Topic: Combat Companion question

[Kristen Mork]

OLF: I think we're agreeing.  I want mass and height to scale realistically (i.e., mass scales with the cube of height).  And, I know that the RAW specifies scaling based on mass.  However, in my experience a) it is easier to scale height, b) which is what players care about c) without making the spells too powerful.  If you can increase your mass by +240%, that's only a +50% height increase.  IMHO, that's a small change for a 24th level caster.  (And, using Living Change I think you're restricted to +24% height, which is pathetic.)

[MariusH]

I always thought that you change only ONE of your dimentions, if you so desire. So, if you increased your mass with 50%, your height can increase with 50%, but you're still the same width and depth as before (making you rather thin). Or you can increase your width with 50% (still a 50% mass increase), which would be cool if you're blocking a doorway, I guess (but probably making you a nice target for archers). Of course, REDUCING your height with 90% while maintaining your original width and depth may be extrordinary weird, but hey, why not - after all, it's magic...

Of course, you COULD choose to change all dimentions equally, in which case I suppose OLFs math is correct (without checking it).

Having said that, I personally have no problems with semi base lists being weaker than closed lists, and having one spell being able to either increase OR reduce your mass, makes it far more powerful than a spell that only gives you one of the options, in my opinion.

[providence13]

  But if you have only one aspect change, height for instance, you're going to alter other aspects of the character. Being Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four seems more complicated.

I like the fact that it's a uniform increase/decrease. Much easier on my head than saying, 'you're taller but no increase in mass, so top heavy, loose coordination and +1 crit from blunt trauma".

[Marc R]

Though height is mentioned, mass is the standard used in SL.

The mass standard is established, to switch over to size basis, we'd need to revise all the related spells.

There's some reason for that, since at 2x mass proportional growth, I'd be a monster already. . .7'7" and 400#.

Admittedly, that is growth to where people would stare, but it's not quite "Giant" sized.

a 50th level me using the 25th level Warrior's Essence would be a hair under 13' tall and weigh a short ton (2,000#)

I'd call that a giant. . .but it's not the 50' tall fighting thor kind.

I suspect that the reason the original rules used mass as a basis, was that combat ability ties to mass, not height. . .and I suspect that the original authors were not scared of math.

That said, rather than force players and GMs into cube roots on the fly, they often offered tables to avoid needing to do math on the fly. Take a look at the attached table:

[MariusH]

I never said that mass did NOT increase. In fact, I said that a 50% increase in height means a 50% in mass. To me, as a physisist, that's a simple 1-dimentional conversion. You'll look a bit weird (like in a tivoli-mirror), but not really other problems. Some people may not recognice who you are. Your fingers are longer, but not thicker. The same probably goes for - well - other extremities...

[Thom @ ICE]

Actually, to increase height with only a proportional increase in mass would mean that your body would shrink depth and width by amounts equal to the ratio by which you grew.  The result is an extremely odd looking creature.

Can you interpret it this way? Sure, but that is not accurate to the concept portrayed by the spell description, nor any of the related spells.  If you do this, you are definitely in the house rule realm.

[Marc R]

Anyone have any reservations with the fact that the downward 10/5 limits on mass reduction work out to 46%/37% of height? If we made the 10/5 limits on height, then mass could go very far down. . .worth considering if these spells are intended to result in midgets, or actual Alice in Wonderland mouse/insect scale results.

[Thom @ ICE]

For the sake of easier math, I would simply say 1/2 and 1/3.  It's not exact, but it is a close enough reference for 99% of the games.

[MariusH]

Thom - why would that be the case? Look at your body like a sylinder. If you increase the length of the sylinder by 50%, the mass of the sylinder increases by 50%. No need to shrink the width and depth at all!

[Thom @ ICE]

If you look at it as a cylinder you are correct. There would be no actual shrinkage, though the proportional relationships would appear as a shrinkage.  The rest still holds.

[markc]

 I would also like to see a simple formula like 1 to 3 or 1 to 2.
MDC

[Marc R]

It's a non linear relationship, so any linear derivation will only be right at one point, and off the rest.

Is we assume all spells to be mass based, but the 5-10% limit to be minimum height. . .you get this as a conversion table:

[Thom @ ICE]

Thom - why would that be the case? Look at your body like a sylinder. If you increase the length of the sylinder by 50%, the mass of the sylinder increases by 50%. No need to shrink the width and depth at all!

Thinking further on it....
As long as you are only changing one dimension, the ratio would not require any shrinkage regardless of shape (my error), however it would appear extremely odd and is certainly not the current interpretation of the spell.

[Marc R]

Insofar as I'm aware, the spell as RAW just scales you up without otherwise distorting you.

The taffy pull version could be a valid use of spell mastery, if the GM chose to allow it to be used that way. . .not sure if I'd be cool with that in any game, but a few I've run or played in you could perhaps see a mage using shrink with spell mastery to make himself flat so someone could slip him under a door where he could release the spell and unlock it from the inside. Spell mastery and what the GM allows it to do are treading into the grey area of "house rules".

I think we're close to agreement here, but should the downward limit intend child size, or smurf size? . . should those lower limits be in mass (child size) or height (smurf size).

[markc]

 I always thought you could go down to fairy size, 1" or so. But that could just be from a house rule that the GM made up or used from another game.
MDC

[MariusH]

As to what is the "current interpretation of the spell", I'll take your word for it. I'm just saying this was how _I_ read the spell (from living change, closed essence): "Caster may shrink by up to 50% his normal
mass (height in most situations)."

To me, this indicates what I stated earlier - you can reduce your mass by 50%, and if you so desire, this can mean a 50% reduction in height. If retaining your original shape was a prerequisite, I think the wording of this spell is way off target, and it needs to be rewritten. I always looked at a 50% height increase as a neat way to increase your stride (or pick apples from the top of the tree), whereas a 50% reduction in height is nice when moving through dwarf-made tunnels. You'd look like you'd do if you stretch or schrink your picture only in height (easily done nowadays with a PC), of course.

The phrase "height in most situations" is what REALLY made me think that hey, you can choose either height, width or depth.

[providence13]

I'm not against SM to make someone thin enough to slip under a door or wide enough to glide on thermals. Don't fumble the roll..

Also, if you're high enough level/have enough Ranks in the List, I'd let you shrink down to a flea.

Thanks for the 2nd chart. That's a good one to have.

[Marc R]

if we go with the 2nd chart as errata, then you could get 6' tall me, down to 3.6". . . smurf sized.