Enlarge/Reduce Clarification

[carrdrivesyou]

So a friend of mine had an idea, and it got me thinking. If someone were to cast Reduce on a bottle of wine or steak or some other sort of consumable, let a person consume it, then cancel the spell, would that actually kill the person? The only real issue i would have with this is if the food that gets cut off for a bite might grow to original proportions depending on the DM ruling.

What do you lot think? Could this be an effective way to assassinate someone?

[Mellack]

It would never kill someone, IMO. At worst, it would cause them to vomit if the volume of the material suddenly grew. Additionally the spell only has a one minute duration, meaning it is unlikely someone would consume a large quantity of the food in that time.

[Osuniev]

If an Enlarged person drops an object, it is restored to its original size, so based on that logic I would probably rule every piece of the steeak or drop of the wine returns to its original size as soon as it is separated from the rest, until enough has been removed that the original object isn't recognizably the same object and the spell ends...

But a player could proably convince me to rule differently if he had a cool enough idea.

[JoeJ]

This is one application of the more general question of what happens when something that has been Reduced is put into a container too small to hold it when the spell ends. Unfortunately, the spell description does not tell us what happens. The most logical outcomes are:

1) The object is crushed, damaging and possibly destroying it.

2) The container breaks, allowing the object to expand.

3) Both 1 and 2 happen.

4) The object is magically removed from the container without damaging either.

5) The object grows to the maximum size allowed by the container and remains at that size until it is removed, at which time it returns to its original size.

Personally, I think no. 5 is the option that has the most interesting range of possible applications. No 4 is the one with the fewest possible exploits.

[Pandamonium]

5) The object grows to the maximum size allowed by the container and remains at that size until it is removed, at which time it returns to its original size.

Personally, I think no. 5 is the option that has the most interesting range of possible applications. No 4 is the one with the fewest possible exploits.

I agree with this as it conforms to the text of the spell:
"If there isn't enough room for the target to double its size, the creature or object attains the maximum possible size in the space available"

I would suggest this is also the case for when the reduction part is cancelled to avoid any internal explosion/instakill cases.

[JoeJ]

I agree with this as it conforms to the text of the spell:
"If there isn't enough room for the target to double its size, the creature or object attains the maximum possible size in the space available"

I would suggest this is also the case for when the reduction part is cancelled to avoid any internal explosion/instakill cases.

That interpretation also allows you to keep something reduced indefinitely. Among other things, that greatly improves your ability to carry large objects around with you.

[Darth Credence]

From the list, 1, 2, and 3 are not something that would make sense to always be the case. If you take a piece of fragile glass, reduce, and put in a box barely big enough to fit, made out of solid, 10 inch thick steel plates, the box certainly shouldn't break. On the flip side, if you reduce a boulder and gently put it inside a thin glass vessel, the stone shouldn't be crushed.

5 changes the spell substantially. I would either rule 4, or case by case basis go with one or the other, possibly both, being damaged as full size is reestablished.

As a side note, I'd go with 5 if I am in a more slapstick type game. Having someone open up a box and suddenly the little carved snake inside extends to double its size at them would be funny.