Can you cast Shrink Item on a container item to shrink it and all of its contents with it? So if you shrink a waterskin, does the water shrink with it? How about a backpack? What if some of the contents is magical, say a Blessed Book in a wizard's backpack?
I saw several threads addressing Shrink Item, but I didn't see any that addressed this.
This was a plot point in the first book of Second Darkness (admittedly 3.5) in which a container was shrunk in order to steal its contents. The idea was to pick it up and carry it away in your pocket and dismiss the spell later to get at what was inside. There weren't any magic items inside, though, as far as I know.
(Hopefully that's vague enough not to need a spoiler tag.)
If the container and all its items fit inside the volume limitations of the spell, you should be good to go.
If the container and all its items fit inside the volume limitations of the spell, you should be good to go.
Even if the items are magic?
So I can't shrink my +1 longsword, but I can throw a bag over it and shrink the bag with the longsword in it?
If the container and all its items fit inside the volume limitations of the spell, you should be good to go.Even if the items are magic?
So I can't shrink my +1 longsword, but I can throw a bag over it and shrink the bag with the longsword in it?
No, in that case the objects that weren't magical would shrink, and not the sword. It would rip through the side of the backpack.
One interesting use of Shrink Item is assassination. Take an orange, for example, and shrink it down. Pop it in the victem's mouth (works really well if you're an attractive femme fatale who's being playful when you pop it in) then dismiss the spell. The orange grows to normal size in the victim's throat and they die of suffocation. You can also use stones for the same effect. Or, shrink down a bulky solid ball of poison to the size of a pea and put it in the victims food. A food taster probably won't happen on the pea, but the victim who eats the entire dish will.
|
If the container and all its items fit inside the volume limitations of the spell, you should be good to go.Even if the items are magic?
So I can't shrink my +1 longsword, but I can throw a bag over it and shrink the bag with the longsword in it?No, in that case the objects that weren't magical would shrink, and not the sword. It would rip through the side of the backpack.
One interesting use of Shrink Item is assassination. Take an orange, for example, and shrink it down. Pop it in the victem's mouth (works really well if you're an attractive femme fatale who's being playful when you pop it in) then dismiss the spell. The orange grows to normal size in the victim's throat and they die of suffocation. You can also use stones for the same effect. Or, shrink down a bulky solid ball of poison to the size of a pea and put it in the victims food. A food taster probably won't happen on the pea, but the victim who eats the entire dish will.
Personally, I haven't seen this sort of application of transmutation spells since when I played 1st edition AD&D. There is a certain desirable consistancy to what is expressed in the enlarge person text regarding items changing size in a space that cannot contain them that I would expect to see here.
If, on the other hand, you enjoy this style of gaming and seek to reward creativity, go for it. It becomes a matter of game style. For me it's in the same category as old style magic use such as casting light on eyes, polymorphing into a minute creature and flying inside a dragon's ear and then returning to normal size, etc. It's creative when someone comes up with it the first time. Thereafter, it comes off to me as abusive of the spell level. To each their own.
If the container and all its items fit inside the volume limitations of the spell, you should be good to go.Even if the items are magic?
So I can't shrink my +1 longsword, but I can throw a bag over it and shrink the bag with the longsword in it?
Of course not. That would be an obvious abuse of the spell as well as a clear violation of the rules. My clarification was made thus precisely so you couldn't throw a sheet over a 10,000 cubic foot statue and shrink the whole lot of it by arguing that you are simply targeting the container (the sheet). To similarly cloak a magic item and try to shrink it would be to go completely against the spirit of my original post. So, yeah, that's an OBVIOUS no.
If you had tried such a thing in my games, I would rule similarly to mdt.
I didn't think it worth mentioning again as it had already been clarified by others.
Of course not.If the container and all its items fit inside the volume limitations of the spell, you should be good to go.Even if the items are magic?
I also think it wouldn't work, although I'd probably just have the spell fail rather than destroy the bag.
This is, however, a fast way of checking quickly on which items in a treasure pile are magical or not. Dump them in a sheet, tie it up, and cast the spell. The gold and jewels and non-magical stuff will shrink down. The magical items remain unaffected. :)
This is, however, a fast way of checking quickly on which items in a treasure pile are magical or not. Dump them in a sheet, tie it up, and cast the spell. The gold and jewels and non-magical stuff will shrink down. The magical items remain unaffected. :)
Right, so by my ruling all you find out is that at least SOMETHING in the pile is magical.
Which you would also get from one round of Detect Magic on the pile.
This is, however, a fast way of checking quickly on which items in a treasure pile are magical or not. Dump them in a sheet, tie it up, and cast the spell. The gold and jewels and non-magical stuff will shrink down. The magical items remain unaffected. :)Right, so by my ruling all you find out is that at least SOMETHING in the pile is magical.
Which you would also get from one round of Detect Magic on the pile.
The problem with detect magic being that Magic Aura fools it. Also a problem would be if there was a very large magic aura in the area. This particular method is at least proof against Magic Aura. While it's an edge case, I've seen setups before where artifacts didn't register as magical (due to MA), so this would be a good way to test for it, since the the shrinkage won't work on the magic item.
Additionally, the reverse is also true. An item with MA on it to make it look magical would still shrink, since it's not actually magical.
The same loophole works with Mage Hand if the item is light enough.
Thanks everyone. I have a 15th level wizard in a PBP that plays the fop in his professional position, but masquerades as a monk when adventuring. I was looking for a way to stash his gear for the alternative persona when portraying the other. It sounds like Shrink Item is not the route to take with this since it includes magic items.
I'm starting to think Secret Chest, and use Shrink Item on the miniature chest.
The same loophole works with Mage Hand if the item is light enough.
True enough. Shrink just has the advantage of working for things over 5 lbs (if I remember the limitation correctly).
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Can you cast Shrink Item on a container item to shrink it and all of its contents with it?
This is an "Ask you DM" since it is not clear what the rules say for certain.
Is a container with contents one item or many items?
Depending on your RAW view, you get one of two outcomes:
1) RAW single item is a single item that could be separated from other items. The water spills when the waterskin shrinks.
2) RAW single item is the item and it's contents. The water is also shrunk.
Can you cast Shrink Item on a container item to shrink it and all of its contents with it?This is an "Ask you DM" since it is not clear what the rules say for certain.
Is a container with contents one item or many items?
Depending on your RAW view, you get one of two outcomes:
1) RAW single item is a single item that could be separated from other items. The water spills when the waterskin shrinks.2) RAW single item is the item and it's contents. The water is also shrunk.
The spell specifically says you could shrink a camp fire, so I would have to take the approach of a 'holistic whole'. So a backpack with items or a waterskin with water would be one holistic item. Because, a campfire is actually made up of multiple pieces of wood.
I would have to take the approach of a 'holistic whole'. So a backpack with items or a waterskin with water would be one holistic item.I agree and that is how I'd play it in a game I'm DMing, but I still think some other DM's would disagree.
Then would you say the spell fails if there is a magic item in that backpack? Or that everything else shrinks but the magic item is 'spat out' and not included in the reduced group?
Then would you say the spell fails if there is a magic item in that backpack? Or that everything else shrinks but the magic item is 'spat out' and not included in the reduced group?I would have to take the approach of a 'holistic whole'. So a backpack with items or a waterskin with water would be one holistic item.I agree and that is how I'd play it in a game I'm DMing, but I still think some other DM's would disagree.
Asked and answered above, unless you were specifically asking JR.
I said magic items unaffected and rip bag, AvalonXQ said they'd rule the spell failed. I think a couple of people chimed in on one side or the other, but it's really a GMs call. There's no deffinative answer within the RAW.
Then would you say the spell fails if there is a magic item in that backpack? Or that everything else shrinks but the magic item is 'spat out' and not included in the reduced group?I would have to take the approach of a 'holistic whole'. So a backpack with items or a waterskin with water would be one holistic item.I agree and that is how I'd play it in a game I'm DMing, but I still think some other DM's would disagree.Asked and answered above, unless you were specifically asking JR.
I said magic items unaffected and rip bag, AvalonXQ said they'd rule the spell failed. I think a couple of people chimed in on one side or the other, but it's really a GMs call. There's no deffinative answer within the RAW.
In that case I was directing it at James specifically. I do appreciate everyone weighing in, and since James shared his opinion on part of it, I was just curious where his opinion fell on the other element of the question.
Thanks!
Oh, nothing wrong with the haversack, per se. I was just going for a style of a mage disguised as a monk, with nothing of any apparent value, not even a backpack that might have something worthwhile in it. You know, no possessions except a walking stick and the clothes on his back.
He might be able to afford a Portable Hole; carries anything and you can fold it up into a little handkerchief stuck in a pocket. Very expensive, but he's 15th level so perhaps he can afford it.
I figured that might be the case. Still needed saying for those poor ignorant fools who might still be considering it.