Help with Shrink Item spell please

[Hua]

Question has to do with a container.
If you put a hundred items in a chest, and cast shrink item on the chest, does it treat everything in the chest as one item and thus shrink it all?

If so, that lets an 8th level caster shrink about a pallet of stuff, as long as it is in one container with a single spell. given the weight reduction of 1/4000, you could easily move a pallet of goods anywhere within 8 days travel time without issue. times as many times as you cast the spell.

Or, does it not shrink the contents of the container?

I can see arguments either way. Looking for additional opinions.

[BowStreetRunner]

The Shrink Item spell in the 3.5 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shrinkItem.htm) specifically calls out "a burning fire and its fuel" as being able to be shrunk by the spell. I think if a pile of burning logs could be considered a single item for the purposes of this spell, then a chest full of treasure would also be reasonable.

Note that the total size of the entire container including contents would have to remain within the limits of the spell. Likewise, everything affected would have to be nonmagical.

[Fizban]

I also noticed this reading a while back, and yeah it's totally valid as long as the DM's okay with it. Which depends on how the DM feels about letting you carry stuff around easily- oh wait "most groups" seem to completely ignore any possible inconvenience due to carrying capacity because extradimensional storage is cheap.

In fact, considering how ridiculously cheap extradimensional spaces are for all being based on a very specific 5th level spell that doesn't actually work that way in sht slightest, it would make far more sense to convert all your Bags and Haversacks to Shrink Item prerequisites. Which is supported even better if you're already using this ruling.

[ericgrau]

I agree. I think this is using the spell as intended and is not cheese.

[flappeercraft]

I see no reason for it not to work, it might also be useful to get a small box to fit all of your shrunken chests in for organization and carrying, you could even shrink that box too for even more convenience.

[Kayblis]

In my game we play with Shrink Item reducing an item and anything inside. Doesn't break the game, and solves problems that would be a pain otherwise.
As a sidenote, corpses are effectively objects. If you ever need to get rid of a murder scene, Shrink Object will turn the corpse into a small toy you can carry on your pocket, and Prestidigitation will clean the room. Yes, this works as a plot hook.

[Hua]

Any other comments?
Party is looking to go raid a mine, taking a large, sturdy chest that is already shrunk. Plan is to un-shrink it, load it up with metal, and re-shrink it. Can get away with a surprisingly large amount of metal this way.

Any comments on why that will or will not work?

[BowStreetRunner]

Any other comments?
Party is looking to go raid a mine, taking a large, sturdy chest that is already shrunk. Plan is to un-shrink it, load it up with metal, and re-shrink it. Can get away with a surprisingly large amount of metal this way.

Any comments on why that will or will not work?Keep in mind that if the Shrink Item spell is cast by itself on the chest, then "Restoring the shrunken object to its normal size and composition ends the spell." In this case, the party will need to re-cast Shrink Item again once the chest is full. Only if the Shrink Item spell is cast and then Permanency is cast upon it can the chest can be shrunk and expanded over and over again by the original caster. It would be amusing if the party fudged this and just cast it once without Permanency and didn't prepare another casting to use in the mine. Oops! :smallamused:

Another consideration worth keeping in mind is the prohibition against shrinking magic items. It would almost be worth the lulz just to toss in a magical stone of low value to have the shrinking not work at first unless the party casts detect magic and finds it. Maybe during the raid you could have an enemy firing +1 sling stones at them? :smalltongue:

[ericgrau]

Any other comments?
Party is looking to go raid a mine, taking a large, sturdy chest that is already shrunk. Plan is to un-shrink it, load it up with metal, and re-shrink it. Can get away with a surprisingly large amount of metal this way.

Any comments on why that will or will not work?

As said if you cast the spell twice and there are no magic items in the pile yeah it'll work. I presume the miners are smelting the ore and storing it has bars?

[Hua]

Yes, smelting it into bars for travel.
I don't want to ban a spell just because it is easy for the party to use. At least it will take a third level spell slot from the wizard to re-shrink it, since they are not planning on making it permanent. This is just so they can carry enough silver from the mine to make it worth the effort. And to avoid the high cost of getting a portable hole instead.


From the comments above, it looks like the consensus is to allow the spell to shrink a chest full of metal. Chest has to be sturdy to not collapse under the pre-shrunk weight when loading it, but other than that, it should work.


Thanks.

[Fizban]

The structural integrity of a shrunk item doesn't matter: any hollow item will be so thin walled it would crumple at a touch, which is why the spell has the clothlike option, so you can shrink things without them shattering. Pre-shrinking it doesn't really matter much either, unless you specifically decide that in order for a filled container to count as a single item the container must be able to take the weight normally. Which is probably sensible.

[BowStreetRunner]

The structural integrity of a shrunk item doesn't matter: any hollow item will be so thin walled it would crumple at a touch, which is why the spell has the clothlike option, so you can shrink things without them shattering. Pre-shrinking it doesn't really matter much either, unless you specifically decide that in order for a filled container to count as a single item the container must be able to take the weight normally. Which is probably sensible.Actually, Shrink Item has no affect whatsoever on an object's Hardness or Hit Points. So while a shrunken chest might seem like it would be more fragile, this isn't actually the case. You are basically altering the objects physical dimensions along all three axes, while simultaneously reducing its mass and volume, without changing anything else.

[Segev]

I'm 86% sure that the "cloth-like" option is for two reasons: 1) to help with the shrunken campfire so that it doesn't seem weird that it's not consuming anything, and 2) because it was used in earlier editions to make the Robe of Useful Items.

[Fizban]

Shrink Item has no affect whatsoever on an object's Hardness or Hit Points.
It has no stated effect, but it also lacks any statement to change the normal item rules where hit points and break DC are based on size (break DC being the actual important part, since snapping thin wood is not difficult at all regardless of a standard hardness of 5 and minimum 1hp). Ruling that shrunk items retain their original durability is effectively ruling that Shrink Item multiplies their shrunk hit points by 16 and and increases the break DC by some amount, which seems pretty absurd.

Since I don't like the world building/silly exploit attempts suggested by that ruling (oh we built all this stuff at 16x normal size so we could shrink it and make everything super tough!), I wouldn't be using that ruling, especially when there are already spells to increase durability (Augment Object in SBG, at the same level) . You don't need to get an extra ruling to use the clothlike form, it has no penalty, and since the stats/durability of a given object is so heavily DM based to begin with I don't see any reason to even bring it up when one could just play it safe.

As for where it originated, anyone got the 1e/2e text for the relevant spells and items? 'Cause that would be interesting to look at.