Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Messer 12-05-05, 01:56 AM	Okay, so, I had this great idea! I wanted to shrink my npcs, and have them flying around the room, as diminutive wizards, blasting and cracking at everything that moved (PC's) so I went to check out some stuff in the players book. Some of my favorite spells. Mostly, "Reduce person" .... now, this used to be called Enlarge Person, (reversable, and read something like this. Enlarge: Alteration (Reversable) Range: 5 yards/leve Components: VSM Duration: 5 rounds/level Casting Time: 1 Area of Effect: 1 creature or object Saving Throw: Neg This spell causes instant growth of a creature or object, increating both size and weight. It can be cast only upon a single creature or upon a single object that does not exceed ten cubic feet in volume per caster level The object or creature must be seen to be affected. It grows by up to 10% per level of x of the wizard, increasing this amount in hieght, width and weight. All eq worn or carried bya creature is enlarged by the spell. Unwilling victims are entitled to a saving throw vs. spell. A sucessful save means the spell fails. If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, the creature or object attains the maxium possible size, bursting weak enclosures in the process, but is constrained without harm by the stronger materials. The reverse spell, reduce, negates the enlarge spell, or make the creatures or objects smaller. The creature or object loses 10% of its original size for every level of the caster to a min of 10% of original size. Thereafter, the size shrinkgs by one foot increments to less than one foot by one inch increments to one inch, and by 1/10 increments to a 1/10th of an inch. The recipeient cannot dwindle away to nothingness a 16 foot tall giant reduced by a 15th level wizard would be reduced to 1.6 feet (in 9 steps), then to 6/10ths of a foot or 7.2 inches (in 1 step) and finally to 2.2 inches ( in the last 5 steps) a shrinking object may damage weaker mateirals affixed to it, but an object will shrink only as long as the obbject itself is not damaged So, This was Great, it was reversable, which meant I could have a bunch of Wizards flying around that were smaller than an inch! WOW! DIMINUTIVE SPELL CASTERS! but now, its been broken into two spells, the one of concern being "Reduce person" Reduce Person Transmutation Level: Sor/Wizard 1 Componenets: V,S,M Casting Time: 1 round Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2levels) Target: One humanoid creature Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: Fortitude Negates Spell Resistance: Yes This spell causes instant diminuation of a humanoid creature, halving its height, length, and width and dividing its weight by 8. This decrease changes the creature's size category to the next smaller one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to dexterity, and a -2 size penalty to strength (to a minimum of 1), and a +1 bonuse on attack rolls and AC due to its reduced size. A Small humanoid creature whose size decreases to Tiny has a space of 2 1/2 feet and a natural reach of 0 feet (meaning that it must enter an opponent's square to attack). A Large humanoid creature whose size decreases to Medium has a space of 5 feet and a natural reach of 5 feet. This spell doesn't change the target's speed. All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly rediced by the spell. Melee and projectiled weapons deal less damage (see table 2-3 in the Dungeons Masters Guide). Other Magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any reduced item that leaves a reduced creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) Instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage (projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them). Multiple magical effects that reduce size do not stack, which means (among other things) that you can't use a second casting of this spell to further reduce the size od a humanoid that's still und the effects of the first casting. Reduce person counters and dispels enlarge person. Reduce person can be made permanent with a permanency spell. Material Component: A pinch of powdered iron. So, as you can see, not only did they waste my time by changing Enlarge Person to 4 different spells, (person and animal) but they also went and took out the Level/Effect ration which made the orriginal spell so cool in the first place. Furthermore, on the issue of changing things, I really like 33.000 ft^3. It made the spell much more dnagerous, and well, I never cast a fireball in a tunnel, or a house, or anything for that matter. The sphere "Fills to volume" was the coolest part of that spell as well.... So, the crux, the question the reason this was put on the DM board and not the spell board is this. As the DM, I find reduced person is not the spell I want. I serious planned this adventure to take advantage of the old spell, the really good spell, the one that counts. One inch tall Wizards is what I want, and half sized wizards, well, that just doesn't cut it. I mean, not at all! no way, no sir, doesn't do it.... so. again the question. By using the 2nd ed Reduce person, will I be abusing the players? another question If I use this spell, do I have to make it availible to the players? not that I have a problem with that, but its beggs another question If I make this spell availible to the players, do they also have liberty to use any spell they frind from 2nd ed? and finally, because I care about your honest opninons, What spells are you dissapointed about?
Rocketboy13 12-05-05, 02:11 AM	My solution is to go the route of the comic books. Have the heroes shrink down in a one time magical tragedy, be it to the size of mice, bugs, or germs. :eek: Have the villian who triggered the transformation be caught in the magical oops as well. Once in said state, the party can either rely on their own team wizard to fix the problem, once he has retreived certain materials (Still in normal size) ranging from components to the evil doers notes, so that he can restore the party, all the while working against a miniscule villian, and his not so shrunk familiar; you could also have the villain agree to work with the PC's to restore their stature, while betraying them at the last minute. :devil: If the PC's become to small to interact, or even perceive normal objects, you could have them adventure in a microverse. An ity bitty world of microscopic fey or other creatures, that the villian now wants to conquer, seeing no way out of his current position. This micro city has some source of great power that can be used to return to normal size, but the villian wants to take it to rule the microverse... whatever crazy adventure you wish to strap together. :fight!: The accross the board change in stature will allow the players to just use their normal stats, while you just increase the size and hit points of mundane threats, like the incredably cliche cat attack. :thinks: I have put some thought into doing something like this since Zelda: Minish Cap came out. :) I don't think I answered any of your questions, but I did type a lot about "mini" ;) adventures.
braindead345 12-05-05, 02:58 AM	I never liked 2nd edition, but I see no reason why you can't adapt the spell over for a single adventure. I would put a strange scroll in the treasure pile-a very ancient scroll-with the spell on it. Attempts to inscribe the spell into spellbooks fail (or is automaticly transformed into the 3rd ed. versions of the spell); this is ancient magic which as all but left the universe. This gives you an out of sorts, so if you wish to limit the old spells you can. If the player love it, let them have another scroll or spend the time developing the spell themselves. Let us know how it turns out.
mcmurphy510 12-05-05, 04:56 AM	By using the 2nd ed Reduce person, will I be abusing the players? Not at all. There is no reason that you cannot adapt any spell you like from 2e to 3.5 or even create your own. I run a game in the Forgotten Realms and one of the things that made it cool was the proliferation of spells that were avialable. Now in FR only a fraction of the ones published in 2e are currently available. So I convert them over as needed. The thing to keep in mind is how much more powerful is the spell (once converted over) compared to a similar spell. It might requre a higher level spell slot to be justified. If I use this spell, do I have to make it availible to the players? You don't HAVE to, but to be fair it would be good if they had an oppertunity to gain it somehow. Now that oppertunity does not have to be esay or even obvious to them - it can even be downright prohibitive (at least at first). I have a rule in my game that ALL spells (including divine) have to be learned or developed. Wizards must either be taught the spells from a willing tutor or find a book that they can understnad (there's very ancient magic out there in strange languages that will need translation) and study from. Clerics have to return to their temple to learn new rituals for casting the new spells that have become avialable to them or be taught by a preist of their same religion and order. If I make this spell availible to the players, do they also have liberty to use any spell they frind from 2nd ed? Only if you make it available in your game. And even then only the ones that you allow. I dont believe in an NPC only spell, but that doesnt mean that the players will automatically find it either. Also there are places on my world where the players can go that have an entirely different of set of spells in use there (in other words no spells from the PHB - only from other sources). If the PCs level up in place like that and find a book or tutor, they will not learn PHB spells but the spells available in that area. What spells are you dissapointed about? None really. I wish they would convert over more of the 2e spells to 3.5 from the old FR books (and for that matter I wish they would re-publish the good fold out FR maps!!!) I think that in 3.5 (unlike 3.0) there was alot of thought put into balance and tactical usage and it makes things more intresting and keeps players and DMs on their toes.
MindWandererB 12-05-05, 06:53 AM	Keep in mind that reduction on this scale is a powerful tool for magic-users and rogues. There is a spell that does what you want in Complete Arcane, but affects only the caster, and is still pretty high level (7th? 8th?). Also, the 2e version worked on objects as well, and had potential for abuse. Definitely don't allow 2e Enlarge- that was way overpowered even for the time, and would be crazy by 3.5 standards. I advise doling it out in the form of a potion, dust, or similar non-scroll item. That way its use can be closely controlled, and doesn't necessarily have a spell version.
coldreboot 12-05-05, 07:03 AM	As said if it's a limited use scroll (Or perhaps an item would be better), then I can't see a problem. The player's handbook has rules for creating your own magic rings/staffs etc. So why not just make it a magic ring that only has a few charges? It could have a dial on it, so one way shrinks them and the other way makes them grow. Or, you could pay a homage to Alice in Wonderland and use the 'drink me', 'eat me' approach :D
Tyler Do'Urden 12-05-05, 07:32 AM	By using the 2nd ed Reduce person, will I be abusing the players?Yes. The scenario you described is completely rediculous and is the reason they changed it in the first place. If I use this spell, do I have to make it availible to the players?Yes. It's called verisimilitude. They make a fairly big deal out of it in the DMG. If I make this spell availible to the players, do they also have liberty to use any spell they frind from 2nd ed?That's up to you. Were I the DM, I'd simply write a new spell in 3.5 language that does what the 2e spell did, effectively creating a new spell. If the PCs want to create new spells to match other 2e spells, it's entirely up to you whether or not to allow it.
Bullgrit 12-05-05, 08:42 AM	Looking back at that old version: Wow, so many calculations to make. Do you really want to introduce a complication like that? How does the reduction affect ability scores, weight, etc.? How about, instead, have the spell reduce the target's size category by one per 3 levels, and make the spell a 3rd level spell. A 9th-level caster can reduce a man-size (Medium) creature down to Diminutive. By using the 2nd ed Reduce person, will I be abusing the players?If you "translate" the spell with overall balance in mind: no, you will not be abusing anything. If I use this spell, do I have to make it availible to the players?Well, if a NPC wizard is using the spell, he must have it in his spellbook. If the PCs get ahold of said book, then you'd be wrong to just have it gone. The core rules cover making new spells, so it is quite possible that the NPC wizard created this spell himself. Just because a spell exists in your world doesn't mean the PCs automatically get it out of the blue. If I make this spell availible to the players, do they also have liberty to use any spell they frind from 2nd ed?The Players only have the liberty to use what you say they can use. It is generally assumed that the Players have access to anything in the PHB, and that the DM needs to specifically say no to disallow stuff in there. It is generally assumed that the Players do not have access to anything not in the PHB, and that the DM needs to specifically say yes to allow such stuff. What spells are you dissapointed about?None. Well, maybe sleep. Bullgrit
Kragg Bonemeal 12-05-05, 09:47 AM	I'd definitely say up the spell level. This is no different than researching new spells and effects... say a Greater Reduce Person, Level 5.. as Bullgrit said maybe use 1 size category per 3 caster levels. Remember that this will require major calculations for the player (or your NPC) that gets reduced. You have to total up the number of Str decreases and AC/to hit increases. I'd even say give it a multiple save for unwilling creatures, or just a Fort save to resist "compression" and make it a ray or touch attack to keep it from being abused. ***EDIT*** Also... consider duration. This is a very tactical spell... reducing your enemies like this can be really bad for them... although a Fort save would make it tough against meaty fighters (which are the ones hurt worst by being smaller) so it isn't so bad. I'd look at only 1 round per caster level for this one. Making your application (an adventure while shrunk) tough. This could be done as part of the other poster's suggestion... an infernal device with this spell but it is permanent until reversed... which requires special material to re-jigger the machine... which then is broken beyond repair when done (so the PCs don't get any 'bright' ideas).
Far_Traveler 12-05-05, 11:12 AM	when each of them die, have them each have a belt with 3 potions of diminuative (or fine) person, one (or two) of them used, they cannot recreate the spell, but they can use it a few times, have the effects last for one hour each. Also, make 'em sorcerers, so you can say that one of them developed a latent ability for transmogrification magic, and then made potions with his ability. These potions are priceless, but any examiniation would price the potion magically at 10,000gp
Sildatorak 12-05-05, 12:20 PM	Okay, so, I had this great idea! I wanted to shrink my npcs, and have them flying around the room, as diminutive wizards, blasting and cracking at everything that moved It seems clear to me that you should make up a new spell. I think that bullgrit is right about the effect of the spell, but I'd say it should be 3rd level if it is a "personal or touch" range spell that requires a willing target, 4th level if it allows a fort save to resist and can be done at range. Either way I think you can safely keep it at 1 min/level (or as a 4th level personal/touch spell perhaps 10 min/level) Offensively it isn't as powerful as slaying someone outright, polymorphing them into a toad, or dominating them, so it should be less than 5th level even if it reduces them permanently. Furthermore, on the issue of changing things, I really like 33.000 ft^3. It made fireball an unecessarily complex headache more often than it allowed any cool effect. If you want to keep fireball as a volume filler, do it, but I advise the use of 20' spread rather than 30,000 ft^3 of volume for ease of gameplay. What spells are you dissapointed about? Lightning bolt. It now must start at the wizard who casts it and goes in a straight line for 120'. The 2e version (option of a 10'x40' bolt or 5'x80' that could start at some distance in front of the wizard before streaking away) actually made it a fairly useful AoE spell even if we ignore the bouncing aspect. The 3e version is only useful if you have the wizard in front of the party or have enough room to maneuver out to the side, and it still usually only hits two enemies. Compared to the increase in effectiveness that fireball got (the volume filling was a liability and the 3e range of fireball got jacked up to ridiculous proportions) it is just sad how weak 3e lightning bolt is.
Chobemaster 12-05-05, 12:24 PM	Lightning bolt. It now must start at the wizard who casts it and goes in a straight line for 120'. The 2e version (option of a 10'x40' bolt or 5'x80' that could start at some distance in front of the wizard before streaking away) actually made it a fairly useful AoE spell even if we ignore the bouncing aspect. The 3e version is only useful if you have the wizard in front of the party or have enough room to maneuver out to the side, and it still usually only hits two enemies. Compared to the increase in effectiveness that fireball got (the volume filling was a liability and the 3e range of fireball got jacked up to ridiculous proportions) it is just sad how weak 3e lightning bolt is. IIRC, though, it doesn't bounce back and kill the caster now, so that's nice, at least. My 1st/2nd e wizards researched "angleI=angleR lightning bolt"...if it hit a wall at 45 degrees, it bounced off at 45 degrees...so you could zip it all around a room, instead of just acing yourself. Remember LB in Pool of Radiance?
gleep 12-05-05, 03:17 PM	By using the 2nd ed Reduce person, will I be abusing the players? Well, I think the forced part of the scenario is where the abuse comes in. From the description, the party is going to be suddenly changed without any choice in the matter, which I consider a bad thing (and many would consider railroading). If it's the result of their own actions, however, smack the heck out of them! That said, I'd change the spell to fit with the 3.x guidelines, as others have suggested. If I use this spell, do I have to make it availible to the players? Not necessarily. It could be a spell that a sorcer researched and developed on his own, thus no spellbook or scrolls with it available for the wizard to copy/learn. But even then, if the spell is rewritten to fit in with the power levels of other 3.x spells, then it shouldn't be a major problem if the wizzies figure it out. If I make this spell availible to the players, do they also have liberty to use any spell they frind from 2nd ed? Nope. Technically speaking, they don't have the liberty to use any spell from 3rd ed either. :D What spells are you dissapointed about? Ahhh... it's such a shame how the once venerable lightning bolt has become so safe. It was fairly rare to have a wizard zap themselves, but when the did it was always entertaining. But even that didn't compare to the best use of a lightning bolt: As a trap on a chest next to a wall, with another wall 10' away. Even a measly 5HD lightning bolt was enough to vaporize most rogues (5+4+3+2+1=15HD). And the fireball... Now days it's perfectly safe for a wizard to stand 21' away from a suddenly opened door and blindly toss a fireball inside. No risk at all of the backwash of fire rolling up the corridore to burn everyone's beards and armored bikinies to cinders. And let's not forget the old meteor swarm, that wonderful spell of destruction. When wizards would carefully calculte their range and distances for the spread of missiles, to overlap the fireballs to cause the most damage (x8 damage in the center of one of the spreads). I also really liked the side effects of the old haste spell: every time a character used (or received it) they would age a year. The dwaves and elves would be popping potions of haste like candy while the human characters would whimper in terror and use them as a last resort. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the changes to dnd through the editions, but it just sits wrong with me that magic and adventuring is now so incredibly safe. Everything is so . . . so . . . child-proofed! What's the fun of adventuring if you're not constantly worried that the guy with the pointy hat will accidentally fry, cook, charbroil, age, or tenderize you at any moment? :D --gleep PS: got just a bit off topic, didn't I? Heh.
Sildatorak 12-05-05, 04:08 PM	Ahhh... it's such a shame how the once venerable lightning bolt has become so safe. It was fairly rare to have a wizard zap themselves, but when the did it was always entertaining. But even that didn't compare to the best use of a lightning bolt: As a trap on a chest next to a wall, with another wall 10' away. Even a measly 5HD lightning bolt was enough to vaporize most rogues (5+4+3+2+1=15HD). They dealt with that in one of the 2e supplement books and basically said that you had to save against all the bounces and any failure meant you took the full Xd6. Probably a more balanced solution than the increasing damage (btw, where did you get the decreasing damage for reflections?) What's the fun of adventuring if you're not constantly worried that the guy with the pointy hat will accidentally fry, cook, charbroil, age, or tenderize you at any moment? Yet surprisingly, friendly fire accidents still happen.
Messer 12-05-05, 10:14 PM	Yes. The scenario you described is completely rediculous and is the reason they changed it in the first place. Okay, so someone doesn't like magic, kinda funny that my own imagination would fight the designs of my own imagination, but what do I know, I'm only one half of you. To err is human, and take adavantage of spells to create rediculace situations is Wizardly. On another note Thank for the feedback everyone. Some of you seem to have a problem with context, which can be resolved by reading more carefully. I do believe that I never suggested that I was forcing this on the PCs, as a matter of fact, I was quite sure that I only said NPCs would be using the spell, but anyways, I'm an easy target. I think I'll get on to writing up my spell here, and creating my diminutive wizards. This oughta be intersting, restrictive, but, intersting. Again, thanks.
Tyler Do'Urden 12-05-05, 10:16 PM	Okay, so someone doesn't like magic. I love magic. I just don't like 2nd edition. kinda funny that my own imagination would fight the designs of my own imagination, but what do I know, I'm only one half of you. ...what?
Messer 12-05-05, 10:18 PM	I love magic. I don't like 2nd edition. ahhh.... okay then... But you are inside my head, arent you Tyler? Didn't I conjur you to help me do those things that I knew I couldn't do?