quote:

---

Originally posted by kahonen

I have to agree with Rad and answering as a DM, I'd say that if there was any doubt about the rock hitting the party I'd have ruled that it missed simply to reward the unusual use of the spell.

I have found in the past, however, that trying to use Maths and Physics in D&D simply doesn't work. We are, after all, talking about a world where magic works which (I assume) indicates some fundamental differences in the way the physical world actually works.

Think, for a moment, about a globe of light (radius 30') which only allows the people within it to see 30'. Can people outside who are further away than 30' see it? If they can, it indicates that the radius must actually be greater than 30' because the light must have travelled further than 30' to be seen (so why can't the people inside see further?). Arguing about things like this will simply cause your head to cave in and require a simple decision to be made. How good your DM is at Maths is largely irrelevant.

If your DM wishes to rule this way, fine. Accept it. He must realise, however, that rulings such as this go both ways. The next time you are in a combat situation have the mage in the party cast enlarge on a throwing axe (after it's been thrown), or an arrow (after it's been fired) and ask your DM how he intends to calculate damage on the target.

If your DM insists on making unilateral decisions (ie decisions without discussion with the party members) simply look for ways to turn those decisions to your advantage and then use them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookwyrm

If the rock was enlarged before thrown, then it would depend on the strength of the giant and the weight of the rock. However, if it was already thrown, then by the laws of physics would mean that the velocity and trajectory of the rock wouldn't be changed.

Of course, that's assuming the extra mass materializes with exact relation to the original amount, which I figure it would have to. (After all, if you enlarge a person, who is always in motion if (s)he is alive, then you have to assume that the extra mass is given the same motion as the mass it's attatched to. Or else you'd end up with something really ugly.

Now, as for the light question: I hate to say it, but you're thinking too hard, Kahonen. The light only illuminates an area to the degree that all details are easily shown. Remember, a character with Low Light Vision can see twice as far; so the light doesn't stop.

Think of it like an ordinary light. You have to move your flashlight or lamp a bit to illuminate exactly what you want, right? But if that light doesn't reach more than 30 feet (which I think might be standard for a lamp, but that's a guess) that doesn't mean that the light physically stops at exactly 30 feet. Light falls off at the inverse square of the distance, after all.

The rules for such are, I think, slightly too arbitrary. I think that what should be used instead is like a range increment, where every thirty feet (or other amount, depending on the description) you suffer a -4 penalty on Spot checks, cumulative with the normal distance penalty. A character with Low Light Vision would treat all increments as double the amount.

Now, no more science-doesn't-work-in-the-Realms talk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Naroon Shimmerflow


This is the dilemma:

Once our characters met this stone giants and the stone giants strated to throw rocks at us, BIG suprise, anyway, the wizard in the groupe cast a Enlarge on the rock in the hope of that the rock would slow it`s decent and fall to the ground earlier, because of the weight differnce. ( it logic is`nt it?)
but the DM (who is very good in math) calculated that the rock did not slow down and still would hit the , yep, the poor wizard and this time it was 100% bigger and heavier funny story, but are this right, can anyone of the Great Sages of Candlekeep or travelers of the realm enough math to give us a second opinion?

All the players agree that the logical solution is that the rock would fall to the ground earlier because of the weight differnce, but we are no great sages of knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookwyrm

Now, as for the light question: I hate to say it, but you're thinking too hard, Kahonen. The light only illuminates an area to the degree that all details are easily shown. Remember, a character with Low Light Vision can see twice as far; so the light doesn't stop.

Think of it like an ordinary light. You have to move your flashlight or lamp a bit to illuminate exactly what you want, right? But if that light doesn't reach more than 30 feet (which I think might be standard for a lamp, but that's a guess) that doesn't mean that the light physically stops at exactly 30 feet. Light falls off at the inverse square of the distance, after all.

The rules for such are, I think, slightly too arbitrary. I think that what should be used instead is like a range increment, where every thirty feet (or other amount, depending on the description) you suffer a -4 penalty on Spot checks, cumulative with the normal distance penalty. A character with Low Light Vision would treat all increments as double the amount.

Now, no more science-doesn't-work-in-the-Realms talk.

---

quote:

---

Excerpt from the Light spell, 3.5 Edition
This spell causes an object to glow like a torch, shedding bright light in a 20-foot radius (and dim light for an additional 20 feet) from the point you touch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookwyrm

Well, I should have looked at the 3.5e description for the light spell, but I didn't since I only have that in electronic form. I just happened to spot this a little while ago:

quote:

---

Excerpt from the Light spell, 3.5 Edition
This spell causes an object to glow like a torch, shedding bright light in a 20-foot radius (and dim light for an additional 20 feet) from the point you touch.

---

If I'd checked that first, then I could have supported my argument more solidly. It would appear I'm right in this.

---

...

Indeed it would, providing, of course that we are all using 3.5 edition rules. I'm not and nor do I intend to (having much better things to do with my money than throw large chunks of it at Hasbro every couple of months). I'll probably buy the 7th edition rules when they appear (later this year going off past performance)*

On a more serious note, it appears that what has happened is that the 3.5 edition rules have "swept up" a variety of house rules which were being used due to the shortcomings of the 2nd edition rules. The spell description you give is almost an exact word-for-word copy of a house rule which is in one of the net books available at many other, (and of course, inferior), websites. The issue with the effect of a light spell has been one of many such issues which have plagued DM's for longer than I care to remember. It appears that some effort is now being made to solve these issues - this, at least, is a good thing.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree

* Sorry, cynicism creeping in again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kahonen

Perhaps we should agree to disagree

---