Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Clacks 06-20-07, 08:32 AM	What ability modifiers etc are used when a 3 foot tall character is shrunk to 3 inches by the Rod of Wonder? And on a different note what modifiers are used when a monk loses an arm in a Black Pudding.
Leilond 06-20-07, 08:35 AM	What ability modifiers etc are used when a 3 foot tall character is shrunk to 3 inches by the Rod of Wonder? Look to the reduce person spell... it can give you an idea And on a different note what modifiers are used when a monk loses an arm in a Black Pudding. The rules do not cover the "limb losing". There's no way, using the rules as written, to make a monk lose an arm
Karui_Kage 06-20-07, 11:40 AM	There were some 'rules' on losing an arm in the first Rappan Athuk module, on a trap that can chop off limbs. They were pretty reasonable, I'll look those up later. As for the former, check the monster manual's section on ability modifers by size, and just reduce appropriately from small (which I assume the character was to begin with) to diminutive. I think that's what three inches would be considered, though it will say in the MM as well.
Leilond 06-20-07, 11:43 AM	There were some 'rules' on losing an arm in the first Rappan Athuk module, on a trap that can chop off limbs. They were pretty reasonable, I'll look those up later. As for the former, check the monster manual's section on ability modifers by size, and just reduce appropriately from small (which I assume the character was to begin with) to diminutive. I think that's what three inches would be considered, though it will say in the MM as well. Exactly: "rules". Do not wast your time with that "losing an arm" unless it is central to your champaign and it do not remain to much By the way, there's no way by the rules to lose an arm from a black pudding.
Karui_Kage 06-20-07, 11:54 AM	The question wasn't if a black pudding could do that, it's what would happen if it did. That said, it isn't hard to 'houserule' that a character loses an arm, and in all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a high level spell out there *somewhere* in wotc world that didn't replicate the effect to some sense. Besides the obvious inability to not being able to lose that hand/arm anymore (no 2H weapons, must always keep a hand free for casting, etc.) along with a penalty to at least two of the three physical stats, equal to -4 or something. After losing an arm, your body is going to be weak for a while, and your sense of balance will be thrown off from having one less arm. That said, again, characters usually don't get their arms cut off in DnD unless under very specific circumstances (IE: Villain gets hero to be helpless, villain cuts off hero's arms, villain lets hero get away, blah blah). So use this wisely, and understand that no one is going to like it when it happens. Of course, Regeneration is always a 'handy' spell for this.
mvincent 06-20-07, 02:11 PM	What ability modifiers etc are used when a 3 foot tall character is shrunk to 3 inches by the Rod of Wonder?I would treat it as three (stacking) applications of the reduce person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reducePerson.htm) spell: +6 size bonus to Dexterity, a -6 size penalty to Strength (to a minimum of 1), and a +3 bonus on attack rolls and AC due to your reduced size (which is now "fine")
Karui_Kage 06-20-07, 02:23 PM	While the modifiers for losing an arm aren't in wotc rules, there are rules for becoming 3 inches, and they aren't stacking reduce person. Like I said, check the MM, or even your PHB. The former (and I believe the latter) both have charts on the differences in bonuses each 'size' gets, and the MM includes what type a 3 inches high person would be (I believe diminutive). You may want to alter the abilities somewhat, but it should be a good guide for what to go for. Also, don't forget the bonus to hit and AC they'll get. A Diminutive character would have +4 to both, and a +12 bonus to Hide, if I remember correctly. (Also -12 to grapple, and 1/4 the normal weight limit).
mvincent 06-20-07, 02:33 PM	there are rules for becoming 3 inches, and they aren't stacking reduce person.I'm going to have to challenge you on this one. Can you review your books and provide some numbers on this?
Karui_Kage 06-20-07, 02:41 PM	When I get home, I can reference the MM which I mentioned above. I distinctly recall either in the back of the MM, or in chapter 8 (I think) of the PHB, the differences for monsters based on size. While this is not exactly what a character should be faced with when reverting to 3 inches (like Enlarge Person is different from becoming actual large size), it is a guideline. Of course, if it is a permanent change, then maybe the bonuses should be fully used. Enlarge is only ever temporary, and a magical effect, while if it were a permanent change, the bonuses should be changed appropriately.
mvincent 06-20-07, 03:09 PM	I distinctly recall either in the back of the MM Do you mean this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases)? It's been previously noted that this is for other purposes (and is not recommended). Also, it's harder to use. However, by extrapolation, the adjustments from that table (for moving from size small to size fine) would be: -10 str, +6 dex, -2 con, +4 to hit and +4 AC. Other notes: 1) That table is for monster advancements 2) The rod of wonder doesn't say, but the effect is likely closest to the reduce person spell (and it's likely best to use that spell for precedence). 3) The effect makes the wielder 1/12 their normal size. Three size decreases is technically only 1/8 normal size, but it's close enough 4) 3' would be "fine" size (the vertical reach (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm) chart can give an idea on height averages) 5) I've actually put a lot of thought into this very issue (and I'm extremely experienced with the rules).
Karui_Kage 06-20-07, 03:57 PM	That's exactly the table I was talking about. Yes, it does say for monster advancements, but in this case, it makes sense. Penalty to strength? The person is 3 inches tall, I doubt he'll be able to do much heavy lifting at all, or wound opponents nearly as well anymore. Bonus to dex? He's 3 inches tall, of course he'd be able to dodge more attacks, squirm into places he wasn't able to get to before. Penalty to con? I doubt he can take as many hits as before, being so small. If Fine though, then it looks like the dex would go up another 2, and the AC bonus and to hit bonus would be +8, instead of +4. Still makes fine sense to me. When every target is a giant compared to him, it won't be too hard to hit or get away. So yes, its a table for monster advancement. However, I think when considering a permanent size change, it works just as well for this. End result (adding up all the table changes) would be (going from Small to Fine): -6 Strength, +6 Dexterity, No Con penalty, and total +8 AC and to hit (replaces the normal +1 from small) This is a bit different from yours, I think you may have miscalculated somewhere. Going backwards, we see that: Fine to Dim. = -2 Dex, -4 AC/Attack Dim. to Tiny = +2 Str, -2 Dex, -2 AC/Attack Tiny to Small = +4 Str, -2 Dex, -1 AC/Attack swap those positives and negatives around, and you get the numbers I have above (plus another one for the AC/Attack, since I added in the bonus he already gets from being small). The one con penalty is from going from medium to small, which I imagine he already took if he's a small race. If not, then his race is tougher anyways. There should be a bonus to Hide checks in there too, along with a limit on weight. Dim had a +12 hide bonus, -12 to grapple, and a limit on 1/4 of weight. I'd say Fine should be +16, -16, and...I don't know, 1/6th? I don't remember where the chart is for this info though.
Leilond 06-20-07, 04:54 PM	That's exactly the table I was talking about. Yes, it does say for monster advancements, but in this case, it makes sense. Penalty to strength? The person is 3 inches tall, I doubt he'll be able to do much heavy lifting at all Yet considered in the 1/4 lifting ability for tiny monster [/quote] or wound opponents nearly as well anymore. [/quote] Yet considered in the change of the weapon size Think about "enlarge person", you'll have +2 only +2 to strenght, Bonus to dex? He's 3 inches tall, of course he'd be able to dodge more attacks, squirm into places he wasn't able to get to before. Yet considered in the size modifier to AC and the size bonus to hide and move silently Penalty to con? I doubt he can take as many hits as before, being so small. Why? Do an halfling have less constitution than a human? If Fine though, then it looks like the dex would go up another 2, and the AC bonus and to hit bonus would be +8, instead of +4. Still makes fine sense to me. When every target is a giant compared to him, it won't be too hard to hit or get away. So yes, its a table for monster advancement. However, I think when considering a permanent size change, it works just as well for this. End result (adding up all the table changes) would be (going from Small to Fine): -6 Strength, +6 Dexterity, No Con penalty, and total +8 AC and to hit (replaces the normal +1 from small) This is a bit different from yours, I think you may have miscalculated somewhere. Going backwards, we see that: Fine to Dim. = -2 Dex, -4 AC/Attack Dim. to Tiny = +2 Str, -2 Dex, -2 AC/Attack Tiny to Small = +4 Str, -2 Dex, -1 AC/Attack swap those positives and negatives around, and you get the numbers I have above (plus another one for the AC/Attack, since I added in the bonus he already gets from being small). The one con penalty is from going from medium to small, which I imagine he already took if he's a small race. If not, then his race is tougher anyways. There should be a bonus to Hide checks in there too, along with a limit on weight. Dim had a +12 hide bonus, -12 to grapple, and a limit on 1/4 of weight. I'd say Fine should be +16, -16, and...I don't know, 1/6th? I don't remember where the chart is for this info though. I thinks that table is for "natural" advancement and not for "magical reducing". It doesn't fit at all our necessity
Karui_Kage 06-20-07, 05:59 PM	Yet considered in the 1/4 lifting ability for tiny monster or wound opponents nearly as well anymore. Yet considered in the change of the weapon size Think about "enlarge person", you'll have +2 only +2 to strenght, That's true, weapon size would go down. But if the character began with, let's say, a 24 strength (huge, I know), he could still do +7 damage with his weapon. A character using a weapon sized for a Fine creature (unless it was very magical) shouldn't be doing as much as when he was medium. The weapon size doesn't make the biggest difference, it's the static damage that matters. Reducing it to an 18 strength is still large, but that just reflects how strong he was as a small creature to begin with. Yet considered in the size modifier to AC and the size bonus to hide and move silently If that were true, small creatures wouldn't receive their bonus to dex for AC and the size modifier. Look at some of the small creatures in the MM. They get the size modifier to AC, along with a typically high dexterity (from their size. You could say it's the monster type, but the fact that so many of the small ones get both proves the point). Why? Do an halfling have less constitution than a human? No, and this is where I was incorrect on the point, as I mistakenly thought of the small races having a penalty to con, instead of strength. Still, the point of them not being able to take many hits stands. Again, look at most very tiny creatures, they typically don't have many HP (partly because they're so hard to hit) I thinks that table is for "natural" advancement and not for "magical reducing". It doesn't fit at all our necessity I'm not sure why you said 'our' necessity, are you a member of the OP's group? That said, even though this is magical reduction, it's different from reduces and the like in that it (as far as I understand, the OP hasn't said otherwise) is permanent. The changes make sense for the size difference, though it's up to the OP whether or not he implements them. Bold = mine.
mvincent 06-20-07, 06:04 PM	So yes, its a table for monster advancement. However, I think when considering a permanent size change1) Note that the rod of wonder doesn't say that the change is permanent i.e. have to make judgement calls on what is going). I personally treat it as a version of the Reduce person spell with Permanency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm) cast on it, but that's my call. 3) Other results from the rod are generally treated as spells, and even say if they are permanent (like the color change result) 4) The alternative of treating it as say, an "instant" result that cannot be cured later doesn't seem quite right. Also (as mentioned) the monster size charts are typically for when one is advancing a monster's HD. 5) I suppose one could use the Reduce Animal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reduceAnimal.htm) spell as their model, but that spell is very specific, cannot be made permanent, only works on animals, and is of much higher level (even ignoring that the rod would be altering by 3 size levels rather than just one) 6) Lastly (and this is a big one): The SRD entry for the Rod (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm#wonder) actually hyper-links the "Reduce wielder" result to the reduce person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reducePerson.htm) spell (seriously: take a look (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm#wonder))
Toki_Wartooth 06-20-07, 06:08 PM	6) Lastly (and this is a big one): The SRD entry for the Rod (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm#wonder) actually hyper-links the "Reduce wielder" result to the reduce person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reducePerson.htm) spell (seriously: take a look (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm#wonder))Ouch. Pwned!
Karui_Kage 06-20-07, 06:10 PM	1) Note that the rod of wonder doesn't say that the change is permanent i.e. have to make judgement calls on what is going). I personally treat it as a version of the Reduce person spell with Permanency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm) cast on it, but that's my call. Yes, it's iffy on what the rod actually does, in game 3) Other results from the rod are generally treated as spells, and even say if they are permanent (like the color change result) True, but there really isn't a spell that makes such a permanent height reduction. Reduce is such only one step. 4) The alternative of treating it as say, an "instant" result that cannot be cured later doesn't seem quite right. Also (as mentioned) the monster size charts are typically for when one is advancing a monster's HD. Why not? The Rod of Wonder has always been an odd item anyways, and who's to say the form couldn't be cured? Maybe allow a "Remove Curse" to work? 5) I suppose one could use the Reduce Animal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reduceAnimal.htm) spell as their model, but that spell is very specific, cannot be made permanent, only works on animals, and is of much higher level (even ignoring that the rod would be altering by 3 size levels rather than just one) Yeah, I'm not sure how that would work. 6) Lastly (and this is a big one): The SRD entry for the Rod (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm#wonder) actually hyper-links the "Reduce wielder" result to the reduce person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reducePerson.htm) spell (seriously: take a look (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm#wonder)) I don't use it too often, but isn't the d20srd.org a 3rd party site? Is there anything in the RAW linking the phrasing in the DMG to the Reduce Person spell, or was it just an interpretation of that site due to similar wording?
Toki_Wartooth 06-20-07, 06:22 PM	isn't the d20srd.org a 3rd party site? Assuming for a moment that it is, are you saying that your opinion is better than two noted rule lawyers and the creator of the hypertext SRD? Check out the post count for mvincent and Leilond, then look at some of the previous answers they've provided if you don't believe me. I don't use it too oftenThat is likely acknowledging that you don't do nearly as much rules research as these guys.
Karui_Kage 06-20-07, 06:25 PM	Assuming for a moment that it is, are you saying that your opinion is better than two noted rule lawyers and the creator of the hypertext SRD? Check out the post count for mvincent and Leilond, then look at some of the previous answers they've provided if you don't believe me. That is likely acknowledging that you don't do nearly as much rules research as these guys. My point wasn't that my opinion was any better then theirs, it was that the point he was trying to make was that the D20srd.org was a source of RAW, which it is not. As most of it is directly from the SRD, that can be true, but linking of Reduce in the Rod of Wonder's description to the Reduce Person spell in no way changes the fact that the DMG does not have the same link. If WotC posted this in a FAQ, or Errata, that'd be one thing. Otherwise, no matter how experienced they are, their 'opinion' doesn't make it RAW. As for rules research, I said I don't use the d20srd that often. I have the books, and when I need to, I flip to the pages in them. There's no reason to be as hostile as you're sounding.
mvincent 06-20-07, 06:32 PM	Yes, it's iffy on what the rod actually does, in gameYup. It's all subject to interpretation, and I've seen it handled much differently (and more bizarrely) than anything we've presented. I was hoping to provide the OP with a good, solid, well thought out answer that most people would agree with. Oh well. Still, I think we've given the OP some good information, and I'm fully content to let him decide from here.
Karui_Kage 06-20-07, 06:35 PM	Agreed. :)
Leilond 06-21-07, 05:06 AM	The rod of wonder (page 237 of the DMG) report the "power" with this words "Reduce wielder" I think that, in absence of a clear rule, we can use the "Reduce xxx" rules, because of the same wording I know that RAW do not cover but Reduce person could help Reduce person bring you to half, giving a -2 penalty to strenght. We can say that reducing the target to 1/12 (rod of wonder) can be thinked like 3,5 stacking reduce person effect You can chose between 3 or 4 Three reducing mean 3 size category, -6 strenght, +6 dexterity... nothing more (plus al the size modifier for AC, hit bonus, hide etc) Four reducing mean 4 size category, -8 strenght, +8 dexterity... nothing more (plus al the size modifier for AC, hit bonus, hide etc) I think that we can start from here, because it is a "magical effect" and not a "natural one", so I think is better to use a "similar magica effect" as a guideline instead of a "natural one"
anders 06-21-07, 10:01 AM	regarding a question based on righteous might. The changes to statistics by size indicated in Table 4–2 in the Monster Manual are primarily a guideline for monster creation, rather than hard-and-fast rules. Although many sizechange effects mimic the numbers given on that table, each such effect has its own unique properties that don’t necessarily match the table. (The enlarge spell, for example, grants only a +2 bonus to Strength, in contrast to the +8 bonus listed on Table 4–2.)
mvincent 06-21-07, 12:41 PM	We can say that reducing the target to 1/12 (rod of wonder) can be thinked like 3,5 stacking reduce person effect You can chose between 3 or 4From my research, 3 size reductions would appear be the most appropriate (based on comparisons with other creatures from the MM).
Leilond 06-22-07, 03:21 AM	From my research, 3 size reductions would appear be the most appropriate (based on comparisons with other creatures from the MM). I agree with you. I pointed out the two possibilities, but I agree that the 3 size reduction is the best I think we can consider it 3 cumulative uses of "reduce person" 3 size reduction -6 strenght +6 dexterity Usual size modifiers for AC, Hit, hide and so on No change to HP or constitution (like the reduce person spell)
Karui_Kage 06-22-07, 01:21 PM	So pretty much...exactly what I said up above? :) -6 Strength, +6 Dexterity, No Con penalty, and total +8 AC and to hit (replaces the normal +1 from small) Pretty ironic that 3 uses of reduce person works out to exactly what 'scaling down based on monster progression' would be. Maybe not ironic, but it's at least amusing. :)
Tolby 06-24-07, 10:58 AM	I would use the MM progression less math that way. I wouldn't want to stop combat to figure all that out. In combat tables good, heavy math bad.
mvincent 06-24-07, 08:27 PM	I would use the MM progression less math that way. I wouldn't want to stop combat to figure all that out. In combat tables good, heavy math bad.What are you talking about? The MM progression method required far more calculations than the reduce person method . Take a look at the MM progression tables (here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases))... you had to reverse each progression, then add the results together.
Karui_Kage 06-24-07, 10:46 PM	From what it looks like, the total is the same either way. Even if the MM table is a bit more complicated, it's not by much. It's just basic addition and subtraction, it'll take a minute no matter which method is used.
Leilond 06-25-07, 03:54 AM	The MM table require a Constitution modifier, while the magical effects that reduces (reduce person, reduce animal) don't That's an important issue to consider The two methods AREN'T the same
Karui_Kage 06-25-07, 11:23 AM	The MM table require a Constitution modifier, while the magical effects that reduces (reduce person, reduce animal) don't That's an important issue to consider The two methods AREN'T the same That would only be the case if the player were going from Medium to Small. As was determined earlier, the character begins at small. Thus, the con penalty does not occur.
mvincent 06-25-07, 11:49 AM	That would only be the case if the player were going from Medium to Small. As was determined earlier, the character begins at small. Thus, the con penalty does not occur.I think the fact that this has been confused on those tables (more than once) is a good indication that they are not as easy as simply tripling the results of the Reduce Person spell. Everyone knows where to find Reduce Person in their PHB. Not everyone knows where the monster advancement by size tables are in the MM, or how to use them. And even if they do, the calculations are more cumbersome.
Karui_Kage 06-25-07, 11:55 AM	My only point was that the calculations (in this instance) appeared to reach the same conclusion, and either way can be used. It was not meant to imply that the MM way was better than the RP way, and you're right, RP is more easily found.