PDA

View Full Version : New use for Shrink Item



Baron Malkar
2009-05-27, 05:08 AM
While reading the descriptor for shrink item I noticed that the only thing preventing its use on a person was the targeting information.


One touched object of up to 2 cu. ft./level

So I decided to see what Wizards decided an object was. That was when I found this.


Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#object)
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level.

So theoretically you could use Shrink item to reduce a person down 4 size categorys as long as you have a high enough caster level. Then of course you need to make it permanent so that all it takes is a command word to change from a normal sized human to small enough to ride your Raven familiar as a steed.:smallamused:

V'icternus
2009-05-27, 05:12 AM
...small enough to ride your Raven familiar as a steed.:smallamused:

"I rain tiny death upon you!" *Maximized Fireball appears out of a 3 inch tall wizard*

Orc/othergenericenemy: Wha?? *BOOM*


I've gotta find a way to make my DM let me pull stunts like that off...

Zeta Kai
2009-05-27, 05:16 AM
I doubt you'd get that past a DM in the real world. Or even in the Tippyverse.

However, here's an interesting use for shrink item, if you're willing to include a little basic physics. If you were able to shrink an item somehow, it's temperature would vastly increase, due to the fact that a smaller object should still have the same thermodynamic energy as the larger object, but in a much smaller amount of space. By the same reasoning, enlarge person should kill someone by flash-freezing them (which would turn them into a large corpse, which IS an object...).

hewhosaysfish
2009-05-27, 07:16 AM
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here but saying "being able to target objects does not necessarily preclude being able to target creatures" is not the same as "all spells that can target objects can also target creatures, regardless of the target line or the text of the spell's description".

Quietus
2009-05-27, 07:23 AM
I'm fairly certain that the "Object" entry you're looking at is the one given as a descriptor after the Saving Throw entry. For example, look at Disintegrate. It has the entry :


Saving Throw: Fortitude partial (object)

That (object) entry tells you that it is a spell that can affect objects - and, as clarified in the text you quoted, doesn't mean that the spell affects *only* objects, just that objects are also a valid target for the spell. You're trying to take rules out of context, which of course will result in some ridiculous rulings.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 07:51 AM
:smallconfused: What is this "shrink item"?

I have only ever heard of Enlarge as a spell that worked on anything, and was reversible and could be used as shrink.

:smallconfused:

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-27, 08:27 AM
:smallconfused: What is this "shrink item"?

I have only ever heard of Enlarge as a spell that worked on anything, and was reversible and could be used as shrink.

:smallconfused:

It's a spell that's been in D&D since third edition. Which makes it almost ten years old by this point.

And no, spells can't be reversed anymore either. Again, it's been like this for nearly ten years. :P

Another_Poet
2009-05-27, 09:24 AM
I doubt you'd get that past a DM in the real world. Or even in the Tippyverse.

However, here's an interesting use for shrink item, if you're willing to include a little basic physics. If you were able to shrink an item somehow, it's temperature would vastly increase, due to the fact that a smaller object should still have the same thermodynamic energy as the larger object, but in a much smaller amount of space. By the same reasoning, enlarge person should kill someone by flash-freezing them (which would turn them into a large corpse, which IS an object...).


No, just no.

This doesn't happen for the same reason tha Shrink Person doesn't kill the target by causing blood to explode out of their veins nor their lungs to explode from excess oxygen. The magic obviously adjusts all relevant factors.

The whole point of magic shrinking/growing is that it changes the target's size, but nothing else about them. Part of the magic is obviously a readjustment of their temperature. (And possibly the number of cells in their body, yikes).

And even if it did somehow ignore temperature while revising all other physical properties during the size-change, Englarge Person wouldn't "flash freeze" anybody. Going from human size to ogre size might drop your body temperature uncomfortably, even unsafely, but you haven't grown enough to freeze.

EarFall
2009-05-27, 09:43 AM
And even if it did somehow ignore temperature while revising all other physical properties during the size-change, Englarge Person wouldn't "flash freeze" anybody. Going from human size to ogre size might drop your body temperature uncomfortably, even unsafely, but you haven't grown enough to freeze.

Tell that to Richard Barileu, LOL

Another_Poet
2009-05-27, 09:48 AM
Tell that to Richard Barileu, LOL

Ummm... huh?

A goodle search reveals nothing. Richard Barile (no "u") has results, either a hairdresser in NY or a marijuana distributor in LA.

So, either you goofed the spelling, or my google fu is weak; either way the reference is lost on me. Can you explain?

EarFall
2009-05-27, 10:01 AM
Ummm... huh?

A goodle search reveals nothing. Richard Barile (no "u") has results, either a hairdresser in NY or a marijuana distributor in LA.

So, either you goofed the spelling, or my google fu is weak; either way the reference is lost on me. Can you explain?

Hmmm.. I probably goofed the spelling, there was a character back in 1e days named Richard (BAR-i-loo) (I assumed that lieu was spelled that way) that was notorious for always pointing out physics flaws in the game (his player anyhow) and used spells to ridiculous effects. So one day he cast enlarge on himself and that's EXACTLY what the DM did. I think he contracted a disease because he killed his immune system.

Radar
2009-05-27, 10:38 AM
It's a spell that's been in D&D since third edition. Which makes it almost ten years old by this point.

And no, spells can't be reversed anymore either. Again, it's been like this for nearly ten years. :P
IIRC there is Reduce Person spell tough.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 10:40 AM
It's a spell that's been in D&D since third edition. Which makes it almost ten years old by this point.

And no, spells can't be reversed anymore either. Again, it's been like this for nearly ten years. :P

I say that is a total crock of....stew.

Spells can be reversed by a competent player or DM.

The entire point in the past of reversible spells was so that you didn't have to print both in the book since they were just the opposite effects of each other.

That should be as plain as black and white to anyone. :smallwink:

EarFall
2009-05-27, 10:42 AM
I say that is a total crock of....stew.

Spells can be reversed by a competent player or DM.

The entire point in the past of reversible spells was so that you didn't have to print both in the book since they were just the opposite effects of each other.

That should be as plain as black and white to anyone. :smallwink:

It was also because learning spells was painful in 1e and 2e, and you could permanently fail them. This way, you only had to learn one to learn both. (Didn't really apply to cleric spells, but to wizards, it sure did).
In 3.5, "learning spells" means "crossing off some gold on your character sheet"... lol.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 10:54 AM
It was also because learning spells was painful in 1e and 2e, and you could permanently fail them. This way, you only had to learn one to learn both. (Didn't really apply to cleric spells, but to wizards, it sure did).
In 3.5, "learning spells" means "crossing off some gold on your character sheet"... lol.

Doesn't mean that if a spell to do one thng exist, its opposite does not also exist.

Vancian still only allows X number of spells per day, and you cannot learn each and every spell that exists even if you have them in your spell books....unless you are a sorcerer then you may be able to....

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-27, 11:04 AM
There are spells that do the exact opposite of other spells - there is an enlarge person spell and its opposite, reduce person, which is even the same spell level.

There's also cure light wounds and inflict light wounds, heal and harm...

Basically every single reversible spell in 2e is now simply a different spell in 3e. Because in 3e it is incredibly easy to learn new spells, so they didn't need to make some spells do double duty because you could permanently fail the roll to learn them.

(Also it is possible to know every single spell in the entire game and cast them whenever you like. You need to be a deity to do it, though.)

EarFall
2009-05-27, 11:05 AM
Doesn't mean that if a spell to do one thng exist, its opposite does not also exist.

Vancian still only allows X number of spells per day, and you cannot learn each and every spell that exists even if you have them in your spell books....unless you are a sorcerer then you may be able to....

Ummm.. a sorcerer can't even learn like... 1% of all the spells, unless I'm mistaken, their progression caps at 20th level, and is absolutely terrible for how many they know.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-27, 11:06 AM
Ummm.. a sorcerer can't even learn like... 1% of all the spells, unless I'm mistaken, their progression caps at 20th level, and is absolutely terrible for how many they know.

"Extra Spell". Take it enough times...

EarFall
2009-05-27, 11:07 AM
"Extra Spell". Take it enough times...

I guess, but really nothing stops a wizard from learning them all. If it's in your spellbook by your hand, you learned it. A wizard can learn all the spells in 3.5.
Heck, even in 1e. Start a grey elf. 19 Int, no maximum number of spells per level.

Keld Denar
2009-05-27, 11:11 AM
I'd let you cast the spell on a person. It should be noted that when differentiating between targets, a living person as a "creature" and a dead person is an "object".

Thus, if you get it cast on your wizard, that means you are dead. I can live with that. Hope you have shrunken Diamonds on your shrunken person as well.

Baron Malkar
2009-05-27, 11:19 AM
I'd let you cast the spell on a person. It should be noted that when differentiating between targets, a living person as a "creature" and a dead person is an "object".

Thus, if you get it cast on your wizard, that means you are dead. I can live with that. Hope you have shrunken Diamonds on your shrunken person as well.

And that is how the shrink item spell became a 3rd level Save or Die. *Applause*

But seriously I was thinking of using it as a debuff on a Barbarian type or buff on a rouge type.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 11:22 AM
There are spells that do the exact opposite of other spells - there is an enlarge person spell and its opposite, reduce person, which is even the same spell level.

There's also cure light wounds and inflict light wounds, heal and harm...

Basically every single reversible spell in 2e is now simply a different spell in 3e. Because in 3e it is incredibly easy to learn new spells, so they didn't need to make some spells do double duty because you could permanently fail the roll to learn them.

(Also it is possible to know every single spell in the entire game and cast them whenever you like. You need to be a deity to do it, though.)

Good lord at the waste of space in the books. No wonder the prices are going up for people more verbose, yet with les to say than Gygaxian prose.

Why do you need an enlarge person, and reduce person spell; then when you already have a spell to make thing smaller you also need one specifically for shrinking items?

One spell and description for all "make bigger" and "make smaller" needs. Then you don't have to have space taken up in books for each of these spells:

Enlarge person
Enlarge weapon
Enlarge item
Enlarge armor (just for that small armor to fit medium sized characters)

Followed by...
Shrink person
Shrink weapon
Shrink item
Shrink armor (now the halfling can wear the dead humans armor)

Why would you need each spell written down when you can do it all with one spell description for each side of the coin?

Example:
Enlarge: Increase size up to 2 times of original size. (doesn't stack)
Shrink: Reduce size up to half the original size. (doesn't stack)

Range: Touch
Target: Any tangible object (see range... you have to be able to TOUCH it)

Done! Play shrinky-dink on anything you want, or give your dagger some viagra!

:smallconfused:

ericgrau
2009-05-27, 11:40 AM
That rule doesn't start with "Object" it starts with "(object)", specifically in regard to saving throws. That means if something has will negates (object), for example, that doesn't necessarily mean the spell is only castable on objects. You need to read the rest of the spell description. And in the case of shrink item, it's quite clear that it affects objects. So, no, you can't cast it on creatures.

This does remind me of the time someone posted an epic high CR crab immune to just about everything, fast healing, high DR, and like 20 HP, melee only, high damage. I beat it with a gnome commoner 1 who readied an action to use prestidigitation to levitate it (the spell has a 1 pound limit, but it's doable) and killed it with 20d6 falling damage. Saving throw: none, SR: no. I don't think it'd actually work, but if we let object mean creature, the skies the limit on the cheesy spell applications.

Another_Poet
2009-05-27, 11:45 AM
Hmmm.. I probably goofed the spelling, there was a character back in 1e days named Richard (BAR-i-loo) (I assumed that lieu was spelled that way) that was notorious for always pointing out physics flaws in the game (his player anyhow) and used spells to ridiculous effects. So one day he cast enlarge on himself and that's EXACTLY what the DM did. I think he contracted a disease because he killed his immune system.

Nice. Nice.Nice.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-27, 12:08 PM
Good lord at the waste of space in the books. No wonder the prices are going up for people more verbose, yet with les to say than Gygaxian prose.

Why do you need an enlarge person, and reduce person spell; then when you already have a spell to make thing smaller you also need one specifically for shrinking items?

One spell and description for all "make bigger" and "make smaller" needs. Then you don't have to have space taken up in books for each of these spells:

Enlarge person
Enlarge weapon
Enlarge item
Enlarge armor (just for that small armor to fit medium sized characters)

Followed by...
Shrink person
Shrink weapon
Shrink item
Shrink armor (now the halfling can wear the dead humans armor)

Why would you need each spell written down when you can do it all with one spell description for each side of the coin?

Example:
Enlarge: Increase size up to 2 times of original size. (doesn't stack)
Shrink: Reduce size up to half the original size. (doesn't stack)

Range: Touch
Target: Any tangible object (see range... you have to be able to TOUCH it)

Done! Play shrinky-dink on anything you want, or give your dagger some viagra!

:smallconfused:

Yeah you're just being ridiculous now.

They'd need to write down the effects of each of the versions anyway. Why not make them different spells? That's only a few extra lines of text.

Also of note is that shrink item doesn't actually shrink anything - it turns it into a small cloth replica that you can carry around. There is no enlarge item spell.

Why is it that whenever you post in a rules-type thread all of your posts are about how much better earlier editions of D&D were?

Ravens_cry
2009-05-27, 12:18 PM
Also of note is that shrink item doesn't actually shrink anything - it turns it into a small cloth replica that you can carry around. There is no enlarge item spell.

You are able to shrink one nonmagical item (if it is within the size limit) to 1/16 of its normal size in each dimension (to about 1/4,000 the original volume and mass). This change effectively reduces the object’s size by four categories. Optionally, you can also change its now shrunken composition to a clothlike one. Objects changed by a shrink item spell can be returned to normal composition and size merely by tossing them onto any solid surface or by a word of command from the original caster.
Emphases is on the word 'Optionally'.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-27, 12:27 PM
Emphases is on the word 'Optionally'.



Well... huh.

The one time I didn't look up a spell before posting about it...

shadzar
2009-05-27, 12:35 PM
Yeah you're just being ridiculous now.

They'd need to write down the effects of each of the versions anyway. Why not make them different spells? That's only a few extra lines of text.

Also of note is that shrink item doesn't actually shrink anything - it turns it into a small cloth replica that you can carry around. There is no enlarge item spell.

Why is it that whenever you post in a rules-type thread all of your posts are about how much better earlier editions of D&D were?

What? You can't tell the difference in enlarging something would be 100% bigger, and shrinking would be 50% smaller?

Do you not own a dictionary?

It only needs one spell.


Enlarge

(Alteration)
Reversible


Range: 5 yds./level Components: V, S, M
Duration: 5 rds./level Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect: 1 creature or object Saving Throw: Neg.
This spell causes instant growth of a creature or object, increasing both size and weight. It can be cast only upon a single creature (or a symbiotic or community entity) or upon a single object that does not exceed 10 cubic feet in volume per caster level.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.


Reversible Spells
Unlike clerical spells, magical spells must be memorized in their reversed form to be usable in that form. The spellcaster must select the normal or reversed form of the spell when he memorizes the spell for the day. There's no problem to memorizing a spell in reversed form; if the spell can be reversed, the magic-user knows how to memorize it that way.

In the spell lists below, all spells which can be reversed are marked with an asterisk (*).


Light*

Note Rules compendium is BESMI (from 1983~) in one book

So after the spell darkness was created they decided to not just make a whole new spell for it but instead have it function the opposite of Light. Go figure.

It worked for 17 years with spells as reversible (2000-1983), and yet must be thrown out because all spells must be written out by hand as different because for 3 years it was done so under 3.0, and then 5 years under 3.5.

17>8:0

Which means 17 years being longer than 8 years is FALSE.

It worked for many people, yet new players just don't get it and must have everything spelled out for them.

That explains a lot about new players and why 4th edition exists as it does.

Did you bring your deck of cards with you the last time you played so you would know which power to use next from the ones you have in your allowed hand size?

So basically shrink item is just making things for a Robe of Useful Items?

Turning items into cloth isn't really shrinking them. Seems a silly name for a spell. :smallconfused:

Ok So it isn't forced into being cloth, but has that a an option. :smalleek: OMG, why is that all one spell instead of written out as two separate spells!

There should be shrink item ,a nd turn into into small cloth form both as spells written out since you must have each spell written out anyway! :smalleek:

Yes shrink item DOES actually shrink things. To 1/16 their original size actually. (1/4000 original mass and volume) And up to 4 size categories.

Are you just arguing some edition war or actually reading the spells before you claim what they can or cannot do? I have to borrow a 3.5 book to look at these things, but if you have them you shouldn't be making allegations about the spells and what they do or do not do without looking at them before claiming a spell like shrink item doesn't actually shrink anything. :smallconfused:

ericgrau
2009-05-27, 03:09 PM
Shrink item is for carrying mundane items. Simple. 1 function, and all the details follow this function, including the cloth option and ability to safely shrink burning fires.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-27, 05:23 PM
17>8:0

Which means 17 years being longer than 8 years is FALSE.
...

What?

Chronos
2009-05-27, 09:46 PM
Uh, shadzar, you do know that the Shrink Item spell dates back to 2nd edition at least, right? Page 150 of the Player's Handbook. It was just called "Item" in those days, and the duration was shorter, but other than that, it's pretty much identical.

So, your objection is just that in 3rd edition, they made the name a little more descriptive, then? Because I'm sure that adding that extra word to the name took up so much more space in the book.

shadzar
2009-05-27, 10:32 PM
Uh, shadzar, you do know that the Shrink Item spell dates back to 2nd edition at least, right? Page 150 of the Player's Handbook. It was just called "Item" in those days, and the duration was shorter, but other than that, it's pretty much identical.

So, your objection is just that in 3rd edition, they made the name a little more descriptive, then? Because I'm sure that adding that extra word to the name took up so much more space in the book.

In all these years I have never really noticed it. Still stupid there to have similar spells for shrinking things. It should have just turned an item into cloth without the shrink aspect, I might have remembered or used it then.

Made worse by calling the spell "Shrink item" I will say, because that isn't all it does. :smallconfused:

Maybe Explosive Runes should have been on the same page as Item and I would have seen it at l4east once. :smallredface:

Chronos
2009-05-28, 12:20 AM
Made worse by calling the spell "Shrink item" I will say, because that isn't all it does.And "Item" isn't all the spell does, either. Maybe you'd prefer if the spell were called "You are able to shrink one nonmagical item (if it is within the size limit) to 1/16 of its normal size in each dimension (to about 1/4,000 the original volume and mass)"? That might end up being a bit much to write on your character sheet.

Hawriel
2009-05-28, 01:00 AM
Cast shrink item on your admantium full plate, Mithril Chain shirt, Helm, Belt, and or cod piece. :smallamused:

shadzar
2009-05-28, 10:25 AM
And "Item" isn't all the spell does, either. Maybe you'd prefer if the spell were called "You are able to shrink one nonmagical item (if it is within the size limit) to 1/16 of its normal size in each dimension (to about 1/4,000 the original volume and mass)"? That might end up being a bit much to write on your character sheet.

The problem is, and reason I probably never saw it used; was that a spell to shrink things already existed and worked better. Why only be able to shrink an item of a non-magical nature? Just so you can make cloth fires after reaching 5th level.

I could handle the fire from 1st level with Affect Normal Fires just as easily as shrinking a non-magical fire with Item. Also I can affect magical items with the reverse of Enlarge.

Wasted spell slot is all I see unless you are wanting to earn a living making Robes of Useful Items.

Both Item and the robe I recall being created for 2nd edition. Either they were in some module and someone decided to bloat the magic lists with them or whatever reason. Enlarge/Shrink has always been there.

Nope the robe is in the DMG 1st edition. Guess Item was created just for PCs to make them....

The point being still the spell didn't offer much for the higher level other than a longer duration and ability to make things into cloth. The name never suited it.

What to name it then, I don't know because I would probably change it and remove the shrink function to just make it into a spell for making things into cloth since you already have a shrink spell. Then just call it Cloth Item.

:smallyuk: Stupid spells that should never have existed. At least the 12 year old girl made an interesting/more usefull spell that nothing existed yet for it in Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter.

Ehra
2009-05-28, 10:46 AM
This is a horrible argument that only has the slightest relation to this thread's topic.



Why is it that whenever you post in a rules-type thread all of your posts are about how much better earlier editions of D&D were?

Because they were. Get off my lawn.

Zeta Kai
2009-05-28, 11:00 AM
And even if it did somehow ignore temperature while revising all other physical properties during the size-change, Englarge Person wouldn't "flash freeze" anybody. Going from human size to ogre size might drop your body temperature uncomfortably, even unsafely, but you haven't grown enough to freeze.

Uh, no. Enlarge Person, if magical temperature adjustment is ignored, would be able to flash-freeze any water-based creature, as I shall demonstrate. A humanoid body has a certain amount of thermodynamic energy, which can be represented in this exercise by its temperature in Kelvin. The average human's body temperature is 37° Celsius, which works out to about 309K. Casting enlarge person on someone would, in this scenario, leave the same amount of thermodynamic energy in the body, which has increased in volumetric size eigthfold (2 to the third power, or 2^3). Therefore, the effective temperature of the body would be reduced eightfold, becoming 38.625K (309K divided by 8, or 309/8). At that temperature (-234.6° Celsius), oxygen is a liquid, & carbon dioxide is a solid (along with, obviously, water). Therefore, unless the Humanoid can survive such a temperature (this IS magic we're talking about, but this is extremely unlikely), you have a very large corpsicle. Which may have its own uses...

Blackfang108
2009-05-28, 11:24 AM
you have a very large corpsicle. Which may have its own uses...

Long term food Storage?

!

I'm casting Enlarge Person on the next Cow I come across. That should get me enough Fillet Mignion.

Edit: Thought.

What would the stats of a Dire Cow be, and how tasty would it be?

Ninetail
2009-05-28, 05:39 PM
It's a spell that's been in D&D since third edition. Which makes it almost ten years old by this point.


Actually, Shrink Item has been in D&D for longer than that. It used to just be "Item." I think it was introduced in the 1e Unearthed Arcana.

Ernir
2009-05-28, 10:20 PM
I thought Shrink Item was for feeding the BBEG shrunk soup. :smalltongue:

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-29, 09:47 AM
Long term food Storage?

!

I'm casting Enlarge Person on the next Cow I come across. That should get me enough Fillet Mignion.

Edit: Thought.

What would the stats of a Dire Cow be, and how tasty would it be?

Enlarge person only works on humanoids. Cows are animals, so you'd need enlarge monster.

Protip: Any spell that has a name containing "person" only works on humanoids.

Blackfang108
2009-05-29, 12:57 PM
Enlarge person only works on humanoids. Cows are animals, so you'd need enlarge monster.

Protip: Any spell that has a name containing "person" only works on humanoids.

Yeah, I remembered that right after I posted. The only caster I've played is a Duskblade, so I don't deal with person/monster often.

I would've fixed it, but I figured it goes right along with using "Shrink Item" on a person.

So, stats on the Dire Cow, anyone? Dire Steak. mmm...

BobVosh
2009-05-29, 01:16 PM
Because they were. Get off my lawn.

I lulz'd.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bison.htm
Add the dire template.

Remember: Female bisons are cows.

Zeta Kai
2009-05-29, 02:09 PM
[QUOTE=BobVosh;6178528]Add the dire template.[QUOTE]

What Dire template?

Blackfang108
2009-05-29, 04:14 PM
I lulz'd.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bison.htm
Add the dire template.

Remember: Female bisons are cows.

Where can I find the Dire Template?

(And good point. Bison's tastier anyway, IMO. Unfortunately, the closest place I know of that serves Bison is about 5 hours away...)

arguskos
2009-05-29, 04:20 PM
Add the dire template.

What Dire template?
There isn't one, actually. Strange, but they never created a Dire template for 3.5 that I am aware of.

Flickerdart
2009-05-29, 04:25 PM
Feral is just as good as Dire, and that's a template. One of the few that are worth it, too.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-29, 04:26 PM
There isn't one, actually. Strange, but they never created a Dire template for 3.5 that I am aware of.Because it doesn't do the same thing for each creature. It means basically, 'generic more-dangerous version', not and particular set of plusses.

Chronos
2009-05-29, 06:35 PM
Remember: Female bisons are cows.As are female elephants and whales.

If I wanted a dire cow (AKA aurochs), I'd just use the stats for a bison, maybe with a few extra HD of advancement on it.

And there's plenty of bison meat around here, but you have to get it ground. It's too tough for steaks.

Talic
2009-05-29, 06:53 PM
It worked for 17 years with spells as reversible (2000-1983), and yet must be thrown out because all spells must be written out by hand as different because for 3 years it was done so under 3.0, and then 5 years under 3.5.

17>8:0

Which means 17 years being longer than 8 years is FALSE.

"Because it's always been done that way (http://www.despair.com/tradition.html)" is not a good reason. There must be an additional logical reason. Tradition, in and of itself, is not indicative of the wisdom of an action or process.

And if you feel so strongly over something that's equally valid both ways, just different...

Why?

Perhaps you'd like to look at it this way.

For thousands of years, man rode horses. It got em where they needed to go. It was good.

Then someone made a train. Why, it got goods and services from point to point faster, even if it got people around at about the same rate.

6 years later, a bunch of naysayers comment on how much the car sucks. After all, horses worked just fine, all those years.

Ever hear of Innovation?