7
\$\begingroup\$

Enlarge/Reduce says:

You cause a creature or an object you can see within range to grow larger or smaller for the duration. Choose either a creature or an object that is neither worn nor carried. (...)

Reduce. The target's size is halved in all dimensions, and its weight is reduced to one-eighth of normal.

A door clearly is an object by the definition of the game, nevermind this inofficial tweet by Jeremy Crawford and it is neither worn nor carried, so it should be a valid target. So what happens?

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

14
\$\begingroup\$

Rules-as-written

You have referenced the rules correctly.

From the spell (emphasis added):

You cause a creature or an object you can see within range to grow larger or smaller for the duration.

From the DMG:

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.

There is nothing in the rules that says this won't work.

If you are a player

You can anticipate gleefully running through dungeons, banks, palaces, reducing doors as you go. Don't stop there. You can enlarge them, too, and see what happens. Reduce the stones in the walls of the castle and watch it fall, the wheels on the wagon and watch it crash, any number of other things. Reduce the throne under the queen, the tree the bird is perched in, the witch's caldron, the possibilities are endless.

Only you might want to work it out with your DM ahead of time. You can decide something will work a certain way by reading the rules, but you only really know how it will work when you try it in the game and the DM narrates the results of your actions.

If you are a DM

If you're happy with this use of enlarge/reduce, go for it.

If not, don't. Allowing enlarge/reduce to open any door may be contrary to what you want in the game. If it's an issue, feel free to customize it.

Customizing the rules for your game is not straying from the rules. Those are the rules. The DM is the final arbiter of how things work in the game.

I have not dealt with this particular rules challenge as a DM, although I've dealt with similar ones. A reasonable and simple modification is to require a skill check whenever an object is being enlarged or reduced. Most objects, set the DC so low as you not even need to check it. For objects that have some resistance, set a higher DC.

You could also simply rule that reduce/enlarge does not work on attached objects.

Depending on your specific game and players, you might find you need to fine tune your house rule to make sure it works for your table.

Some players may want to argue with you about it. I refer you to "Rules Discussions" in the DMG:

You might need to set a policy on rules discussions at the table. Some groups don’t mind putting the game on hold while they hash out different interpretations of a rule. Others prefer to let the DM make a call and continue with the action.

Usually it's less fun to have lengthy rules discussions in session. I find it's better to make a ruling and move on.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ For what its worth, our DM now rules it does not work, as the hinges block it, only entirely unsecured objects can be shrunk. It worked for a while. I'm fine with that, otherwise this makes it just a better Knock without the noise, which seems too strong to me. On the other hand, without it, I tend to end up not memorizing the spell any more. \$\endgroup\$ May 26 at 10:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ We used to use ''reduce'' to enhance spells that have a weight limit. Like, if you can only teleport a mass the equivalend of 4 adult humans, and our party had 8 people, we'd reduce half of them. \$\endgroup\$ May 27 at 5:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ In the spell text, the Enlarge and Reduce options are almost word for word exact opposites of each other, except that the Enlarge part also includes "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 think it's a sensible RAI interpretation that the writer omitted it just because they didn't think of the possibility of the surroundings preventing something from shrinking, but obviously RAW Reduce has no such limitation. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kryomaani
    May 29 at 19:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .