What does # cu. ft. even mean?

[Private-Prinny]

Silent Image has a volume in 10 foot cubes. That means 10x10x10 cubes, which have to have those dimensions.

Minor Creation has a volume in cubic feet, which can have any dimensions you want as long as x*y*z<your caster level.

If you can't think of a way to exploit a spell in cubic feet, that's your problem. I'll just go ahead and use standard action, 100% real Shadow Illusions to use Major Creation to get free shopping.

[Ravingdork]

Using cubic feet in the context of a roleplaying game is so difficult to adjudicate accurately that it essentially becomes meaningless for anything other than solid cubed boulders and liquids. Most objects that you would want to create/mend/shrink are too complex for most any roleplayer or GM to be able to determine it's volume on the fly.

It basically comes down to asking your GM if any particular casting is legal and hoping it thinks the object is within your limits.

I think that's why the game designer told me that it's supposed to mean whatever fits in a nice neat cube--it is infinitely easier to adjudicate.

I mean, seriously, can you tell me accurately, what the volume is for the following object is on the fly, in under 20 seconds?

- A 3' high chair
- A 2x2' chest.
- A rowboat
- A suit of medium full plate
- A life sized bronze statue of a hydra
- A carriage
- A bowl of popcorn

Even if you do end up giving me fairly accurate estimates, I'm willing to bet you didn't determine them quickly enough for it to be practical during play.

Once something is so complex as to be arbitrary within the game, it needs to be either removed or changed. The vast majority of the spells that use the "cu. ft." terminology could just as easily have used weight limitations or cube limitations (where whatever you are working with HAS to fit entirely inside the cube).

[Private-Prinny]

Using cubic feet in the context of a roleplaying game is so difficult to adjudicate accurately that it essentially becomes meaningless for anything other than solid cubed boulders and liquids. Most objects that you would want to create/mend/shrink are too complex for most any roleplayer or GM to be able to determine it's volume on the fly.

It basically comes down to asking your GM if any particular casting is legal and hoping it thinks the object is within your limits.

I think that's why the game designer told me that it's supposed to mean whatever fits in a nice neat cube--it is infinitely easier to adjudicate.

I mean, seriously, can you tell me accurately, what the volume is for the following object is on the fly, in under 20 seconds?

- A 3' high chair
- A 2x2' chest.
- A rowboat
- A suit of medium full plate
- A life sized bronze statue of a hydra
- A carriage
- A bowl of popcorn

Even if you do end up giving me fairly accurate estimates, I'm willing to bet you didn't determine them quickly enough for it to be practical during play.

Once something is so complex as to be arbitrary within the game, it needs to be either removed or changed. The vast majority of the spells that use the "cu. ft." terminology could just as easily have used weight limitations or cube limitations (where whatever you are working with HAS to fit entirely inside the cube).

If 20 cubic feet was supposed to say "a 20 foot cube," which they have no issue whatsoever saying in other spell descriptions, why would they bother writing it differently? By RAW, it is not one giant, exponentially growing cube. It's still plenty powerful if you decide to put a little thought into it.

[jiriku]

Using cubic feet in the context of a roleplaying game is so difficult to adjudicate accurately that it essentially becomes meaningless for anything other than solid cubed boulders and liquids. Most objects that you would want to create/mend/shrink are too complex for most any roleplayer or GM to be able to determine it's volume on the fly.

It basically comes down to asking your GM if any particular casting is legal and hoping it thinks the object is within your limits.

I think that's why the game designer told me that it's supposed to mean whatever fits in a nice neat cube--it is infinitely easier to adjudicate.

I mean, seriously, can you tell me accurately, what the volume is for the following object is on the fly, in under 20 seconds?

- A 3' high chair
- A 2x2' chest.
- A rowboat
- A suit of medium full plate
- A life sized bronze statue of a hydra
- A carriage
- A bowl of popcorn

Even if you do end up giving me fairly accurate estimates, I'm willing to bet you didn't determine them quickly enough for it to be practical during play.

Once something is so complex as to be arbitrary within the game, it needs to be either removed or changed. The vast majority of the spells that use the "cu. ft." terminology could just as easily have used weight limitations or cube limitations (where whatever you are working with HAS to fit entirely inside the cube).

Ahem. I realize that your question is rhetorical. However, I already gave you the volume of the rowboat, and the Medium full plate. the Huge statue could be extrapolated from the volume I gave you for a large statue simply by multiplying by 8. I also gave you several examples of volumes of lumber, from which you could quickly infer the chair and the chest. Using the magic of the internet, I figured all of these things in less than a minute each. Of your other items, the bowl of popcorn is manifestly less than one cubic foot, and only the carriage is difficult.

Frankly, RavingDork, if you like the spells, you can sit down and be friends with Mr. Google for 5 minutes, make a list of the volumes of 10 or 20 common objects just like I did, and you're good to go. If you don't like doing a little math...well, you can confine yourself to small objects that are obviously within your size limit, or you can ask your DM to set some guidelines for you. Or you can play a class that doesn't ask you to use geometry. Hey, I know you're bitter about a perceived nerf to your favorite spells, but you're reacting pretty emotionally to something that can be solved quickly with medium amounts of logic and small amounts of elbow grease. I can nerd rage with the best of them too, but it really doesn't seem justified.

[DaedalusMkV]

So when referring to a cube, 20 feet on a side, how is it properly stated? We know it's not 20 cubic feet (which only gives us a cube, ~2.71 feet to a side).

That would be a 20-foot cube, or a 20x20x20 cube, or possibly a cube with sides measuring 20 feet in length. 20 feet cubed, 20 cu ft or 20 ft^3 would refer to 20 cubic feet. Again, if you want units talk to a physicist or chemist; math majors stop worrying about units after their first class, and never use them again.

Can I go back to working in meters like a sane man now?

[sofawall]

A 20th-level wizard should be shrinking large boats, not small chairs.

a) 20th level wizards should have CL boosters.
b) Polymorph any object.
c) A small chair is much much less that 20 cu. ft. A large chair might not fit in a 3.5 ft. cube, but it does fit in 20 cu. ft. For boats, just don't shrink the air inside! You can get a decently sized boat shrunk that way. For reference, this is 20 cu. ft. of dirt. Now imagine a chair made of that much dirt. It's a fairly large chair.

[DragoonWraith]

Using cubic feet in the context of a roleplaying game is so difficult to adjudicate accurately that it essentially becomes meaningless

Uhm. Well, honestly, it seems like you're the only one who's having problems, and... it seems like you're having problems because you're refusing to accept that it doesn't work the way you want it to. I don't think the unit of measure is unusable, at all...

[tbarrie]

That would be a 20-foot cube, or a 20x20x20 cube, or possibly a cube with sides measuring 20 feet in length. 20 feet cubed, 20 cu ft or 20 ft^3 would refer to 20 cubic feet. Again, if you want units talk to a physicist or chemist; math majors stop worrying about units after their first class, and never use them again.

Can I go back to working in meters like a sane man now?

It's D&D. The medievalesque units add to the fantasy ambience.

[huttj509]

a) 20th level wizards should have CL boosters.
b) Polymorph any object.
c) A small chair is much much less that 20 cu. ft. A large chair might not fit in a 3.5 ft. cube, but it does fit in 20 cu. ft. For boats, just don't shrink the air inside! You can get a decently sized boat shrunk that way. For reference, this is 20 cu. ft. of dirt. Now imagine a chair made of that much dirt. It's a fairly large chair.

Tell me you did not dump 20 ft^3 of dirt on your driveway just to take a picture to use in an internet argument, please.

[rubycona]

Tell me you did not dump 20 ft^3 of dirt on your driveway just to take a picture to use in an internet argument, please.

Hehe! That'd be hilarious.

I have to agree with most of the posters here. The 20*1*1 approach makes the most sense, and a bunch of the stuff in D&D is randomly determined by the DM, anyway. As a DM, I have to randomly BS my way through a lot of garbage. "How many knives are in this kitchen drawer?" Me: Why the hell... "Um, 5 knives."

If a player asked me if X item were shrinkable via the Shrink Item spell, I'd have to do the exact same thing... pull a number out of my rear, and go with it. When the player disagrees, we go to Google. That simple.

[Ormur]

Using cubic feet in the context of a roleplaying game is so difficult to adjudicate accurately that it essentially becomes meaningless for anything other than solid cubed boulders and liquids.

Yes they should have used litres or cubic metres.

Seriously though while measuring the volume of the object is the most sensible way of determining the effect of those spells you may be right in it being inconvenient. However I don't quite like the idea of using things that fit in cubes since it would make it harder to affect unusually shaped volumes. Using weight might be better but it would still mean the DM would have to determine how heavy the objects are and it would create a discrepancy between dense and less dense materials (what's the antonym for dense?). Would you be much quicker to determine how heavy the objects you mentioned are.

I haven't used those spells much and I don't think my friends would be to annoyed with a little pause in the game for determining the volume of some object. It might be different in other groups.
Although I also think that because of the measurements used in D&D I'd have to stop the game anyway to convert the volume to the SI system. It's the same for any measurements that don't relate to the battle map really.

[jiriku]

Tell me you did not dump 20 ft^3 of dirt on your driveway just to take a picture to use in an internet argument, please.

No sir! Sofawall is a smart cookie. He dumped 20 cubic feet of dirt in his neighbor's yard.

[Thrawn183]

If you grew up doing yard work where your parents loved to order yards of dirt, mulch and gravel like I did... you'd never underestimate just how much is in a single cubic yard. NEVER.

On a side note, when my parents moved to Albuquerque, my father ordered 15 dump truck loads of gravel for our yard. Yes. 15.

[DaedalusMkV]

Indeed, 20 cubic feet is quite a bit, as long as you only count actual volume and ignore wasted space. For reference, you can fit the following items into 10 cubic feet:
Two people sitting on chairs, in full plate armour, carrying a sword each.
A small catapult or ballista
A small catamaran or a slightly smaller other sailboat.
2-3 Dinghies
20+ inflatable rafts
A large shack or cottage
Over 9000 sheets of paper

[science] Of course, if we assume that the spell can shrink 1 cubic foot of matter per caster level, ignoring empty space, we can thus ignore the 99.99...% of everything in existance that is empty space. Using this approach, a 20th level wizard can shrink all of the matter in the universe, at once. An even more effective method of killing all life on the planet than a wall of force; at 5th level a Wizard can cut the size of the planet to 1/8th of its current size, causing everything to fly off into space as it will now be outside of the planet's vastly reduced gravity well, as well as destabilizing its orbit thanks to the instanataneous change in mass! [/science]

[Ravingdork]

Wow.

[Manga Shoggoth]

20 feet cubed is a volume of 20 * 20 * 20

20 cubic feet is a volume of 20 * 1 * 1, or ~2.71 feet cubed


For calculation purposes:

The spell creates [whatever volume] of material. Given the [average] density of the material you can find out how much this amount of material weighs.

If you know the weight of the item you need the material for you can tell if you have enough for the purpose you want.

[Taelas]

"20 feet cubed" is just another way of saying "20 cubic feet". It means "20 feet^3", not "(20 feet)^3". I don't see how it can be understood in any other way -- that's just how English works.

What you mean is a 20-ft. cube, or a cube that is 20 ft. per side.

This has already been said before in this thread.

[potatocubed]

In short, these spells are just not as good as you thought they were. However, they're still quite useful. One simply has to use finesse instead of brute-forcing it.

Or you can take advantage of the fact that 20 cubic feet is a more flexible volume than just 'a cube'.

A CL 20th stone shape can affect approximately 3 x 3 x 3 feet of stone. Or it can affect a plane of stone 18 feet by 18 feet by 1 inch, which is enough to slice the side off a two-storey building or carve loose a 10 foot by 10 foot block of stone from a 2 foot thick wall.

Better yet, a CL 5th casting of stone shape can do a plane 13 feet by 13 feet by 1 inch, or a 9 foot by 9 foot block from a 2 foot wall. Once you start getting clever, caster level becomes less important.

Sure, you're going to need somebody to give the resulting block a push before you can get past, but so long as the height/base ratio is large enough it'll tip without much effort at all.

You can cheerfully abuse this with a wand, which will make a mockery of any stone-based fortifications, or you can try to convince your GM to let you make micron-thin volumes and slice the sides off mountains. (Technically RAW, I think, but good luck persuading anyone to let it fly.) I put the limit at 1 inch; I find this allows cleverness but stops things from getting too absurd.

[huttj509]

20 feet cubed, as written, is a confusing method of stating things.

20 feet, cubed, would be 8000 cu. ft. The comma between feet and cubed is important.

20 (feet cubed), which would be how someone might say 20 ft^3 (dunno how to do superscript), is different. This would be 20 cubic feet, 20 ft^3, or 20 cu. ft. Those are all ways of stating or abbreviating the same unit.

It is simply an improper way of stating a unit because it can have different meanings based on assumed punctuation.

John, while Eric had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.

Remove the punctuation and you just have a confusing string of "had"s, while with punctuation it can make some sort of sense (say they're in a grammar class or something).

The actual text (from 3.5 PHB) says "1 touched object of up to 2 cu. ft./level". This is unambiguous, and thus any discussion about "20 feet cubed" is irrelevant. A cubic foot is a unit of measure of volume defined as the volume that would be contained in a cube that is 1 foot on an edge.

Now, I do agree that english units are *muckle muckle* for purposes of calculations, but for most usage of these various spells an assumption of 3 feet ~ 1 meter works fine for approximations, so 9 cubic feet is 1 cubic meter, or 1 cubic foot is about 36,000 cubic centimeters, if you're more comfortable working in metric. Hmmm, thought the cm conversion would help because I for one have more trouble visualising 1/3 meter than 1 foot offhand (used to english units for general usage, silly Americans making things hard) but it kinda goes from too small parts of the unit to too many units when using volume.

Edit: and being a DnD based thread my brain wanted to write "feat" instead of "feet" each time.

[rubycona]

I've never had any questions about this myself. It's pretty straightforward.

A cu. foot is a measure of volume. Straight up. If you double the volume, you have twice as much. Everyone agrees with that statement? Good, because that's how volume works.

If you call "doubling" a 20'-on-each-side cube to be 40'-on-each-side, you are WAY more than doubling. You're going from 8,000 cu. feet (the measurement of volume), to 64,000 cu. feet (again, the measure of volume). That is 8X the amount. If volume confuses you... say the 20'-on-each-side substance weights 20 lbs. A 40'-on-each-side will NOT weigh 40 lbs, it will weigh 160 lbs.

That alone pretty much decides this flat out. 40*1*1 is double 20*1*1, and 40*40*40 is 8 times 20*20*20. Since doubling volume = twice as much is a true statement, then only the 20*1*1 example can be true.

Which makes it Blatantly obvious to me that since it's obviously trying to talk about volume, it's talking about measurements of volume. Having taken a number of university chemistry classes, volume is pretty straightforward. It's some distance measurement (feet, meters, centimeters, whatever) cubed. For instance, cubic centimeters (usually seen as cc, as in, "3 cc's of this medication, please!").

And that's what this is. A distance measurement (feet) cubed. It is therefore a volume measurement, and it should therefore be regarded mathematically as volume.

Math doesn't deal with volumes much. I can assure you, chemists deal with volumes regularly. Very regularly.

Edit: In case anyone fusses about the fact that liters are also used in chemistry, let me remind you that the liters measurement is a derivative of cubed distance. The measure is 1 cubic centimeter = 1 milliliter. Volume can be measured most easily by measuring the lengths of the walls of a container, and from there, getting the (distance)^3 measurement. From that point, it can be converted into liters. (And of course, because it's chemistry, you can convert these things into just about whatever you like, via density measurements, etc. I can go on. I'm not going to.)

[science] In case anyone cares why we convert it into liters, it's because of this very problem, actually. People get confused about multiples of cubic measurements, for instance, people think 100 cubic centimeters = 1 cubic meter, because a meter is 100 centimeters. This is FALSE. 1 cubic meter is actually way, way, way more than that. As I recall, the math is a cubic meter is 100^3 cubic centimeters, or 1,000,000 cubic centimeters. Liters, being the converted form, don't have this problem, hence their usage[/science]

Edit2: Still sciency here. The math for increasing volume in more than 1 dimension (3, for our 3D world) is percentage increase (1=100%)^(# of dimensions). So, increasing a 20*1*1 to 40*1*1 is 2^1, or just 2. 20*1*1 going to 40*2*1 is doubling on 2 dimensions, so it's 2^2, or 4 times. And finally, 20*1*1 going to 40*2*2 is doubling in 3 dimensions, which is 2^3, or 8 times. And that is why "doubling" the size of something (by all 3 dimensions) increases the weight (and volume) by 8 times.

Now that the math is listed out, there really should be no further disagreement. Hopefully. Sorry for getting so numbers intensive there XD

Edit3: Corrected my centimeters/meters math. Gah, I cannot believe I missed that -.-

[Doug Lampert]

Using cubic feet in the context of a roleplaying game is so difficult to adjudicate accurately that it essentially becomes meaningless for anything other than solid cubed boulders and liquids.

{Scrubbed}

[Ravingdork]

{Scrubbed}

It's not hard, it's hard to do on the fly. Most games will end up having the GM giving the player an arbitrary "yes it works" or "no it doesn't." That tells me that a simpler method should have been used to begin with.

Also, not everyone has internet access during their games (I'm forbidden from using my laptop at the table, for example, because the GM thinks I might be tempted to look up monster stats in the SRD).

[Ravingdork]

But hey, if you DO have internet at the table, or are planning your neat trick way in advance of the game's start, then you can find stuff rather easily:

Material Specific Gravity lb. per cf-
Acetic acid, 90% 1.06 66.3
Alcohol, ethyl 0.789 49.0
Alcohol, methyl 0.791 49.0
Alfalfa, ground 0.26 16.0
Alum, lumpy 0.88 55.0
Alum, pulverized 0.75 47.0
Alumina 0.96 60.0
Aluminum, solid 2.64 165.0
Aluminum, oxide 1.52 95
Ammonia gas 0.00 0.048
Ammonium sulfate 0.83 52
Andesite, solid 2.77 173
Antimony, cast 6.70 418
Apple wood, dry 0.71 44
Apples 0.64 40
Arsenic 5.67 354
Asbestos, shredded 0.35 22
Asbestos, solid 2.45 153
Ash wood, black, dry 0.54 34
Ash wood, white, dry 0.67 42
Ashes 0.66 41
Aspen wood 0.42 26
Asphalt, crushed 0.72 45
Babbitt 7.28 454
Bagasse 0.12 7.5
Bakelite, solid 1.36 85
Baking powder 0.72 45
Barium 3.78 236
Bark, wood refuse 0.24 15
Barley 0.61 38
Barite, crushed 2.88 180
Basalt, broken 1.96 122
Basalt, solid 3.01 188
Bauxite, crushed 1.28 80
Beans, castor 0.58 36
Beans, cocoa 0.59 37
Beans, navy 0.80 50
Beans, soy 0.72 45
Beeswax 0.96 60
Beets 0.72 45
Bentonite 0.59 37
Bicarbonate of soda 0.69 43
Birch wood, yellow 0.71 44
Bismuth 9.79 611
Bones, pulverized 0.88 55
Borax, fine 0.85 53
Bran 0.26 16
Brass, cast 8.56 534
Brass, rolled 8.56 534
Brewers grain 0.43 27
Brick, common red 1.92 120
Brick, fire clay 2.40 150
Brick, silica 2.05 128
Brick, chrome 2.80 175
Brick, magnesia 2.56 160
Bronze 8.16 509
Buckwheat 0.66 41
Butter 0.87 54
Cadmium 8.65 540
Calcium carbide 1.20 75
Caliche 1.44 90
Carbon, solid 2.15 134
Carbon, powdered 0.08 5
Carbon dioxide 0.00 0.1234
Carbon monoxide 0.00 0.0781
Cardboard 0.69 43
Cedar, red 0.38 24
Cement, Portland 3.15 94
Cement, mortar 2.16 135
Cement, slurry 1.44 90
Chalk, solid 2.50 156
Chalk, lumpy 1.44 90
Chalk, fine 1.12 70
Charcoal 0.21 13
Cherry wood, dry 0.56 35
Chestnut wood, dry 0.48 30
Chloroform 1.52 95
Chocolate, powder 0.64 40
Chromic acid, flake 1.20 75
Chromium 6.86 428
Chromium ore 2.16 135
Cinders, furnace 0.91 57
Cinders, Coal, ash 0.64 40
Clay, dry excavated 1.09 68
Clay, wet excavated 1.83 114
Clay, dry lump 1.07 67
Clay, fire 1.36 85
Clay, wet lump 1.60 100
Clay, compacted 1.75 109
Clover seed 0.77 48
Coal, Anthracite, solid 1.51 94
Coal, Anthracite, broken 1.11 69
Coal, Bituminous, solid 1.35 84
Coal, Bituminous, broken 0.83 52
Cobalt 8.75 546
Coconut, meal 0.51 32
Coconut, shredded 0.35 22
Coffee, fresh beans 0.56 35
Coffee, roast beans 0.43 27
Coke 0.42 26
Concrete, Asphalt 2.24 140
Concrete, Gravel 2.40 150
Concrete, Limestone w/Portland 2.37 148
Copper, cast 8.69 542
Copper, rolled 8.91 556
Copper sulfate, ground 3.60 225
Copra, medium size 0.53 33
Copra, meal, ground 0.64 40
Copra, expeller cake ground 0.51 32
Copra, expeller cake chopped 0.46 29
Cork, solid 0.24 15
Cork, ground 0.16 10
Corn, on the cob 0.72 45
Corn, shelled 0.72 45
Corn, grits 0.67 42
Cottonseed, dry, de-linted 0.56 35
Cottonseed, dry, not de-linted 0.32 20
Cottonseed, cake, lumpy 0.67 42
Cottonseed, hulls 0.19 12
Cottonseed, meal 0.59 37
Cottonseed, meats 0.64 40
Cottonwood 0.42 26
Cryolite 1.60 100
Cullet 1.60 100
Culm 0.75 47
Cypress wood 0.51 32
Dolomite, solid 2.90 181
Dolomite, pulverized 0.74 46
Dolomite, lumpy 1.52 95
Earth, loam, dry, excavated 1.25 78
Earth, moist, excavated 1.44 90
Earth, wet, excavated 1.60 100
Earth, dense 2.00 125
Earth, soft loose mud 1.73 108
Earth, packed 1.52 95
Earth, Fullers, raw 0.67 42
Ebony wood 0.96 60
Elm, dry 0.56 35
Emery 4.01 250
Ether 0.74 46
Feldspar, solid 2.56 160
Feldspar, pulverized 1.23 77
Fertilizer, acid phosphate 0.96 60
Fir, Douglas 0.53 33
Fish, scrap 0.72 45
Fish, meal 0.59 37
Flaxseed, whole 0.72 45
Flour, wheat 0.59 37
Fluorspar, solid 3.21 200
Fluorspar, lumps 1.60 100
Fluorspar, pulverized 1.44 90
Garbage 0.48 30
Glass, window 2.58 161
Glue, animal, flaked 0.56 35
Glue, vegetable, powdered 0.64 40
Gluten, meal 0.63 39
Gneiss, bed in place 2.87 179
Gneiss, broken 1.86 116
Gold, pure 24Kt 19.29 1204
Granite, solid 2.69 168
Granite, broken 1.65 103
Graphite, flake 0.64 40
Gravel, loose, dry 1.52 95
Gravel, w/sand, natural 1.92 120
Gravel, dry 1/4 to 2 inch 1.68 105
Gravel, wet 1/4 to 2 inch 2.00 125
Gypsum, solid 2.79 174
Gypsum, broken 1.81 113
Gypsum, crushed 1.60 100
Gypsum, pulverized 1.12 70
Halite (salt), solid 2.32 145
Halite (salt), broken 1.51 94
Hydrochloric acid 40% 1.20 75
Ice, solid 0.92 57.4
Ice, crushed 0.59 37
Ilmenite 2.31 144
Iridium 22.16 1383
Iron, cast 7.21 450
Iron, wrought 7.77 485
Iron oxide pigment 0.40 25
Ivory 1.84 115
Kaolin, green crushed 1.03 64
Kaolin, pulverized 0.35 22
Lead, cast 11.35 708
Lead, rolled 11.39 711
Lead, red 3.69 230
Lead, white pigment 4.09 255
Leather 0.95 59
Lignite, dry 0.80 50
Lignum Vitae, dry 1.28 80
Lime, quick, lump 0.85 53
Lime, quick, fine 1.20 75
Lime, stone, large 2.69 168
Lime, stone, lump 1.54 96
Lime, hydrated 0.48 30
Limonite, solid 3.80 237
Limonite, broken 2.47 154
Limestone, solid 2.61 163
Limestone, broken 1.55 97
Limestone, pulverized 1.39 87
Linseed, whole 0.75 47
Linseed, meal 0.51 32
Locust, dry 0.71 44
Magnesite, solid 3.01 188
Magnesium, solid 1.75 109
Magnesium sulfate, crystal 1.12 70
Magnetite, solid 5.05 315
Magnetite, broken 3.29 205
Mahogany, Spanish, dry 0.85 53
Mahogany, Honduras, dry 0.54 34
Malt 0.34 21
Manganese, solid 7.61 475
Manganese oxide 1.92 120
Manure 0.40 25
Maple, dry 0.71 44
Marble, solid 2.56 160
Marble, broken 1.57 98
Marl, wet, excavated 2.24 140
Mercury @ 32oF 13.61 849
Mica, solid 2.88 180
Mica, broken 1.60 100
Milk, powdered 0.45 28
Molybdenum 10.19 636
Mortar, wet 2.40 150
Mud, packed 1.91 119
Mud, fluid 1.73 108
Nickel, rolled 8.67 541
Nickel silver 8.45 527
Nitric acid, 91% 1.51 94
Nitrogen 0.00 0.0784
Oak, live, dry 0.95 59
Oak, red 0.71 44
Oats 0.43 27
Oats, rolled 0.30 19
Oil cake 0.79 49
Oil, linseed 0.94 58.8
Oil, petroleum 0.88 55
Oxygen 0.00 0.0892
Oyster shells, ground 0.85 53
Paper, standard 1.20 75
Paraffin 0.72 45
Peanuts, shelled 0.64 40
Peanuts, not shelled 0.27 17
Peat, dry 0.40 25
Peat, moist 0.80 50
Peat, wet 1.12 70
Pecan wood 0.75 47
Phosphate rock, broken 1.76 110
Phosphorus 2.34 146
Pine, White, dry 0.42 26
Pine, Yellow Northern, dry 0.54 34
Pine, Yellow Southern, dry 0.72 45
Pitch 1.15 72
Plaster 0.85 53
Platinum 21.51 1342
Porcelain 2.40 150
Porphyry, solid 2.55 159
Porphyry, broken 1.65 103
Potash 1.28 80
Potassium chloride 2.00 125
Potatoes, white 0.77 48
Pumice, stone 0.64 40
Quartz, solid 2.64 165
Quartz, lump 1.55 97
Quartz sand 1.20 75
Redwood, California, dry 0.45 28
Resin, synthetic, crushed 0.56 35
Rice, hulled 0.75 47
Rice, rough 0.58 36
Rice grits 0.69 43
Rip-Rap 1.60 100
Rosin 1.07 67
Rubber, caoutchouc 0.95 59
Rubber, manufactured 1.52 95
Rubber, ground scrap 0.48 30
Rye 0.71 44
Salt cake 1.44 90
Salt, course 0.80 50
Salt, fine 1.20 75
Saltpeter 1.20 75
Sand, wet 1.92 120
Sand, wet, packed 2.08 130
Sand, dry 1.60 100
Sand, loose 1.44 90
Sand, rammed 1.68 105
Sand, water filled 1.92 120
Sand w/ Gravel, dry 1.73 108
Sand w/ Gravel, wet 2.00 125
Sandstone, solid 2.32 145
Sandstone, broken 1.51 94
Sawdust 0.27 17
Sewage, sludge 0.72 45
Shale, solid 2.68 167
Shale, broken 1.59 99
Silver 10.46 653
Slag, solid 2.12 132
Slag, broken 1.76 110
Slag, crushed, 1/4 inch 1.19 74
Slag, furn. granulated 0.96 60
Slate, solid 2.69 168
Slate, broken 1.67 104
Slate, pulverized 1.36 85
Snow, freshly fallen 0.16 10
Snow, compacted 0.48 30
Soap, solid 0.80 50
Soap, chips 0.16 10
Soap, flakes 0.16 10
Soap, powdered 0.37 23
Soda Ash, heavy 0.96 60
Soda Ash, light 0.43 27
Sodium 0.98 61
Sodium Aluminate, ground 1.15 72
Sodium Nitrate, ground 1.20 75
Soybeans, whole 0.75 47
Spruce, California, dry 0.45 28
Starch, powdered 0.56 35
Steel, cast 7.85 490
Steel, rolled 7.93 495
Stone, crushed 1.60 100
Sugar, brown 0.72 45
Sugar, powdered 0.80 50
Sugar, granulated 0.85 53
Sugar, raw cane 0.96 60
Sugarbeet pulp, dry 0.21 13
Sugarbeet pulp, wet 0.56 35
Sugarcane 0.27 17
Sulfur, solid 2.00 125
Sulfur, lump 1.31 82
Sulfur, pulverized 0.96 60
Sulfuric acid, 87% 1.79 112
Sycamore, dry 0.59 37
Taconite 2.80 175
Talc, solid 2.69 168
Talc, broken 1.75 109
Tanbark, ground 0.88 55
Tankage 0.96 60
Tar 1.15 72
Tin, cast 7.36 459
Tobacco 0.32 20
Trap rock, solid 2.88 180
Trap rock, broken 1.75 109
Tungsten 19.62 1224
Turf 0.40 25
Turpentine 0.87 54
Vanadium 5.50 343
Walnut, black, dry 0.61 38
Water, pure 1.00 62.4
Water, sea 1.03 64.08
Wheat 0.77 48
Wheat, cracked 0.67 42
Willow wood 0.42 26
Wool 1.31 82
Zinc, cast 7.05 440
Zinc oxide 0.40 25

[Kylarra]

spoiler tag that list please.

[huttj509]

*generally good stuff*

Psst, 1 meter is 100 centimeters, not 1000, so 1 cubic meter is 1,000,000 cubic cm, not 1,000,000,000.

kilo = 1000
hecto = 100
deca = 10
deci = 1/10
centi = 1/100
milli = 1/1000

[HenryHankovitch]

For boats, just don't shrink the air inside! You can get a decently sized boat shrunk that way.

"Okay, so I cast shrink item on the boat, but not the air inside."

"Your boat instantly shrinks to a tiny fraction of its former size. It then instantly explodes in your hand as the compressed air inside cannot escape fast enough. Let's see, the damage from that should be..."

I don't think I'd ever allow someone to ignore airspaces when figuring the volume of the item to be shrunk. But I may just be a jerk that way. The object has to fit within (2*CL) cu. ft. Otherwise you're just asking to argue with your player how much "solid" is inside, say, the Eiffel Tower. Or 500 suits of full plate.

[rubycona]

{Scrubbed}

I think this makes more sense for the layman in context of an example:

Say, wood. I typed in Google, "Density of Pine," and of the results, I picked 530 (which this site clarifies is, 530kg/cubic meter.) Well, we have our spell in cubic feet, not meters. So let's convert to cubic meters. Say, we've got 20 cu feet for our spell.

I plug that into Google (20 cubic feet to cubic meters), and I get 0.566336 cubic meters. So, I multiply 0.566366 times 530kg/cubic meter, which gives me the result in kilograms, or 300.158 kgs. Say you don't like kilograms, so type into Google, 300.158 kg to pounds, which gets 661.735 pounds.

That's a light wood. So let's try again, a heavier one. Let's go with Oak, upwards of 930kg/cu meter. Let's do our math here:

20 cu feet -> cu meters = 0.566336. Multiply that by the 930 we got from the search result, for 526.69kgs. Plug in 526.69kg to lbs and you get 1,161 lbs.

2 minutes on Google and you know you can shrink, as a 10th level caster, 661 lbs of pine, and 1,161 lbs of oak. Not bad! By 20th level, that doubles, more if you've got CL increases.

Edit:

Psst, 1 meter is 100 centimeters, not 1000, so 1 cubic meter is 1,000,000 cubic cm, not 1,000,000,000.

kilo = 1000
hecto = 100
deca = 10
deci = 1/10
centi = 1/100
milli = 1/1000

ACK! Yes, gah, for some reason, I was thinking millimeters for that part XD Forgive me! I didn't plug it in, it was coming from memory. I'll go fix it.

[jiriku]

"Okay, so I cast shrink item on the boat, but not the air inside."

"Your boat instantly shrinks to a tiny fraction of its former size. It then instantly explodes in your hand as the compressed air inside cannot escape fast enough. Let's see, the damage from that should be..."

I don't think I'd ever allow someone to ignore airspaces when figuring the volume of the item to be shrunk. But I may just be a jerk that way. The object has to fit within (2*CL) cu. ft. Otherwise you're just asking to argue with your player how much "solid" is inside, say, the Eiffel Tower. Or 500 suits of full plate.

That's easy. The Eiffel Tower is much too large to shrink. Steel weighs 490 pounds per cubic foot and a suit of full plate weights 50 pounds, therefore 500 suits of full plate are about 52 cubic feet, or perhaps somewhat more considering the lining is less dense.

[HenryHankovitch]

That's easy. The Eiffel Tower is much too large to shrink. Steel weighs 490 pounds per cubic foot and a suit of full plate weights 50 pounds, therefore 500 suits of full plate are about 52 cubic feet, or perhaps somewhat more considering the lining is less dense.

But that's assuming that the spell is limited by mass, not volume--that 50 lbs of steel armor is indistinguishable from a 50-lb solid lump of steel.

You could interpret the spell that way, but I wouldn't. Particularly since the spell description is using a volume based measure. If you cast the spell at 3rd level, you can only shrink 6 cu. ft. of solid granite...or 6 cu. ft. of solid balsawood. So the spell is clearly limited by volume, not by mass: the cube of granite is far denser--has far more mass--than the cube of balsawood.

And arguing that spell ignores the geometry of the object touched, including interior spaces, also introduces its own set of problems. If I have two separate objects--a hollow beryllium sphere and a solid sphere of plutonium inside it--and I only shrink the outer sphere, what happens to the plutonium inside it? The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is "a dragon poops on your head, stop asking silly questions."

Going by mass just adds unnecessary math and argument to something which is plenty useful and powerful already, and gives the players about a cubic mile of wiggle room to argue over.

It's easier to say, "okay, the chair fits into a space 3' by 1.5' by 1.5'," than to try to figure out how much solid mass of wood is in this particular chair.

But like I said, I'm probably just mean that way.

[rubycona]

But that's assuming that the spell is limited by mass, not volume--that 50 lbs of steel armor is indistinguishable from a 50-lb solid lump of steel.

You could interpret the spell that way, but I wouldn't. Particularly since the spell description is using a volume based measure. If you cast the spell at 3rd level, you can only shrink 6 cu. ft. of solid granite...or 6 cu. ft. of solid balsawood. So the spell is clearly limited by volume, not by mass: the cube of granite is far denser--has far more mass--than the cube of balsawood.

And arguing that spell ignores the geometry of the object touched, including interior spaces, also introduces its own set of problems. If I have two separate objects--a hollow beryllium sphere and a solid sphere of plutonium inside it--and I only shrink the outer sphere, what happens to the plutonium inside it? The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is "a dragon poops on your head, stop asking silly questions."

Going by mass just adds unnecessary math and argument to something which is plenty useful and powerful already, and gives the players about a cubic mile of wiggle room to argue over.

It's easier to say, "okay, the chair fits into a space 3' by 1.5' by 1.5'," than to try to figure out how much solid mass of wood is in this particular chair.

But like I said, I'm probably just mean that way.

Well, the spell does relate to volume, not mass... it's just easier to figure out the volume by turning mass into volume via density. (Mass unit / density (which is mass/volume) = volume unit)

Basically, I think of the spell as wrapping up the target in a shape-fitting bubble, and you've only got so much bubble.

While I wouldn't do it your way, fact is, D&D only exists through the DMs making (typically fairly arbitrary) judgement calls. It's only fun because the DMs make these judgement calls as quickly as they possibly can, while still striving for some level of accuracy, but generally, haste is preferable to accuracy.

If your game runs smoother, faster, and more fun by skimping on volume/mass/density elements, then definitely, that's how you should play it.

However, care should be taken about literally cubing a full spellcaster's already formidable might! Hence why the original question matters, and why understanding that 20 cubic feet does NOT equal a 20'*20'*20' cube. Once you realize that 20*1*1 = 20 cubic feet, how you adjudicate it from there is the DM's call.

Edit: It probably surprises absolutely no one that we Always have a calculator of some kind at our D&D table, and it's never used for dice :P