Targets defined in cubic feet

[Fero]

Does anyone know if WotC ever published rules, or if the community ever reached consensus on the limits of targets defined in cubic feet? For example, a 5th level wizard who casts Shrink Item may shrink 10 cubic feet. Does this mean the entire object must fit within 10 1 foot cubes or des one look to the actual volume of the target? For example a 1 inch diameter pole that is 11 feet long has a volume less than 10 cubic feet, but can never fit into 10 1 foot cubes. Is the pole a valid target to shrink?

[Thunder999]

It mentions nothing about 1ft cubes, so it just means actual volume.
The only thing with a minimum size is Shapeable (S) effects which have a minimum of 10ft for any dimension, but I can't think of any of those that use volume.

[Biggus]

I've never seen this discussed before, but I'm pretty sure it would depend on the specific language of the spell. Compare Fire Storm which says "Two 10-ft. cubes per level" to Shrink Item which says "up to 2 cu. ft./level". The former specifies cubes, the latter only a total volume. So you should be fine with the 11ft pole.

[Fero]

Fantastic! Thank you. Now I just need to figure out the math to determine the volumes of complex objects. . .

[Maat Mons]

There are still some questions you should probably ask your DM. For example, if you Shrink a box, do you only count the volume of the box itself, or does the interior space count as well? Also, if you Shrink a box that has stuff in it, does the stuff in the box also Shrink?

If you can use Pathfinder material, Carry Companion (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/carry-companion) might be a better way of shrinking items. You’re only limited by what you can strap to a horse.

[Biggus]

Fantastic! Thank you. Now I just need to figure out the math to determine the volumes of complex objects. . .

Personally in most cases I'd just imagine the object inside a cube and estimate roughly what proportion of the cube's volume it takes up. In most cases it will be pretty clear whether you can do it or not, it should only be in borderline cases you need to do more precise calculations.

[Mordante]

Hopefully in future editions WotC will move away from the imperial system.

[Maat Mons]

Use of the metric system would be horribly anachronistic. That wasn't created until the late 18th century. Use of feet (well, "pes") divided into 12 subunits (uncia) goes back to ancient Rome. It's really the most fitting thing for a game set in medieval times. Though, personally, I prefer the Anglo-Saxon convention of naming 1/12th of a foot a "thumb."

[Tzardok]

So what? D&D is full of anachronistic stuff. Also, at least the German translation uses the metric system. Use whatever you are comfortable with, not what would be "realistic".

[Daisy]

Use of the metric system would be horribly anachronistic. That wasn't created until the late 18th century. Use of feet (well, "pes") divided into 12 subunits (uncia) goes back to ancient Rome. It's really the most fitting thing for a game set in medieval times. Though, personally, I prefer the Anglo-Saxon convention of naming 1/12th of a foot a "thumb."

Yeah, but then look at the economy: 10cp=1sp, 10sp=1gp, etc.. Totally modern sop to avoid over-complicating things. If D&D had been invented anywhere except the USA (or Liberia or Myanmar - the only three countries in the world still in the 19th century as far as weights and measures goes) it would be metric. Historical cultures often used multiples of 12 for ease of using fractions. We still do this with time today (thank you, Babylonians).

I'm almost old-enough to remember pounds, shillings and pence (for our non-UK readers, pre-1971 the UK had 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shillings in a pound, giving 240 pence to the pound. And if you think that's crazy, a guinea is 21 shillings or 1 pound and 1 shilling, and is STILL USED TODAY in certain legal fees!). They could have adopted something like that if they wanted a more medieval feel. It was sitting there ready-made to feel Olde-World. :)

[unseenmage]

Fantastic! Thank you. Now I just need to figure out the math to determine the volumes of complex objects. . .
The old 3.0 spell Minor Servitor uses volume to animate material so I always used the creature size categories for this.

An objects creature size makes it occupy a certain volume.
For collapsible or shapable objects I use the squeezing rules.

A large volume of rope or paper might be able to squeeze down to a smaller size. How small? The squeezing rules give me a minimum squeezed volume for a creature-like volume of material.

I also use this for squeezing Constructs or undead into portable holes as per a thread linked in my sig.

Hope this helps you bypass some annoying math.

[Fero]

The old 3.0 spell Minor Servitor uses volume to anumate material so I always used the creature size categories for this.

An objects creatire size makes it occupy a certain volume.
For collapsible or sharable objects I use the squeezing rules.

A large volume of rope or paper might be able to squeeze down to a smaller size. How small? The squeezing rules give me a minimum squeezed volume for a creature-like volume of material.

I also use this for squeezing Constructs or undead into portable holes as per a thread linked in my sig.

Hope this helps you bypass some annoying math.

Thank you for the suggestion. Also, I love the thread on war spells in your signature. That is very interesting :). I wonder if my DM would let me apply that to Shrink Item.

[unseenmage]

Thank you for the suggestion. Also, I love the thread on war spells in your signature. That is very interesting :). I wonder if my DM would let me apply that to Shrink Item.

Glad you enjoyed it!
While my GM doesn't disallow them outright I rarely get to use them as there are more efficient ways to obtain penultimate power, lol.

[ericgrau]

Yeah, but then look at the economy: 10cp=1sp, 10sp=1gp, etc.. Totally modern sop to avoid over-complicating things. If D&D had been invented anywhere except the USA (or Liberia or Myanmar - the only three countries in the world still in the 19th century as far as weights and measures goes) it would be metric. Historical cultures often used multiples of 12 for ease of using fractions. We still do this with time today (thank you, Babylonians).

I'm almost old-enough to remember pounds, shillings and pence (for our non-UK readers, pre-1971 the UK had 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shillings in a pound, giving 240 pence to the pound. And if you think that's crazy, a guinea is 21 shillings or 1 pound and 1 shilling, and is STILL USED TODAY in certain legal fees!). They could have adopted something like that if they wanted a more medieval feel. It was sitting there ready-made to feel Olde-World. :)

Let's not forget a mile is defined as 8 furlongs. A furlong is 660 feet, which is how long of a furrow an animal could plow before getting tired. However it didn't match up so neatly originally, Queen Elizabeth set this standard for the mile to make things "simpler".

As much as I now want to make a character who lives life 2 furlongs at a time, there are better things to spend our attention on.

There's an episode of the Simpsons where grandpa Simpson says: "The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I like it!" Rods and hogshead are both real, though he got less than 0.01 mpg.

[Biggus]

Let's not forget a mile is defined as 8 furlongs. A furlong is 660 feet, which is how long of a furrow an animal could plow before getting tired. However it didn't match up so neatly originally, Queen Elizabeth set this standard for the mile to make things "simpler".

As much as I now want to make a character who lives life 2 furlongs at a time, there are better things to spend our attention on.

There's an episode of the Simpsons where grandpa Simpson says: "The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I like it!" Rods and hogshead are both real, though he got less than 0.01 mpg.

Speaking of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFF_system