Enlarge/Reduce: Secretly Powerful?

[Nagog]

So I was playing my Wizard last week, and it was one of those situations where our backs were to the wall and I was running low on slots and the party as a whole was running out of steam. The bad guys had just breached the mansion we were defending, so in a rush I decided to cast Enlarge on the wall in front of them to try and slow them down. In checking the spell description, I noticed something peculiar: There is no size limit to what you can enlarge/reduce. So in that situation, I enlarged, then quickly reduced, the entire mansion. As to be expected, chaos ensued, and my Wizard's kill count skyrocketed as the first floor collapsed (the basement/foundation could not expand, therefore when shrunk back down they were no longer connected) and the rest of the session was spent cleaning up that mess.

That said, am I missing something or is that RAW? Could a 3rd level Wizard feasibly create an extinction level event by expanding a continent or even a world? Could a city siege be devastated by either enlarging or reducing the city wall?

In a space themed campaign, could the BBEG be a Fire Giant who plans to use this on the central star of a Solar System? (immunity to fire and the like)

[Segev]

You're limited, at the least, by having to target an "object," so if the DM rules that the mansion is not one singular object, it won't work.

[Boci]

Maybe this is RAI and not RAW, but the object must be "within range", which could easily have intended to mean that the entire object be within the spell's 30dt range, not just part of it.

[Lavaeolus]

Would it work on a wall? The spell works on "an object that is neither worn nor carried" -- and certainly you would neither wear or carry it, but it could be argued that a wall is merely part of a larger mansion. It's not intended for you to grotesquely alter things by only enlarging certain parts, after all.

So is the mansion itself in full an object, then, and thus a valid target? What is an object anyway?

Well, by the rules:

For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.

So probably not.

[col_impact]

Secretly very powerful.Gnomes can get tiny or regular sized which extends other spells like Disguise Self. Humans on find steeds can fit in dungeons. My little Pony.

Moon Druids can biggen up an Ape to a Large Ape, etc.

[Mikal]

I’d say your DM was super lenient on this. You have to do this on an object in range that you can an see.

If I was running it
1) the mansion is not a single object.
2) you can’t see the entire mansion
3) the mansion is larger than the range you are attempting to cast the spell in

The first two are automatic failures in my game. The third... is something that can be considered.

So is it secretly powerful? RAW and in my game no. In your DMs.. sure seems to be

[LudicSavant]

Enlarge/Reduce is powerful, though I wouldn't say it's secretly so; Enlarge/Reduce shenanigans have been an issue of discussion since 5e came out. It's one of those places where a DM basically just has to step in to cover for certain design oversights.

Besides the specific exclusions, the object definition is pretty unhelpful (ex: a single piece of paper is a discrete object, so a book is composed of many other objects, but a book is specifically given as an example of an object. There just isn't a good consistent, well-defined "is this an object" test offered).

That said, the specific use given in the OP wouldn't work. The object rules specifically exclude buildings, so no using it on mansions.

[DracoKnight]

You're limited, at the least, by having to target an "object," so if the DM rules that the mansion is not one singular object, it won't work.

Well, buildings in 5e are defined as Structures, not Objects, sooooooo...

(The three main classifications are Creature, Object, and Structure.)

It’s why Siege Monsters don’t deal double damage against objects, but against Structures.

EDIT: correction, it’s why Siege Monsters deal double damaged against objects AND structures.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

As has been covered, by RAW, no. Mansions can't be targeted.

The doors in said mansions are, however, objects. They are distinct things within a structure, but not necessary to that structure's function. I bring this up because my Wizard has been delegated at times to "Rogue duty" when sneaking in places with locked doors.

[da newt]

I'd think one wall of a building could reasonable be considered one object - reduce/enlarge could bring down an entire building pretty easily. It would certainly make for easy breaches.

[Chronos]

But if a building isn't an object, then what about a wall? You can't say that it's just part of an object if the thing it's part of isn't an object, and you can't say that buildings aren't objects because they're made of other objects, if the things they're made of aren't objects. So to be consistent, you should allow its use on a wall... but being able to get rid of a wall is awfully powerful for a 2nd-level spell.

[Segev]

Enlarge/reduce has clauses about things not being able to grow if there's not enough room, and while it doesn't say that the shrinking function can't damage things, it does seem to assume that the target is a singular thing. Not attached to anything else (except, in the case of creatures, whatever they're wearing/carrying). A wall is a structure, so it's not an object. A brick is an object, so you might be able to shrink that, but even then, it's part of a structure, so it might qualify as a structure for this purpose.

I think I'd rule it thus: if it's attached to something sufficiently that either it or the thing to which it's attached would have to be damaged for it to shrink (or grow), it's not a "separate object" from the thing to which it's attached, and thus you must be able to shrink or grow the entire "connected object."

Take a lid of a chest off its hinges, and you can shrink the lid independently of the chest. If it's fastened by its hinges, though, you must shrink (or grow) the entire chest.

Take a door off its hinges, and you can shrink (or grow) it as an independent object. While attached to a structure, it's part of the structure and not a valid target.

[Nagog]

So a building is not an object, got it. What about a star though, as per the question at the end of the original post? A Star is one mass, rather than a planet which is comprised of many different things.

[Segev]

So a building is not an object, got it. What about a star though, as per the question at the end of the original post? A Star is one mass, rather than a planet which is comprised of many different things.

"Terrain." Unless there's different cosmology in effect. In which case: ask your DM.

[Quietus]

So a building is not an object, got it. What about a star though, as per the question at the end of the original post? A Star is one mass, rather than a planet which is comprised of many different things.


"Terrain." Unless there's different cosmology in effect. In which case: ask your DM.

Also, if you can get within range of a star to cast this without being instantly annihilated...

[MaxWilson]

But if a building isn't an object, then what about a wall? You can't say that it's just part of an object if the thing it's part of isn't an object, and you can't say that buildings aren't objects because they're made of other objects, if the things they're made of aren't objects. So to be consistent, you should allow its use on a wall... but being able to get rid of a wall is awfully powerful for a 2nd-level spell.

Reducing a floor would arguably be more destructive.

[JoeJ]

Also, if you can get within range of a star to cast this without being instantly annihilated...

There are plenty of creatures that can get close to a star without being harmed. Most stars aren't independent objects however, being attached their crystal sphere (this may vary in some places). You'd have better luck with a sun, although there you run into the problem that almost all of them are so large that if you're close enough to cast the spell, you can't see more than a tiny fraction of the sun.

[Boci]

There are plenty of creatures that can get close to a star without being harmed.

Depends how the DM rules it. D&D doesn't care too much about science, so ruling that a star's heat pierce fire immunity might seem a bit wierd, but bludgeoning damage from the gravity wouldn't be out of line, and I don't know how many creatures are immune to that, especially since it wouldn't be weapon damage.

[Galithar]

Depends how the DM rules it. D&D doesn't care too much about science, so ruling that a star's heat pierce fire immunity might seem a bit wierd, but bludgeoning damage from the gravity wouldn't be out of line, and I don't know how many creatures are immune to that, especially since it wouldn't be weapon damage.

Also with how the DMG treats radiation in it's optional weapons at the end it would also be safe to include radiant or necrotic damage in what a star would cause. Either way I as a DM would add a "This damage cannot be reduced by any means" clause to it if they managed to find a way to get close in the first place.

[Satori01]

A Star is one mass, rather than a planet which is comprised of many different things.

If you are within 30 feet of a star, your problems are much Bigger then the Reduce spell can handle. 🤩

[Galithar]

If you are within 30 feet of a star, your problems are much Bigger then the Reduce spell can handle. 🤩

What's one size down from a star anyways? Lol I mean obviously if it were possible the star would go to half it's size, but what would the size categories be named at the point?

Absolutely ******* *** **** Gargantuan as **** to just Absolutely ******* *** **** Gargantuan?

[Segev]

What's one size down from a star anyways? Lol I mean obviously if it were possible the star would go to half it's size, but what would the size categories be named at the point?

Absolutely ******* *** **** Gargantuan as **** to just Absolutely ******* *** **** Gargantuan?

One size down from Gargantuan is Huge. So clearly, you'd reduce it to a 15-foot-on-a-side cube in size.

If, you know, it were an object, and not either a structure or terrain.

[Lupine]

Depends how the DM rules it. D&D doesn't care too much about science, so ruling that a star's heat pierce fire immunity might seem a bit wierd, but bludgeoning damage from the gravity wouldn't be out of line, and I don't know how many creatures are immune to that, especially since it wouldn't be weapon damage.

Are you saying that stars are proficient in gravitational weaponry?

[patchyman]

Are you saying that stars are proficient in gravitational weaponry?

All creatures are proficient in gravitational weaponry. It just doesn’t come up very often because of the designers’ woeful oversight in failing to include even a single gravitational weapon in the PHB (or in any other books published to date).

[Segev]

All creatures are proficient in gravitational weaponry. It just doesn’t come up very often because of the designers’ woeful oversight in failing to include even a single gravitational weapon in the PHB (or in any other books published to date).

Nonsense! You're only proficient in it if you're proficient in Athletics. The rules are under Shoving: you knock a creature prone. Unless they hover, you've just hit them with a gravitational weapon.

[Lupine]

Nonsense! You're only proficient in it if you're proficient in Athletics. The rules are under Shoving: you knock a creature prone. Unless they hover, you've just hit them with a gravitational weapon.

No, you just performed a combo with the Earth! The earth is proficient with gravitational weapons.

If you knock a creature over in space, it won’t fall, because the space is outside the long range of earth’s gravity weaponry.

Speaking of which, how does prone work in space?

[Joe the Rat]

A while back my players had a little bit of a heist doing on, where they had to steal a 30 cubic foot stone head - well above the capacity of any of their usual tools.
So they Reduced it. Worked marvelously.


Speaking of which, how does prone work in space?Very, very carefully.

[JoeJ]

Depends how the DM rules it. D&D doesn't care too much about science, so ruling that a star's heat pierce fire immunity might seem a bit wierd, but bludgeoning damage from the gravity wouldn't be out of line, and I don't know how many creatures are immune to that, especially since it wouldn't be weapon damage.

As part of a crystal sphere, stars don't usually have any gravity at all. Other effects depend on where you are. In Greyspace, stars are gems that radiate intense heat out to a range of 100 feet, hot enough to overcome even magical protection. In both Realmspace and Krynnspace, they are portals to the Plane of Radiance so any creature that can survive on that plane has nothing to fear from a star.

[Nagog]

Also, if you can get within range of a star to cast this without being instantly annihilated...


There are plenty of creatures that can get close to a star without being harmed. Most stars aren't independent objects however, being attached their crystal sphere (this may vary in some places). You'd have better luck with a sun, although there you run into the problem that almost all of them are so large that if you're close enough to cast the spell, you can't see more than a tiny fraction of the sun.

In a space-themed campaign (meaning real science mixing with 5e's magic and the base system/stats) a Fire Giant could do it as they're immune to Fire Damage, and I'm sure some fiends can as well (if not all, it's been a while for me). If you have a ship capable of getting that close to a star, perhaps due to some kind of shielding, reducing it would likely cause some serious turbulence for the ship as it corrected for the gravity well suddenly not being there for a minute, and expanding it would likely destroy the ship.
Regardless of the ship's state, the Fire Giant would survive the fire damage, and the solar system would have a mass extinction event unlike anything we've ever seen. Once the star is restored to it's normal state, these planets are now free real estate, once their various atmospheres stabilize. Boom, space themed villain story.


All creatures are proficient in gravitational weaponry. It just doesn’t come up very often because of the designers’ woeful oversight in failing to include even a single gravitational weapon in the PHB (or in any other books published to date).

Spells can deal Gravity Damage. The most notable one is Reverse Gravity, but with the addition of Dunemancy spells in the Wildmount book, there are plenty more of them now. I've enjoyed the idea of casting fly on an enemy "by accident", then dropping them when they try to make the most of my "blunder". Fly technically needs a willing creature, but what enemy wouldn't want to take advantage of it?

[JoeJ]

In a space-themed campaign (meaning real science mixing with 5e's magic and the base system/stats) a Fire Giant could do it as they're immune to Fire Damage, and I'm sure some fiends can as well (if not all, it's been a while for me). If you have a ship capable of getting that close to a star, perhaps due to some kind of shielding, reducing it would likely cause some serious turbulence for the ship as it corrected for the gravity well suddenly not being there for a minute, and expanding it would likely destroy the ship.
Regardless of the ship's state, the Fire Giant would survive the fire damage, and the solar system would have a mass extinction event unlike anything we've ever seen. Once the star is restored to it's normal state, these planets are now free real estate, once their various atmospheres stabilize. Boom, space themed villain story.

If that works on a sun, it should work on a planet too. What happens if I reduce Toril?

[Droodicus]

If that works on a sun, it should work on a planet too. What happens if I reduce Toril?

Real estate prices sky rocket

[JoeJ]

Real estate prices sky rocket

LOL!

Personally, I would rule that the entire target has to be within range for the spell to take effect, but it can be fun to imagine what might happen with a different interpretation.