Enlarge

[KarinsDad]

Depends on your interpretation of "similarly enlarged".

A Medium creature becomes Large.

His weapons and armor, "similarly enlarged", become Large... which means their weight doubles.

To read "similarly enlarged" to refer to the weight rather than the size category means that a longsword that is made Large via Enlarge Person weighs four times as much as an otherwise identical Large longsword... which makes no sense.

"This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight 8. All equipment worn or carried by the creature is similarly enlarged by the spell."

You cannot infer that the word "similarly" means that it is not exactly twice as long (armor would have to be twice as big in each dimension to fit) and 8 times as heavy. A backpack in the same ratio as the creature would be twice as tall, twice as wide, and twice as deep, and carry 8 times as much normal equipment (items that leave the caster shrink back down, but new items do not grow).

Sure, the weapon size increase table indicates that it does a certain amount more damage for being upped a size.

But, that does not mean that the weight is not multiplied by 8. It is a spell. It is magic. If it multiplies the weight by 8, it does that. If the weapon goes from D8 to 2D6, it does that too, even if this does not make sense. It does what the spell states that it does.

Are you claiming that a longsword goes from 3 feet long, 2 inches wide and half an inch thick to 6 feet long, 4 inches wide, and an inch thick and its weight is only doubled in weight because the standard large weight rule takes precedence over the wording of the spell?

Nowhere in the "large weapon is twice as heavy" rule does it state that the weapon is actually twice as long. This spell, however, does indicate that the creature and his equipment is twice as long (in each dimension). The spell supercedes the normal rule (which is the real part of this that does not make sense).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Are you claiming that a longsword goes from 3 feet long, 2 inches wide and half an inch thick to 6 feet long, 4 inches wide, and an inch thick and its weight is only doubled in weight because the standard large weight rule takes precedence over the wording of the spell?

I'm claiming that Enlarge Person "changes the creature’s size category to the next larger one", and that "All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell".

I'm claiming that the Weapons section states: "Weight: This column gives the weight of a Medium version of the weapon. Halve this number for Small weapons and double it for Large weapons", and that the armor section states "Weight: This column gives the weight of the armor sized for a Medium wearer. Armor fitted for Small characters weighs half as much, and armor for Large characters weighs twice as much".

If I'm a Large character, and my armor fits, it is "armor for Large characters", and weighs twice as much as it did.

To interpret the phrase "similarly enlarged" as eight times the weight means that the spell is quite likely to put someone into "overloaded" status, meaning they lose their Dex bonus and can only stagger 5 feet as a full round action... and that turns it into an attack spell - especially in combination with the no-save Ray of Enfeeblement.

The spell makes you one size category larger, and enlarges your gear similarly. There are rules for what weapons and armor one size category larger weigh.

I'm not saying that "eight times heavier" is an illegal interpretation... but I am saying that it's not the only interpretation.

One way has an Enlarged longsword behaving completely differently to a Large longsword.

The other way fits with the current rules for Large weapons and armor, and also fits with the fact that Large creatures have twice the carrying capacity of Medium creatures, so that "similarly enlarged" equipment weighing twice as much results in nearly identical encumbrance.

Both can be argued as legal readings of the text. Which makes more sense?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Both can be argued as legal readings of the text. Which makes more sense?

What would have made more sense is if weapons/armor for large creatures did not weight twice as much as for medium creatures which did not weight twice as much as for small creatures.

That's where the real problem lies.

It would have made sense if a creature which goes from 6 feet tall to 12 feet tall gained more than 2 Strength when their weight goes from 200 pounds to 1600 pounds. A 12 Strength character would not be able to move at 1600 pounds (dragging a weight of 530 pounds is the maximum for a 12 Str character, the weight here is 3 times that).

The entire weight/size/strength system is totally horked due to the problems with Strength at the lower end of the chart (i.e. Str 9 and lower) and the fact that they did not want Halflings with 4 Strengths walking around.


However, I'll concede your argument as making more sense (and will rule that way accordingly in my game).

 

[two]

Sorry to dredge this up, but it's holier than thou...thou Swiss Cheese

I don't understand why people think reach is so overwhelming.
If that were the case, then every Fighter would take a Spike Chain as a weapon.
For the most part, reach gives you the ability to get the first attack per combat per opponent.
Say you have two fighters using the same weapon and with the same 40% chance to hit.
You enlarge one of the Fighters. What does he gain or lose?

Gain:
+2 damage per successful hit (+1 Str, +1 weapon upgrade)
Reach

Lose:
-2 AC (-1 size, -1 Dex)
-1 Reflex saves

Fighting each other, the enlarged one (we'll call him F1 and the non-enlarged one F2) effectively gains the equivalent of initiative and nothing more (for the most part) due to the reach.

If F2 runs up to F1, F1 gets an Attack of Opportunity, then F2 gets a standard action attack, then F1 gets a Full Attack, then F2 gets a Full Attack, etc. If F1 runs up to F2, F1 gets a standard action attack, then F2 gets a Full Attack, then F1 gets a Full Attack, etc.

So basically, all the reach does is give F1 the first attack (and the ability to retreat without taking an AoO).

Damage-wise (assuming that both fighters are doing single attacks) for 10 straight attacks, F1 does 10 * 40% * (normal damage +2). F2 does 10 * 50% (F1 has -2 AC) * normal damage.

F1 does an average of 4 * normal + 8 points.
F2 does an average of 5 * normal.

If the fighters average (for this example) less than 8 points of damage per successful hit (due to damage dice + strength + magic), F1 does more average damage in the combat than F2. If the fighters average more than 8 points of damage per successful hit, F2 does more average damage in the combat than F1.

Now, take the case where they both have a 10% chance to hit over a 10 straight attacks:

F1 does an average of 1 * normal + 2 points.
F2 does an average of 2 * normal.

Average successful damage for nearly all Fighters will always be more than 2 points of damage, typically much more. The higher the AC of the Fighters, the more Enlarge Person hurts F1 over helping him.

Now, this assumes that the initiative advantage for F1 is not that overwhelming. It could be. However, the longer the fight goes, the more average damage F2 does over F1. Plus, F1 also has the reflex save penalty.

Being enlarged is more of a penalty (in many cases) than a bonus. The advantages of the spell are often overcome by the disadvantages. Against a whole bunch of low AC and low hit points opponents, it might be more beneficial than harmful. But, for the vast majority of scenarios, it is more harmful than beneficial.

Now granted, using Enlarge Person to grapple or trip can be potent. No doubt about it. But, I do not see that as so overwhelmingly potent as to make Enlarge Person broke. It just makes it realistic.


I personally think that the Enlarge Person is extremely wimpy (except in the grapple / trip scenarios) and I boosted it in my house rules to be +4 Str (instead of +2), +2 Con, and +10 to move (all of the spells in my game that increase size increase move) in addition to the standard bonuses and penalties that the spell provides.

Since the original poster did not want to modify the spell, my suggestion is to just use it as is without modifications because it really doesn't help combat situations anywhere near as much as other first level spells: like putting Mage Armor on a Monk, casting Color Spray, casting Sleep, casting Magic Missile. All of these spells are much more potent than Enlarge Person in the vast majority of combat situations.

Sorry to quote this large "analysis" but it is so full of holes I could not keep my mouth shut. Where to begin?

Let's start with some obvious "duh" moments.

"If F2 runs up to F1, F1 gets an Attack of Opportunity, then F2 gets a standard action attack, then F1 gets a Full Attack, then F2 gets a Full Attack, etc. If F1 runs up to F2, F1 gets a standard action attack, then F2 gets a Full Attack, then F1 gets a Full Attack, etc.

So basically, all the reach does is give F1 the first attack (and the ability to retreat without taking an AoO)."

(In this unlikely gladitorial situation), F1 has reach, F2 does not.

If F1 gets initiative, he readies "a standard attack after moving 5' back".
F2 goes. Runs at/charges/attacks F1. F1 gets the AOO as F2 moves through controlled square at 10'. Then F2 "attacks" F1 but F1's readied action goes off just before. F1 steps back 5' and attacks. F2's attack "goes off" but since F1 is 10' away, he can't be hit. F1's initiative now just before F2.

SO FAR: F1 has had 2 attacks, and F2 is now 10' away.

Next round: F1 makes a FULL attack and moves back 5'. F2 now is 15' away from F1, and must move to make a standard attack at 5'. F2 gets yet another movement AOO.

SO, F1 gets a total of: 1 AOO, 1 Standard Attack (the readied attack), 1 Full attack, 1 AOO before (finally) F2 gets a standard attack in.

In other words, F1 attacks 3 times + a full attack. THEN F2 gets a standard attack action in return.

Who wouldn't want this???? Heck, that might be enough to drop the poor bastard!

Now, if F1 LOSES initiative, F1 "only" gets 1 free AOO as F2 moves in, and I would urge F1 in this case to attempt a trip attack. He's stronger, bigger, and the odds are in his favor. He's 10' away so F2 won't get an AOO. If it works, you are golden; another 2 AOO's or so coming up. If it fails, oh well. At least you get the first full attack in, and are stronger, and do more weapon damage. Note this this is without any feats, just an appropriate weapon. If you throw in even one feat (Improved Trip) it's pretty much over. Trip during your AOO, you will win 90% of the time, get the free attack, etc. etc. over.

If F1 wins initiate and F2 does not attack, it's a stand-off until they decide to trade ranged attacks, during which F1's large longbow deals 2d6 damage. Granted, it's at -2 to hit, but hey -- it does 2.5 more damage on average than his opponents 1d8 longbow. Think of it as a ranged power attack. Proceed. This one might actually be close. The melee combat probably won't be.

________________


Now, taking the situation away from ridiculous gladitorial combats, and into more typical scenarios, enlarge is even better. Hitting the raging low AC orc BEFORE he gets to you can't be underestimated. Throw in Combat Reflexes and an enlarged fighter gets scary. Throw in a spiked chain and it's just stupid (I know, I played an enlarged Wiz1/fighter5 spiked chain monkey and it was idiotic how much of the battlefield I effected/controlled).

But you don't need that. Enlarge in itself is worth 3 or 4 points more damage per strike, because of higher strength and bigger weapon size. It lasts the whole combat and then some. Reach can be merely useful or nearly all-powerful. Reach + Mooks = fun. Way, way, way better than "mage armor."

How can you begin to compare "Enlarge" to "Magic Missile?" By the time "Magic Missile" is shooting out 2 missiles, you can have your oft-enlarged fighter tricked out reasonably well. One, just one, AOO "hit" will do more damage than the missiles; throw in +3-4 on every hit, plus any other AOO's and you have a damage output far exceeding any other first level spell. Plus, if ramps up beautifully. Think a 20th level Paladin is scary? Try an enlarged 20th level Paladin.

Only downside, as far as I can tell: can't be used in small tunnels, and your AC drops 1 or 2 points. You are more of a target for attack... of course, they have to actually GET to you...

 

[Darklone]

Two: Nothing in the rules says that F2 in your example can't move on and attack after the 5ft step back and attack of F1. Except for the rare case that F1 was 30ft away.

My own experiences with the spell: It's nice. My group used it for the cleric, who enjoyed a little bit more damage with his longsword and who didn't really notice two points less AC... (sword & board type with Barkskin from the druid and all that other stuff such as Shield of Faith, twice Magic Vestment, good armour etc...).

My campaign right now is NOT standard because I usually have a lot of human or humanoid opponents instead of the typical D&D big baddy tactic, so my POV might be skewed... so the spell means nearly one AoO per round, if you do it correctly.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Two: Nothing in the rules says that F2 in your example can't move on and attack after the 5ft step back and attack of F1.

Well, now, that depends a lot on one's interpretation of how Readied Actions work.

"I use my Standard Action to cast Magic Missile defensively."
"His Readied action triggers... he attacks... hits... beats your Concentration check. You lose the spell."
"And that happens before my action, right? Well, then, instead of casting Magic Missile, I'll take a 5' step back and shoot him with my crossbow."

Not possible, right? Even though the Readied attack completes before the spell, you've already committed to casting. No takebacks.

"I use my Standard Action to hit him with my longsword."
"His Readied action triggers... he attacks... hits... and takes a 5' step back out of your reach."
"And that happens before my attack, right? Well, then, instead of taking my Standard Action now, I'll carry on with my Move Action another five feet, and then attack."

How is that different? He'd already started his attack action when the Readied Action triggered. Would you let him "unattack", and cast a spell instead of attacking with his longsword?

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Right. Keyword interpretation. That's why I said "there's nothing in the rules"...

I don't like my games like a CRPG, that's why I have no problem with someone moving on (in case he has movement left) and bashing.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Right. Keyword interpretation. That's why I said "there's nothing in the rules"...

I don't agree.

I don't believe that someone can change the action that triggers a Readied Action based on the results of that Readied Action. Because if they hadn't committed to that action, the Readied Action wouldn't have triggered in the first place.

If you do allow them to change their mind, then the rules for Readied Actions make no sense.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

I don't let them change their action, I let them modify their already begun movement. I wouldn't let them do much else.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't let them change their action, I let them modify their already begun movement. I wouldn't let them do much else.

But he already started his attack. It's what triggered the Readied Action.

He can't move before and after the attack without Spring Attack... and if he moves before and after the attack that triggered the Readied Action with Spring Attack, he doesn't have an attack left to hit the Enlarged guy with.

-Hyp.