, actually allow my ultra-cheezy munchkin players to alter their sizes with these spells. Why? To me, there is no problem with getting reach with a 1st-level spell. Better up, I think that scaleable low-level spells are more attractive to players later on in their careers when rabiatly insane miracle-tossing gate-fetished hospitalers with keen vorpal scimitars otherwise would be the trend.

 

[Galfridus]

Masters of the Wild has a Reduce Animal spell, which explicitly changes the size category of the target, and has a nice long list for what happens for each size change (Large to Medium, Medium to Small, etc.). I think that Enlarge and Reduce should work in this manner; at a higher spell level (or much lower duration).

 

[IceBear]

BTW - I'm all for larger creatures to have more than a 5ft step to add realism, but it will make them much more powerful so you should increase the CR appropriately (easier for them to retreat without taking an AoO and then gain an AoO for movement by the PCs when they reengage; PCs will have less full attacks and the monster will have easier full attacks)

I'm leaving things alone right now, but if I should get back into a "realism phase" I might increase the 5ft step of larger creatures. Large creatures *should* be much harder to defeat than smaller ones, so I will just have to increase the CR accordingly.

B.A.D.D should look at changing the 5ft step rule for dragons as that's one way of keeping them from being killed too easily.

IceBear

 

[dcollins]

I'm afraid I can't totally agree with your analysis, KD.

If you double the height of a creature, it should effectively be 8 times as massive and 8 times as strong. Theoretically.

This is not true. Mass increases by a cube function, but strength only increases by a square function. Hence doubling height does make a creature x8 as massive, but naturally it should be only x4 as strong. (Hence the real-life phenomena of apparently super-string ants and big fat whales that couldn't possibly be mobile on land even if they had legs.)

Even the Monster Manual tends to agree with this. For example, a Stone Giant is 12 feet tall, twice the height of a human. But, it has a Strength of 27. Since every 5 Strength doubles lifting capacity, this means that it is 8 times as strong as a 12 Strength 6 foot tall human at twice the height. This does not even include the doubling of lifting capacity rule (PHB page 142) for the Stone Giant (i.e. large creature). He is twice as tall as a human, but can lift 16 times as much (assuming 12 Str human). Hmmmm.

Let's say you increase a (Str12) human's height by x2, increasing the size category. Then, they should be 12 ft., about 1,600 pounds, and x4 as strong. Add the averaged category strength increase (per my linked website, above) of +5. Then modify by the "large" lifting modifier which you mention (doubling it). End result: their lifting capacity is indeed x4 what it was to begin with, in compliance with normal physics.

What you have demonstrated is that giants are abnormally, unnaturally strong for their height. (Which is easily rationalized by assuming some non-human or magical physiology.)