Does a creature's size affect spell area or range.

[lazar]

If a spell is cast by a giant or a pixie, does the range and area of effect remain the same or does it adjust to fit the size of the caster? It seems stange that a pixie sized character could cast a fireball and do the same aoe as a large creature. should the spells be based off the size of the caster?

[Chemlak]

Size has no effect at all on the range or area of any creaure's attacks or spells. A pixie's fireball is the same size as a great wyrm red dragon's.

[Rynjin]

If it seems strange that's just because IT'S A PIXIE SHOOTING A BALL OF FIRE FROM ITS HANDS OF COURSE IT'S STRANGE.

[Samasboy1]

Spell range and damage is not, and should not be, based on the caster's size.

[Dasrak]

There are numerous oddities with creature size, and this one at least has the excuse that "it's magic". Poison dosages are probably the least excusable; the idea that "1 dose" of poison is the same for a mouse as it is for an elephant is more than a little odd.

[eakratz]

I'm now trying to picture a colossal sized Titan casting burning hands or Mage hand.

[lemeres]

I tend to build melee characters, so excuse me if I am rather out of the loop here, but what about spells(or maybe channel energy) that work with a radius centered around the caster? What happens if the caster takes up more than one square?

Let us say we have a cleric that used channeled energy (again, I know few spells, and this is a recognizable mechanic; there must be spells with similar mechanics though, right?), then they would have the energy in "a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric". If the cleric was medium sized, then the circle would be should be 65 feet across (radiusx2 plus the cleric's square in the middle).

But if they were under the effects of an enlarge spell, what would happen? If we assumed that it was '30 in all directions from the caster's square(s)', then it would be 70 feet (radius x2+ cleric's two squares) across, right? Or would the cleric have to pick a single square to center his channeling on (so same radius as when medium)

Am I completely off base with all of this?

[Horselord]

Effects centred on the caster take effect from the corner of any square the caster occupies (caster's choice).

Size and 5' steps astound me. A collosal creature taking 5' steps in sequence would look like a hammer dance (and keep all enthralled in his hammer trance, with increased effect from his hammer pants ... I'll stop now)

[blahpers]

And yes, this gets really weird with spells like antimagic field or globe of invulnerability.

[Horselord]

That is true. Antimagic field loses its effectiveness for creatures that don't fit in the spell area. The system was really designed for medium creatures.

Conversely, Alter Self becomes a lot more useful.

[mdt]

As a GM, I adjust spells upward based on size, but not downward. If it's a 10ft spread (antimagic field for example, or fire aura), then the creature extends the field 10 ft in all directions from every square it occupies, as long as it is the target of the spell. If the spell requires a space target, then it follows the rules normally. Small or smaller creatures still affect everything within N ft, as normal (10 from our example).

[lazar]

mdt wrote:

As a GM, I adjust spells upward based on size, but not downward. If it's a 10ft spread (antimagic field for example, or fire aura), then the creature extends the field 10 ft in all directions from every square it occupies, as long as it is the target of the spell. If the spell requires a space target, then it follows the rules normally. Small or smaller creatures still affect everything within N ft, as normal (10 from our example).

I like this. I'll have to use it. My players are grumbling because of the losing of range and area for becoming tiny and diminutive. This will solve my problem and work for me also. Thx.