Question on Shrink Item spell

[FoxWander]

I strongly disagree.

My firsthand experience is that Shrink Item is a solid 3rd level spell when used as it is intended -- the transport of heavy/bulky items outside of combat. How do you carry 400 lb. of gold when the bag of holding is full of platinum and magic weapons? (Real case.)

Trying to apply modern physics in order to create combat uses for the spell is inappropriate. It is also very easy for the DM to hammer you with countertactics like targetted Dispels or Antimagic.

You're quite right, the Shrink Item spell as written is a solid and quite useful spell merely as a way to transport cargo and treasure. But that doesn't skip the need to figure out what happens when something is unshrunk. If players abuse this aspect of the spell and get subsequently hammered by the DM, well they brought it on themselves so I'd have no sympathy nor, if I were the abusing player, would I complain. (Besides I can think of ways to get around the Dispel and AM hammers. )

So we're still left with legitimate non-abusive reasons for figuring out what happens when this spell ends. Let's take the 400 lbs of gold mentioned. Say you're carrying it in a type 1 Bag of Holding, which only has a 250 weight limit. What happens if it's still in the bag when the spell duration runs out? Does the bag rupture? Or does gold start pouring out of it? (Probably the bag ruptures and all the contents are lost. Ok, not such a good example.) How about if it's just in your back pack? Ruptured backpack or gold coin fountain?

Here's another perfectly legitimate situation where knowing how this worked was important. Our party was going into the desert for an adventure. Our cleric didn't have access to the Create Water spell. (This was back in 2E, his god didn't have that domain.) To carry lots of water we used (Shrink) Item to change several gallons of water to cloth form. We had a waterproof bag big enough to hold the water of any individual clothform when undone. A clever way to solve our water problem, right? The DM thought so too but, evil SOB that he was, he hit us with a Dispel Magic first chance he got. We had always played it as "instant un-Shrinking", so the bone scrollcase our water supply was in exploded and everyone in the area of effect took some minor damage from shrapnel. Was that an unfair interpretation of the spell? We didn't think so- of course that's cause we later drove him crazy thinking of ever more creative abuses for that effect. But still, abuse issues aside, it is something that needs to be clarified, for the same reason Enlarge/Reduce was clarified.

 

[Norfleet]

Spells exist for the purpose of being abused. If the only way to cause harm, damage, and mayhem was to use things that were INTENDED to cause harm, damage, and mayhem, things would become very predictable really fast. As long as the abuse is not entirely out of line on the scale of nuclear explosions, I wouldn't sweat it. As somebody pointed out, it's already a 3rd level spell. An explosion would do damage comparable to fireballs, more if internally occurring, but this would require a fair amount of chicanery to pull off....and if players want to do this, why not?

Personally, my view of things is rather straightforward: If it's not a weapon, can't be used as a weapon, and isn't a defensive counter to something which *IS* a weapon or can be used as a weapon, then it's useless!

And yes, drinking straws can be used as lethal weapons.

 

[Corwin]

Suggestion: Shrink item is a spell intended and balanced to transport items. As such, any ruling which might make it into a potent offensive spell should be very carefully considered. Every offensive use I've heard of can be countered by the following rulings... [snip]

Interesting POV. I happen to disagree. Is there a reference somewhere by the original designer of the spell (mind you, this would be back in 2e) with regards to the intent for the use of this spell?

I can clearly see other uses. One of the most obvious being the ability to hide a weapon on your person to smuggle it into a restricted area or if you are captured and your obvious weapons taken. This does not jive with your theory of transporting stuff around. This could be an assassin's tactic for killing a king, for example. That is an offensive use, IMO.

Then there's the always popular "drop the shunken boulder, as it expands, onto the ogre's head trick".

As for your 5 rules: Even if you applied all 5 of them to my original example of the caltrops in the magister's gruel, the man was still fatally screwed (unless he got serious, immediate aid).

 

[myradale]

Multiple castings?

Just a technical point here, but Shrink Item clearly states "you are able to shrink ONE nonmagical item". I think this does a lot of good to limit the offensive uses of the spell. If you want to drop boulders on someone's head, and you choose to use up SEVERAL 3rd level spell slots to do so...hey, more power to you.

And dismissing a spell is a free action, isn't it?
I can't recall any place where it's listed as a standard action.

 

[Alratan]

Boulders

The shrink item spell and boulders, combined with a fly speed, make some of the best siege weapons when dropped from several miles up.

I once gave a dragon this spell just for this purpose.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And dismissing a spell is a free action, isn't it?
I can't recall any place where it's listed as a standard action.

(D) Dismissible: If the Duration line ends with “(D),” you can dismiss the spell at will. You must be within range of the spell’s effect and must speak words of dismissal, which are usually a modified form of the spell’s verbal component. If the spell has no verbal component, you can dismiss the effect with a gesture. Dismissing a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A spell that depends on concentration is dismissible by its very nature, and dismissing it does not take an action, since all you have to do to end the spell is to stop concentrating on your turn.

-Hyp.

 

[DaveStebbins]

And dismissing a spell is a free action, isn't it?
I can't recall any place where it's listed as a standard action.

Shrink item is not listed as a dismissable spell (it doesn't have a "D" in parenthesis at the end of the duration listing). Therefore, I see no problems with ruling that dismissing the spell with a command word is a standard action.

As for your 5 rules: Even if you applied all 5 of them to my original example of the caltrops in the magister's gruel, the man was still fatally screwed (unless he got serious, immediate aid).

I would have written the one rule like some of the spells which cause a form of incorporeality. If the spell ends and the item is not in a large enough space to regrow, it is shunted to a space large enough to hold it and damaged (reference meld into stone and dimension door).

 

[Saeviomagy]

Interesting POV. I happen to disagree. Is there a reference somewhere by the original designer of the spell (mind you, this would be back in 2e) with regards to the intent for the use of this spell?

I daresay the total lack of any rules for it's offensive use is a big hint.

I can clearly see other uses. One of the most obvious being the ability to hide a weapon on your person to smuggle it into a restricted area or if you are captured and your obvious weapons taken. This does not jive with your theory of transporting stuff around.

Are you really this stupid, or are you pretending? What you just said was:
"I can use this spell to move an item around. That doesn't jive with your theory of moving items around".

Then there's the always popular "drop the shunken boulder, as it expands, onto the ogre's head trick".

You used the spell to move a heavy item into the air. What you subsequently did was make use of a heavy item that you'd transported into the air.

If, on the other hand, you throw the shrunken boulder at an enemy and dismiss the spell on route, you're directly using the spell in an offensive way. Unsurprisingly, there are NO RULES FOR THIS. It seems strange that the author would have intended this use, yet put no rules in place to handle it.

As for your 5 rules: Even if you applied all 5 of them to my original example of the caltrops in the magister's gruel, the man was still fatally screwed (unless he got serious, immediate aid).

No you wouldn't. Lets go through them slowly and in order so you can understand.

1. Shrunken items, regardless of whether they are in felt or normal form are in a type of stasis. Attempts to damage, break apart or use such an item return the item to full size instead.

If the guy chews, they return to full size.

2. Shrunken items return to normal size within the standard action that it takes to activate them (either by throwing them on the ground or calling out a command word). Note that this probably translates to about 3 seconds, and therefore such an expansion is not likely to be describable as "explosive".

This one doesn't do much, admittedly.

3. Shrunken items returning to normal size in a space not large enough for them to do so without forcing an object or creature to distend are destroyed utterly. Alternately you could have them bumped into an alternate dimension or something.

The caltrops are destroyed utterly. Simple.

4. If you're throwing (including accurately dropping) something, that's a standard action. Using a command word to return something to full size is a standard action. You cannot do both at once.

Not much of an effect here.

5. Only the nominal 'owner' of an item (typically the last guy to touch it) can activate it via a command word.

The last guy to touch them was the guy eating them. So no command word explosivity.

So the effect with my 5 rules?
1. The caltrops start growing in the guy's mouth, when he bites down on them
2. They grow slowly and cause no damage
3. They are destroyed at the point where they would cause damage
4. Even if he swallows some, you need to dispel the magic to get them to grow
5. Even if you do - they are destroyed at the point where they would cause damage.

Simple.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If, on the other hand, you throw the shrunken boulder at an enemy and dismiss the spell on route, you're directly using the spell in an offensive way. Unsurprisingly, there are NO RULES FOR THIS. It seems strange that the author would have intended this use, yet put no rules in place to handle it.

I'd simply apply the normal rule for dismissing a [D] type spell to the Shrink Item spell (which, admittedly, is not a [D] type spell, but they're the only rules for dismissing a spell that we have).

A spell can be dismissed by a spoken command if you're in range of the effect. The range of Shrink Item is Touch... so I'd have no hesitation in ruling that the spell can be ended a/ by throwing it on a solid surface, or b/ by a command word from the original caster, if he's touching it.

As far as the caltrops in the porridge goes... I don't see a problem. Eating them is not 'tossing them on a solid surface', so that's not going to end the spell. And once he's eaten them, the original caster doesn't have line of effect, even without applying the range-touch rule, so no command-word activation, and no dispelling.

The only problem the diner will suffer is if the duration of the spell - one day per level - expires before he passes them...

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'd simply apply the normal rule for dismissing a [D] type spell to the Shrink Item spell (which, admittedly, is not a [D] type spell, but they're the only rules for dismissing a spell that we have).

My point was there are no rules for the damage caused by a large shrunken object that has been hurled at a target and then had it's shrink dispelled en-route.

A spell can be dismissed by a spoken command if you're in range of the effect. The range of Shrink Item is Touch... so I'd have no hesitation in ruling that the spell can be ended a/ by throwing it on a solid surface, or b/ by a command word from the original caster, if he's touching it.

Also sounds good.

As far as the caltrops in the porridge goes... I don't see a problem. Eating them is not 'tossing them on a solid surface', so that's not going to end the spell. And once he's eaten them, the original caster doesn't have line of effect, even without applying the range-touch rule, so no command-word activation, and no dispelling.

He can dispel it - he targets the diner, hopes he misses all of the diner's higher level spells on his dispel check, and then dispels the shrink item automatically.

The only problem the diner will suffer is if the duration of the spell - one day per level - expires before he passes them...

Another good point.

However it still doesn't answer the question "what does a shrunken alchemist's fire do if you remove the stopper?"

or "If I shrink a chest full of stuff, does that mean I can remove individual items and throw them on the ground to remove the spell?"

That's the point of my "the spell ends if you damage, break apart, or use the shrunken item" rule. I just applied the consequences of that rule to the scenario.