How much is too much? (Related to Encumbrance thread)

[Greenfield]

We play 3.5 at my table, and we have a house rule regarding Shrink Item.

The rules don't say what happens when the Shrink Item spell expires, and there's no room for the item to unshrink.

We had to decide: Is this a way to make pipe bombs, by loading a piece of scored pipe with magically reduced rocks, then have it burst when the command word is given? Or do they stay shrunk until the pipe is opened?

We chose door number two.

So we have a Wiz in my game with the following list of things stored in various pockets of his robe:

12 foot ladder
16 foot iron slab, four feet wide and an inch and a half thick.
Five full meals, for six, hot and ready to serve.
1 banquet meal for 12, hot and ready to serve.
1 cask of oats, laced with a little honey, as feed for the horses.
2 barrels of fresh water.
An iron and porcelain bathtub.
A wheelbarrow, with picks, shovels, and a breaker-bar.
A pavilion tent, with two divan style couch/beds, and his house banners to fly.
A crate of field/trail rations.
Five separate campfires, laid out and already lit.
Five bundles of firewood, to keep said campfires burning all night long.
A pack with four large coils of rope, with grappling hooks (200 feet per coil)
A portable battering ram (Arms and Equipment guide).
Small cask of lamp oil.
Four torches, already lit.

All of these are simple, non magical items, readily available, and all within the volume limits of the spell.

The current DM is uncomfortable with this.

So how much is too much? At what point does that spell, and our interpretation, become an abuse?

 

[billd91]

Why is the DM uncomfortable with the wizard having a buttload of mundane gear shrunk away? Seems kind of petty. They all may be useful, but they're not exactly power curve breaking.

Though I have to wonder about the iron slab (even shrunk it's still a foot long). For getting over pits?

If he's worried about weaponizing a shrunk item, there's no indication the spell can reliably used as a weapon. Whatever was shrunk doesn't need to expand explosively. I'd assume that people generally have the ability to get out of the way if the item is pulled out and restored to size. Probably the biggest worry is what happens if the wizard it hit by a dispel magic. I'd have fun with that one as everything would grow in his pockets at once - certainly tearing apart any mundane item storing them. I'd probably describe any results of the items expanding in such a way as to maximize chaos. And if he's in a small area like, say, enclosed in a coffin-sized space, he'd be in for a world of hurt. And I'd have fun with that as a rat bastard DM.

 

[Greenfield]

You got it on the iron slab.

A 12 foot ladder can be set into a 10 or 15 foot pit and still get you out. It can be set across a 10 foot pit.

The iron slab can be set across a 15 foot pit. Reduced, it's a foot long, four inches wide, and 3/32nds of an inch think. About the size of a wide ruler.

And no, nothing can be weaponized. Nothing expands "Explosively". If it could, it couldn't be contained when the spell duration expires. Expanding items stop expanding when they run out of room to expand.

As for the Dispel Magic, it actually isn't a concern. It essentially causes the spells to expire. Which is exactly what happens when the normal duration runs out. The item tries to expand, but can't because there's no room in the container. Even an Anti Magic effect is kind of meaningless.

As noted, there are no hard rules for it in the book. The closest we've found is in the Enlarge Person spelldescription, where is says that if the spell's target is in a confines space, they'll grow to the limits of that space, unless they can break out using their (now enhanced) strength.

Inanimate objects don't have a Strength score, so if we apply the Enlarge Person spell text as a guide, nothing can expand with any significant force.

As for the idea of crushing or breaking the shrunken object, the spell says that it can be converted into a clothlike material. So go ahead and crush the cloth. it won't bend the iron slab, or even crack the fine china in the banquet.

One concern is the wording: The spell can affect "an object". At what point is a collection of things "an object"? A campfire, which is mentioned as an example in the spell description, typically has more than one piece of wood. A lock is a single object, unless you take it apart into its component pieces.

So our rule is, if you shrink a container, you shrink everything in the container. The treasure chest shrinks? So does the treasure. (It's insane to think that you'd have to cas the spell on each and every coin in there.)

So if you can pack up a meal in a picnic basket, it's one object. If you can tie mining tools into a bundle and put them in a wheelbarrow, it's one object.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

As for the DM: We've had a few people with the "I'm going to beat the DM" attitude in their play style, and pulling out the unexpected item or rule is part and parcel with that approach to play. Someone having a wide variety of odd items quickly available could easily turn into that sort of situation.

I think the main purpose of this Batman Utility belt is to be able to say, "We don't have to worry about explaining shelter or supplies, we have the tools we need in some relatively common dungeon situations without having to rationalize madly, we can replace rope that gets left behind when we cross chasm or climb walls."

In short, the list is a plot device, to smooth out play, not break it.

The DM, having been burned by abusive players, is a bit skittish about allowing it again.

 

[Celebrim]

I would choose door #1, and see that as your basic mistake. The only house rule that I remember having to adopt for Shrink Item is that the momentum of an item is the same as the momentum of item when it is shrunk. This however doesn't prevent using shrink item 'grape shot', and putting it on a ballistic trajectory and unshrinking it at the top of the arc.

 

[Dandu]

The rules don't say what happens when the Shrink Item spell expires, and there's no room for the item to unshrink.

Enlarge Person notes that "If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, the creature attains the maximum possible size and may make a Strength check (using its increased Strength) to burst any enclosures in the process. If it fails, it is constrained without harm by the materials enclosing it— the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by increasing its size."

Of course, an object isn't a person, and I'd hate to write out rules for inanimate objects bursting inanimate objects, so ruling that they expand as much as possible but no more seems most reasonable.

If you're going to use it purely for storage, then it really shouldn't be an issue. You could also use extradimentional storage space to achieve a similar effect, after all.

So our rule is, if you shrink a container, you shrink everything in the container. The treasure chest shrinks? So does the treasure. (It's insane to think that you'd have to cas the spell on each and every coin in there.)

So if you can pack up a meal in a picnic basket, it's one object. If you can tie mining tools into a bundle and put them in a wheelbarrow, it's one object.

Wheelbarrow's not a container, though. Other than that, I agree that a solid object containing things inside of it should count as one object.

I would choose door #1, and see that as your basic mistake

I'm curious as to how you'd calculate the forces involved and assign a damage value.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm curious as to how you'd calculate the forces involved and assign a damage value.

As a first pass ruling, which ever object has the lower hardness breaks. Then if the container still lacked the volumn to contain the now powdered whatever, the container would split on its weakest point and leak whatever it contained. In the case of being contained in a pocket, this is fairly easy. Cloth has hardness zero, and will be ripped by almost any object, which will then fall to the floor beside the PC.

In general, the force is steady but not explosive. You could use this to create crushing traps - a pipe filled with shrunk 'gravel' would become a potentially crushing pile of rocks - but you couldn't create a pipe bomb. The pipe would simply break and the pieces would land on the outside, relatively harmless compared to the thousands of pounds of rocks potentially landed on someone. Of course, even this would require a bit of planning. A 1" diameter pipe would create a hazard only 16" high. I might allow some amount of shrapnel in the case of well planned container bursting concepts, but any such plan would only create an effect inline with that available to a 3rd level spell. And, since there are already spells of this sort available in my homebrew game - for example rock burst and shrapnel blast - it would be very easy to flex to a 'stunt' if that was required. There would be no need at all to calculate pressure. I'd just transform the 'shrink object' into a sand burst, rock burst, or shrapnel blast at a cost of being a couple of caster levels below the caster level of the shrink object spell.

 

[Greenfield]

I would choose door #1, and see that as your basic mistake. The only house rule that I remember having to adopt for Shrink Item is that the momentum of an item is the same as the momentum of item when it is shrunk. This however doesn't prevent using shrink item 'grape shot', and putting it on a ballistic trajectory and unshrinking it at the top of the arc.

I see a problem with the Grape Shot approach: The command to re-enlarge an item is a standard action. I don't know how you would do that to more than one item in a round.

The other way would be to time a Dispel Magic for mid flight, and considering the actual damage listed for catapault stones, you'd probably do better by spending that 3rd level slot on a Fireball.

The "conservation of momentum" idea you mention is, if I recall, one I addressed on my very first post to this forum. The result was the infamous "Hamster cannon" maneuver, which is based on the fact that the world is spinning on its axis and orbiting a star (as required in a physics based model where CoM would apply). Simply put, if you Shrink Item on a "stationary" object, say a couple of tons of iron (well within volume range), you have to increase it's velocity by the same 4096-to-1 that you reduced it's mass. Your 1 lb chunk of iron goes from "stationary" on the planet's surface to 4096 x (rotation speed (about 1000 mph) + orbital speed (approx 62,500 mph)). Exact speed and vector will vary, depending on the time of day. At midnight, in a temperate zone, on or about the equinox (average orbital speed) giving a speed of 260,096,000 mph, give or take a few.

In short, your iron cannonball is moving at about 1/6th the speed of light, and will devastate anything in it's path. The shock wave will probably suck you, the caster, along for a likely fatal trip through it's jetstream, while tearing away a sizeable chunk of the planetary atmosphere.

My original example used Polymorph on a donkey loaded with rocks, into a hampster. That's an 8000-to-1 change in mass, so double the approximate speed while quartering the mass.

So yes, you too can destroy the world with a 3rd or 4th level spell. All you have to do is try to apply physics to a situation that can't occur in physics: An object spontaneously gaining or losing mass.

 

[Greenfield]

Regarding what damage a "pipe bomb" might do, I'd cap it at Fireball damage. Both are 3rd level spells, after all.

Is a wheelbarrow a container? Is a bucket a container? A chest? I say yes to all three, but YMMV, of course.

If you rule that it has to be a "closed" container, well, that's reasonable. A lash-down canvas cover settles the question.

As for "the lower hardness gets crushed", if I Shrink Item into the "clothlike substance" mentioned in the spell description, then the reduced item has (as noted) a Hardness of zero. It's also not really subject to crushing damage in that situation. You can drive a loaded SUV over a piece of rope without damaging it.

My original question stands, though: At what point is using the spell to stockpile and transport mundane tools and equipment an abuse? How much is too much?

 

[Celebrim]

So yes, you too can destroy the world with a 3rd or 4th level spell. All you have to do is try to apply physics to a situation that can't occur in physics: An object spontaneously gaining or losing mass.

I generally respond to this by pointing out that in the game universe (or at least my game universe), many famous physical experiments would produce different results. For example, if you drop balls into clay, you'll discover that kinetic energy is linear with velocity and not the square of velocity. The general idea here being that player's are not able to make reliable predictions about how experiments will turn out in the game universe based on their knowledge of this universe.

For example, in my game universe the world is not spinning and not orbiting a star, so your scenario doesn't even apply. Additionally, even if it did, since the physical laws of the universe are very different in the details than you are accustomed to, the actual results would differ in quantity and sometimes even in quality from your predictions. The in game universe sun is orbiting the planet and gravity does not exist. The sun does not orbit the planet because of gravity, but because it is steered and flown through the ether. People don't fall because of gravity, but because jealous earth spirits pull things back to the ground. Meat left in a bell jar would spontaneously develop maggots. If you burn something the mass of the remains is less than what you started out with, not more. If you start grinding a cannon in a vat of water, eventually the water will stop heating up. Sodium is not an element, but a compound. Both light AND darkness are carried by a physical particle. And so on and so forth.

 

[Celebrim]

As for "the lower hardness gets crushed", if I Shrink Item into the "clothlike substance" mentioned in the spell description, then the reduced item has (as noted) a Hardness of zero. It's also not really subject to crushing damage in that situation. You can drive a loaded SUV over a piece of rope without damaging it.

For the duration, it might be a 'cloth like substance'. When the duration ends, I would apply the hardness of the actual substance of the item. Rules lawyering like you just engaged in the above quote would be "too much". The ruling I gave was clear in both intent and application. Trying to nit pick the text to get around it would be "too much".

My original question stands, though: At what point is using the spell to stockpile and transport mundane tools and equipment an abuse? How much is too much?

Whenever you abuse the wording of the spell to produce effects that are clearly not within the intent of the spell. All the applications of the spell you are using are perfectly fine and within the intention of the spell. None of them is in and of itself 'too much'. I'd be fine with any or even all of them. What's "too much" is abusing the clear intent of the spell regarding the duration of the effect - 1 day/level. The number of items you should be carrying about should be limited by the number you can stockpile during the duration of the spell. I would expect a fair application of the spell to list when each of the stock piled items 'expires'. You convenient interpretation allows you to effectively ignore the stated duration of the spell and get 'permanent duration' for free. This is clearly not the intent of the spell. If you want to stockpile more such items, you need to cast permanency on items. Anything else is "too much".