reduce: enlarge reverse

[TRP]

How small would you allow a human-sized creature to be reduced? Assume a 10+ level magic-user casting the spell. So, the reduction is 200%, the max. Would you allow 0.01? 0.001? 0.0001? Popped out of existence after 100%?

[Landifarne]

I would reduce the object's height and mass by successive 10% increments, each level (rounding to the nearest inch each time). Thus, an object 100 inches tall would reduce as follows:
1st level: 100" - 10" = 90"
2nd level: 90" - 9" = 81"
3rd level: 81" - 8" = 73"
3rd level: 73" - 7" = 66"
4th level: 66" - 7" = 59"
5th level: 59" - 6" = 53"
6th level: 53" - 5" = 48"
7th level: 48" - 5" = 43"
8th level: 43" - 4" = 39"
9th level: 39" - 4" = 35"
10th level: 35" - 4" = 31"

...which is fairly quick and seems to be in the spirit of the game.

EDIT: I didn't see you meant creature, but I'd do it similarly (20% each increment):
1st level: 100" - 20" = 80"
2nd level: 80" - 16" = 64"
3rd level: 64" - 13" = 51"
3rd level: 51" - 10" = 41"
4th level: 41" - 8" = 33"
5th level: 33" - 7" = 26"
6th level: 26" - 5" = 21"
7th level: 21" - 4" = 17"
8th level: 17" - 3" = 14"
9th level: 14" - 3" = 11"
10th level: 11" - 2" = 9"

[T. Foster]

I concur with Landifarne (except that my math is sloppier, because I've gone with a maximum reduction to 5% of original size for creatures and 10% of original size for objects, which doesn't appear to be correct ).

[Jeffery St. Clair]

Just like Landifarme:

In the past, I've taken 20% of the person's height per level, which gets you past 1/3 original size as your minimum. Not by-the-book, but for me, it opened up some new adventuring avenues.

So that works out:

1st level = 80% original size
2nd level = 64% original size
3rd level = 51% original size
4th level = 41% original size
5th level = 33% original size
6th level = 26% original size
7th level = 21% original size
8th level = 17% original size
9th level = 13% original size
10th level = 11% original size

...and so on. It takes a 19th level M-U to Reduce a six-foot tall PC to just over one inch in height using this method.

Note that I would never run Enlarge this way.

Since a Diminution Potion can shrink someone to 5% of their original size, I wanted a way for the party mages to do about the same, rather than hand out Diminution Potions by the gallon. At least, for that specific campaign, anyway.

[grodog]

I concur with Landifarne (except that my math is sloppier, because I've gone with a maximum reduction to 5% of original size for creatures and 10% of original size for objects, which doesn't appear to be correct ).

Working from a potion of diminution, that's a reasonable standard to consider. However, using the increments above, clearly a potion of diminution is much more powerful than a reduce spell

Since a Diminution Potion can shrink someone to 5% of their original size, I wanted a way for the party mages to do about the same, rather than hand out Diminution Potions by the gallon. At least, for that specific campaign, anyway.

A nice idea!

I've included some large dungeon items/features in my Castle Greyhawk that require reduction to be able to move them into/out of rooms or to otherwise put them to use. I guess I should go back and double-check my math on them, to see if I've really got it right or not!

Running the figures as a straight reduction (which is the way I'd read the spell, rather than a by-level-accumulative reduction), makes a big difference, assuming I'm doing the math right (which I assume I'm not):

Level 1 = 20% reduction: 72" (6 feet) --> 72/1 x 2/10 = 144/10 = 14; 72-14 = 58" (4 foot 10 inches)
Level 3 = 60% reduction: 72" (6 feet) --> 72/1 x 6/10 = 432/10 = 43.2; 72-43.2 = 28.8" (2 foot 5 inches)
Level 5 = 100% reduction: 72" (6 feet) --> 72/1 x 10/10 = 720/10 = 72; 72-72 = 0" (but I guess we move this to 1" (one inch) instead??)
Level 7 = 140% reduction: 72" (6 feet) --> 72/1 x 14/10 = 1008/10 = 100.8; 72-100.8 = -28.8" (-2 foot 5 inches?)
Leve 10 = 200% reduction: 72" (6 feet) --> 72/1 x 20/10 = 1440/10 = 144; 72-144 = -72" (-6 feet?)

So I seem to not be doing something right here. The spell description does state size is calculated out to the "maximum additional growth" (reduction in this case), so perhaps this is one of those subtle cumulative vs. accumulative or cutting things in half but never reaching the goal line mathematical properties that sometimes throw me off?

Allan.

[Jeffery St. Clair]

As I understand it, since the max. enlargement results in a triple-sized whatever, than the minimum reduction btb is supposed to be a 1/3-sized whatever. It's the inverse of 3/1, or 1/3. That's probably totally off, but it's what I got out of the reading - which is why I made my own chart years ago.

[Jeffery St. Clair]

To expand on my previous post, I did some work with some fractions, and think this was the intent, even though the wording and the 20% thing confused everybody.

Like so:

Enlarge Reduce
30/10 10/30
28/10 10/28
26/10 10/26
24/10 10/24
22/10 10/22
20/10 10/20
18/10 10/18
16/10 10/16
14/10 10/14
12/10 10/12

No spell:
10/10 10/10

[grodog]

As I understand it, since the max. enlargement results in a triple-sized whatever, than the minimum reduction btb is supposed to be a 1/3-sized whatever. It's the inverse of 3/1, or 1/3. That's probably totally off, but it's what I got out of the reading - which is why I made my own chart years ago.

So is a maximum 1/3 reduction the same as a 200% reduction?

The increased size suggests a 6' tall humanoid going to 12' tall (a 100% increase = 2x original size) and to 18' tall (a 200% increase = 3x original size). But that's a full six foot increase each time, starting from a 6' baseline.

A 100% reduction should be a 6 foot reduction, not a 1/2 (50%) reduction, shouldn't it??

Allan.

[Jeffery St. Clair]

I agree, but then you're back at a reduction to zero-size, and then negative-size. That can't be what they meant. That's why I thought of inverse ratios. Ya got me.

[grodog]

I agree, but then you're back at a reduction to zero-size, and then negative-size. That can't be what they meant. That's why I thought of inverse ratios. Ya got me.

Agreed, the straight application of the reduction percentages don't make sense. I checked Sage Advice and nothing mentioned there, either. The DMG guidelines don't help, and the spell seems to have been introduced in Holmes Basic, but without a reversed version (and it's not in Moldvay).

Allan.

[TRP]

I agree, but then you're back at a reduction to zero-size, and then negative-size. That can't be what they meant. That's why I thought of inverse ratios. Ya got me.

Agreed, the straight application of the reduction percentages don't make sense. I checked Sage Advice and nothing mentioned there, either. The DMG guidelines don't help, and the spell seems to have been introduced in Holmes Basic, but without a reversed version (and it's not in Moldvay).

Allan.

Yes, this is the problem I was trying to solve, and I like what I've read here. Thanks all.

[grodog]

Idea: what if the 100%+ value keep the same rate of change reduction, but change the scale down (or up for enlarge) in imperial units (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units#Length)?

That still doesn't solve the 100% = vanish to 0" problem, but may help with running a "Fantastic Voyage" adventure....

Allan.

[Jeffery St. Clair]

Dang, that's powerful for a 1st-level spell....

[garhkal]

I would reduce the object's height and mass by successive 10% increments, each level (rounding to the nearest inch each time). Thus, an object 100 inches tall would reduce as follows:
1st level: 100" - 10" = 90"
2nd level: 90" - 9" = 81"
3rd level: 81" - 8" = 73"
3rd level: 73" - 7" = 66"
4th level: 66" - 7" = 59"
5th level: 59" - 6" = 53"
6th level: 53" - 5" = 48"
7th level: 48" - 5" = 43"
8th level: 43" - 4" = 39"
9th level: 39" - 4" = 35"
10th level: 35" - 4" = 31"

...which is fairly quick and seems to be in the spirit of the game.

That's how i would do it.. So a human warrior who's 6ft 7 tall (79 inches) would go
1st level 79 - 7.9 inches = 71.1 inches.
2nd level 71.1 inches - 7. inches = 64 inches.
3rd level 64 inches - 6.4 inches = 57.6 inches.
and so on.. BUT i would cap it at a min of 10% of what your initial height is.. So that 79 inch guy can get down to 7.9 inches..

[grodog]

Dang, that's powerful for a 1st-level spell....

But not really powerful until you're 5th level

Allan.