Topic: Change Object Size Uses, Interpretations and Limitations

[jurasketu]

I have several interpretation questions for the authors of HARP and the board about Change Object Size. Its probably my favorite spell (so keep that in mind).

First of all - what constitutes an object? It seems like an embarrassing simple sophomore philosophy question but obviously its not so simple. What's an object? A town is an object... So is a house... A tree... A person... A wagon... A horse... A sword... A rock... A diamond... A lantern... A book... Uh... Like darned anything is an object.

Clearly, it seems the author of the spell meant non-living object (compared to say the Vivamancer "Growth" spell). So choosing that interpretation puts a reasonable limitation on what constitutes a suitable target - but otherwise is there some mass limitation? Obviously, saying something like "indivisible object" doesn't work - that would reduce the allowable targets down to a handful of subatomic particles... Seems like there has to be some dimensional limitation or "connectedness"... But I dunno. Maybe give the object a resistance roll based on its mass? That would seem to provide a nice asymptotic limitation.

But then what does SIZE mean? Volume or linear scale? If its volume, a 1m³ block of stone targeted for enlargement by the base form of the spell would be transformed into a block of stone 1.587m on each side - and hence have 4m³. If its linear scale, it becomes a block of stone 4m on each side and hence would actually have a volume of 64m³.

If its volume, then you actually multiply the dimensions by the cubed root of the scaling factor which is significantly less impressive than linear scaling not to mention requiring a scientific calculator... Naturally, for simplicity of calculation and maximum fun, I assumed the author meant linear scaling. Is that a valid assumption?

At what level does the scaling occur? Atomic? Subatomic? Molecular? Macro? I know its "magic" - but what was the intended effect on the mass and structural integrity? I've assumed the mass scales to match - which means if a linear scaling factor is applied we must multiply the mass by the cube of the scaling factor. That can cause severe structural issues if the object being scaled up isn't built to be scaled up. Naturally, we can commonsensically rule the scaling magic ignores those limitations but I was curious as what to the author and consensus opinion might be.

So, if Aurora the Wizard shrinks her party's wagon down by the 1/20 scaling factor, she should be able to pick it up and Long Door herself and the wagon across the raging and otherwise impassable river. The draft horses are a different matter of course (see my previous post about Long Door). And the wagon contents? I allowed the clever use of the spell but I made the party unload the contents ruling those were separate "unconnected" objects. But then what about a barrel of water? Is the water a separate and unconnected object? Seems a bit tricky to define adequately. Thoughts?

Robin

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

I have several interpretation questions for the authors of HARP and the board about Change Object Size. Its probably my favorite spell (so keep that in mind).

First of all - what constitutes an object? It seems like an embarrassing simple sophomore philosophy question but obviously its not so simple. What's an object? A town is an object... So is a house... A tree... A person... A wagon... A horse... A sword... A rock... A diamond... A lantern... A book... Uh... Like darned anything is an object.

A non-living target that is a single integrated thing or item. A town is not an object. A house can be an object but the items of furniture inside it are distinct objects. A wagon, a sword, a rock, a diamond, a lantern, a book are all objects. Take the wheel off a wagon and it becomes a separate object.

Clearly, it seems the author of the spell meant non-living object (compared to say the Vivamancer "Growth" spell). So choosing that interpretation puts a reasonable limitation on what constitutes a suitable target - but otherwise is there some mass limitation? Obviously, saying something like "indivisible object" doesn't work - that would reduce the allowable targets down to a handful of subatomic particles... Seems like there has to be some dimensional limitation or "connectedness"... But I dunno. Maybe give the object a resistance roll based on its mass? That would seem to provide a nice asymptotic limitation.

I should have put a mass limit on this spell.

But then what does SIZE mean? Volume or linear scale? If its volume, a 1m³ block of stone targeted for enlargement by the base form of the spell would be transformed into a block of stone 1.587m on each side - and hence have 4m³. If its linear scale, it becomes a block of stone 4m on each side and hence would actually have a volume of 64m³.

If its volume, then you actually multiply the dimensions by the cubed root of the scaling factor which is significantly less impressive than linear scaling not to mention requiring a scientific calculator... Naturally, for simplicity of calculation and maximum fun, I assumed the author meant linear scaling. Is that a valid assumption?

Linear scaling because HARP core does not have the formulae to deal with volumetric scaling, materials density, etc. (Rolemaster does) and it is more "fantastic" using linear scaling.

At what level does the scaling occur? Atomic? Subatomic? Molecular? Macro? I know its "magic" - but what was the intended effect on the mass and structural integrity? I've assumed the mass scales to match - which means if a linear scaling factor is applied we must multiply the mass by the cube of the scaling factor. That can cause severe structural issues if the object being scaled up isn't built to be scaled up. Naturally, we can commonsensically rule the scaling magic ignores those limitations but I was curious as what to the author and consensus opinion might be.

Immediate application of the magic makes it work rule.

So, if Aurora the Wizard shrinks her party's wagon down by the 1/20 scaling factor, she should be able to pick it up and Long Door herself and the wagon across the raging and otherwise impassable river.

Yes.

The draft horses are a different matter of course (see my previous post about Long Door).

Yup.

And the wagon contents? I allowed the clever use of the spell but I made the party unload the contents ruling those were separate "unconnected" objects.

Correct ruling. Unconnected objects

But then what about a barrel of water? Is the water a separate and unconnected object? Seems a bit tricky to define adequately. Thoughts?

The water is fully contained within the barrel so a generous ruling would allow a barrel of water to be resized.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[jurasketu]

Excellent. Thanks Nicholas!

[Ramoran]

Wow.  Uh, can't we just go with enlarging things makes them bigger and shrinking them makes them smaller?  Most characters in a fantasy setting wouldn't have a bloody clue what you were talking about if you started asking about atoms and structural integrity as it relates to enlarging or shrinking something, so why is it necessary for players/GMs to worry about it?

Also, when they say object, I assume they're talking about any non-living object that can stand by itself in one piece.  For instance, a house might be an object, but a town is a group of objects.  If you wanted an interesting way to kill a large group, shrinking an object such as a house or meeting hall would actually be a swell idea, since the structure itself would shrink but objects/lifeforms inside it would not...

About the barrel of water...I enjoy toying with my characters, so I'd probably have the water come exploding out of the barrel as it shrank.  Actually, once the barrel breaks, it's not technically a single object any more, is it?  I might actually have it stop shrinking once it exerts its maximum pressure on the water, or just have it stop shrinking once it bursts.  Still, a barrel filled with water, in my opinion, is a separate object from the water contained within the barrel.

[Thom @ ICE]

For my purposes...
If you shrink an object that contains other items, it can only shrink so much as the items within it allow. 

House with people shrinks until people are crammed and resist.

Barrel with water shrinks until water either escapes or barrel reaches a point of absolutely full.

I don't allow this spell to be used to bind or inflict pain.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Chosen GM,

I agree with your interpretation and also with the idea that the spell cannot be used to directly bind, hinder, or inflict pain;however, the spell could (and should!) be cleverly used to indirectly bind, hinder, or inflict pain.

Example: I would allow, say, a bucket by an archway to be enlarged to block the way or a hanging sign might be enlarged so as to break its fasteners and fall... perhaps doing damage or otherwise impeding those below it!

I would not allow rope tied around somebody to be shrunk in order to cut the person in half or a box be shrunk with somebody in it in order to crush them.

[Thom @ ICE]

Example: I would allow, say, a bucket by an archway to be enlarged to block the way or a hanging sign might be enlarged so as to break its fasteners and fall... perhaps doing damage or otherwise impeding those below it!

Fasteners?  That would be stretch for me, unless they were already stated as weathered, worn and at risk - otherwise you get into the question as to which fastener breaks first, is the descent immediate - etc.   Most likely the item growing would cause the fastener to stress and creak, leading to the target having time to get out of the way.

[Ramoran]

Oh.  Well, if a player managed to think up something as deviously creative as shrinking a rope to kill someone, I'd probably allow it, but I'd also make a roll or two to determine whether the rope actually killed the person or just broke as it shrank.  Sure, it would constrict at first, but it would also be getting shorter and thinner, and there's a high chance that the person being bound would just snap free.  It would depend on the type/strength of the rope as to whether or not that would work in my game.  I try to encourage and reward creativity, not thwart it.

[Thom @ ICE]

Would you ever have the evil mage use that kind of creativity against the players? 

That's the basic rule I play with.  Creativity goes only as far as the players would stand for if used against them.

[Ramoran]

Actually, yeah I would.  If an evil mage in my game actually came up with the idea of cutting someone in half with a piece of rope, then he'd certainly do it.  Sure, the players might complain, but no more than they normally would if they just happened to be killed by a trap, a raging bear, a falling rock, or a death in x rounds spell that they have no way of countering.

Now, let's say somebody were bound with a piece of really strong rope, or a piece of steel cable and were actually sliced in half because a mage used a shrink spell on it.  Is the character dead?  Not necessarily.  If the magic exists to destroy the character in such a colorful fashion, the magic also exists to heal/resurrect that character.

My point is, players should never be hemmed in by what NPCs would or would not do, and I'm not going to tell them they can't act out a valid idea simply because they wouldn't want it done to them.  For that matter, I won't tell them possible pitfalls or merits of said idea, either.  If a mage decides he wants to shrink a rope to try to strangle/kill someone, I'd let him do it, but I wouldn't warn him about the fact that I'm going to be rolling to see of the rope snaps or comes unknotted during the process...he'll either have to plan for that on his own or fail at what he was trying to do because of lack of foresight.  I'm also just sick enough that if word of their heroic deeds gets around and specifics fall into the wrong hands, they could easily find themselves walking into a situation where somebody is using their own ideas against them simply because they heard about it.

Basically, unless something is just flat-out against the rules, I generally let my players do it, no matter how stupid, futile, or far-fetched it may be.  They just need to understand and/or plan for the consequences of both success and failure.

[jurasketu]

Well, if a player managed to think up something as deviously creative as shrinking a rope to kill someone, I'd probably allow it, but I'd also make a roll or two to determine whether the rope actually killed the person or just broke as it shrank.

NOTE: According to the spell description, anything being changed that was on a character [within the aura of a leveled creature] would get a resistance check based on the character's applicable resistance skill.

About the barrel of water...I enjoy toying with my characters, so I'd probably have the water come exploding out of the barrel as it shrank.  Actually, once the barrel breaks, it's not technically a single object any more, is it?  I might actually have it stop shrinking once it exerts its maximum pressure on the water, or just have it stop shrinking once it bursts.  Still, a barrel filled with water, in my opinion, is a separate object from the water contained within the barrel.

I think this is an amusing statement after you ridiculed my question asking at what level the effect occurred. NOTE: I wasn't actually offended.

The barrel of water question was somewhat of a throwaway just to test definition of "object" for purposes of the spell. For me, the answer is pretty clear - the water is not an independent object. The Growth spell on a person seems perfectly capable of increasing or shrinking (when the effect ends) the water, sinew, what have you, inside a person. The water's "shape" is entirely dependent on the barrel and is directly tied to the barrel's existence and so it's certainly reasonable to rule that the water is not an independent object and hence cannot be "left out".

If the wizard deliberately targets the barrel without targeting the water (a slightly plausible request), we have to consider HOW the barrel grows or shrinks.

I specifically asked the question about structural integrity for EXACTLY this type of situation. Nicholas in answering the question said, "Immediate application of the magic makes it work rule." So BY DEFINITION, the object being enlarged or shrunk MUST maintain structural integrity after the spell effect is resolved. Which was the answer I wanted and happily received.

So let's think about that. Except where noted, all HARP spells have instantaneous effect. Let's say I grow a small block of wood with dimensions 10cm x 20cm x 60cm, sitting on the ground by 400 times. After growth, my block of wood is now 40m x 80m x 240m - a rather large block of wood. Does this block of giant wood with a volume of 768,000m³ displace 384,000m³ of soil because it expanded it ALL directions instantly? The instantaneous effect and structural integrity aspect would seem to mandate the block of wood remains on top of the ground. By definition, enlargement has to "shove" things out of the way (most notably air). It would seem that IF the enlargement had to displace anything that couldn't be reasonably "shoved" out of the way quickly and without serious damage, then the spell would simply have to fail.

This would apply to shrinkage as well. The shrinkage is instantaneous, so the shrunk object cannot end up where it would have to displace something substantial. So a rope bound around a person shrunk 40 times couldn't break or squeeze or displace the insides of a person and so fails (or alternatively ends up 'outside' the person which turns the spell from a killer into a handy escape spell).

So, what happens if the barrel is shrunk independent of water? If it was air, the barrel would just end up smaller - no questions asked. Since water in this instance is just like the air, we just end up with a smaller barrel of water and a big splash.

Robin

[Right Wing Wacko]

Yes, fasteners.... like a chain or rope 

If a 10 lb. wooden sign is enlarged to weigh 50 lbs., it could, and more than likely would, snap the fasteners (which are only strong enough to hold 10 lbs.) and crush whoever was below.
Is that so fantastic as to be unbelievable?
No more of a stretch than believing magic can make things bigger or smaller...

[Thom @ ICE]

Well, it appears we have some differences of opinion.... great thing about role playing is that we don't have to agree. 

[Right Wing Wacko]

Ditto!

[Ramoran]

Another question I'm inclined to ask is whether the object in question "grows" or "shrinks" to its new size when it is enlarged or shrunk as opposed to simply "snapping" to its new size without any time between the two sizes.  In my mind, magic may be outside what we consider "natural," but it still exists within a realm governed by time and therefore its application takes at least some time, however small the amount may be.  With this mode of thinking, things must "grow" to become larger and "shrink" to become smaller.  If the object were to simply "snap" to size with no time lapse between large and small, there would be no outward force shoving things out of the way, and anything in the way would be encased in the object.

Now, if a block of wood were sitting on the ground, it wouldn't expand into the ground because it would have somewhere else to go (meaning in all other directions besides down).  Let's say, though, that there were people/objects nearby when the object started growing.  Depending on how much force your object is expanding with, those objects/people would either be broken/knocked aside or they would cause the enlarged object to stop growing.  If the expansion happened fast enough, somebody standing next to the block of wood could easily be hurled a great distance by the impact of the expanding wall.

The same applies to shrinking.  If a rope around a person is shrinking, one of two things will happen...the rope will cut into the person and kill him or the person will hold up until the rope snaps.  If a single loop of rope tied tightly around the average humanoid started to shrink, chances are it would do some pretty significant damage at first, but I doubt it would actually kill the person before the tension became too great for the thickness and the rope snapped.  Another thing you have to consider is the knot tied.  Did the mage tie up his opponent?  How good is the average mage at tying knots, would you say?  How much tension would have to be applied before a mage's knot, which is probably poorly tied, comes undone?

These are all interesting things to think about.  My next campaign won't contain magic, though, so I won't have to worry about things like this for quite a while.

[Fidoric]

Maybe we should stop with cold logic and rather keep with what the spell is intended to do.

IMO, a shrinking spell is not designed to harm anyone, but the indirect consequences of the shrinking may. For example, if someone is hanging to a wooden pole several hundred of feet above the ground and the wooden pole is suddenly shrunk (after a RR, being in someone aura), it will certainly snap and you buddy will fall... That's for creative use of the spell...

As for the effects of spells being instantaneous, I think that if it's not specifically stated, most effects should occur over the course of a round. Then again, an enlarge spell may not only expand a existing item, it may provide the matter for that and stick it with the original item, even if it doesn't sound very realistic. But logic also fail to explain why with certain spells you can create a small amount of matter using an supreme exertion of will, whereas you can create much more with an shape shifting effect... Why not call this magic and let it at that ?

[Ramoran]

We're just trying to leave room for our PCs to think up the sickest, most creative ways to mercilessly slaughter their enemies.  Is that so bad?

[Thom @ ICE]

For some GMs... Yes.
If you want to retain game balance you need to avoid abusive interpretations, otherwise while the use of the spell may be creative, it may completely shift the power balance of your game in a way that makes it less fun for fighters and thieves who don't necessarily have the option of using these creative interpretations.

And to reiterate my previous point... if you allow these creative abuses and don't have the enemies doing the same, you run the risk of removing the fun from the game - however, if you use these creative abuses for the enemies as well, you end up with even greater risk of ruining your game.   

If I played in a game where the GM pulled that kind of nonsense with an NPC spellcaster against me and killed or maimed my PC, I'd scream bloody murder - and if they allowed one of my party members to do it I'd quickly be bored with the campaign as I would expect our spellcasters to do whatever crazy nonsense they wanted.

There are lots of interpretations to these spells, but for some GMs that may not be the way they want to play...

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

We're just trying to leave room for our PCs to think up the sickest, most creative ways to mercilessly slaughter their enemies.  Is that so bad?

Would it be bad if the GM used what you came up with against your PCs?