Hello, it's me again, with another Lanthorn query, specifically about the 1st level wizard spell "Enlarge/Reduce." I am interested in your collective input regarding what I consider a potential abuse/unbalancing factor regarding this very basic spell.
It comes down to the spell being cast on inanimate objects, which I am under the impression do NOT get a saving throw against this spell. My interpretation is that only objects that are carried or in possession of a living creature get a save, which I am not particularly fond of. <I'm reading that correctly, right?> In my mind, this poses some potential circumstances for abuse and unbalancing the game. Let me give you the clearest example that comes to mind right now:
Even at a relatively low level, a wizard could employ this spell (particularly the Reduce effect) during a siege to shrink, let's say, the support columns or blocks and stones of a tower, wall, and the like. This would have the effect of quickly collapsing said structure. Viola! No siege required. You can get rid of all those trebuchets, battering rams, catapults, and siege towers. There's no need for any other higher level, heavy-hitting spells (like those listed in the DMG). Simply use a 1st level spell to demolish part of the curtain wall and send in your troops. Clever, yes, but too unbalancing, I think (especially if no save is required).
I think that is a bit too much for a minor spell to accomplish, especially if non-living and/or inanimate targets do NOT get a chance to resist the effects. When used by even a 3rd level mage (who can increase or decrease the size of an object or target creature by 30%) the effects can be rather dramatic. Doors, walls, towers, drawbridges, and other sturdy structures are now rendered completely ineffective. Again...this is too unbalancing, in my mind, especially if no saving throw is needed.
The follow-up question then becomes, under what category would items and objects save (since there is no Spell column)? I think that perhaps Crushing Blow is the most appropriate since the item is going under a dramatic change. Disintegration would not apply since the matter of the object isn't being destroyed. And Normal Blow is too weak a description.
I have looked through the both 1st and 2nd editions of the PHB and DMG, as well as The Complete Book of Wizard's, prior to writing this missive, in the hopes of finding some clarification on this spell, or insights. Finding nothing, I now turn to you all.
Please post your thoughts, suggestions, and comments. I could really use them, and this is going to effect my next gaming session!
I think your question raises the constant issue of "Do the rules answer every question?"
Unfortunately, we all know they do not. Perhaps that is a good thing. The result is that you and your player will simply have to be willing to agree that some things are broken on their surface and must be compromised for the game to work.
To that end, I suggest you discuss the issue and its potential problems with your player before it comes up in game. I suspect that you have already done that, so you two will need to agree that whomever is DMing has the final say after both have provided input and insight.
In the example you provided regarding siege/structures, you may conclude something like the following:
* Innumerable and varied spells exist in your fantasy world. Most are not delienated in the game rulebooks because they simply don't come up frequently enough to warrant inclusion therein. Spells that provide support and permanency to structures are likely such spells. These spells would be cantrips or first level spells easily cast by low-level spell-casters. Additionally, they aren't battle-ready because they can't be cast quickly. These types of spells are rituals that take an hour or more; perhaps even days or weeks. They are part and parcel of the building of super structures, like castles, in this fantasy world - similar to having a priest come bless a newly christened structure, ship, park, etc. This combination of simplicity, niche uses, and long casting times means that they are not spells used by adventuring spell-casters.
Thus, all buildings of import can be assumed to have some small resistance to magic. After all, no one who can afford to build a castle is going to be too cheap to pay for a front door. Why would be they be too cheap to add simple spells to protect against a first level caster bringing the whole thing down with a first level spell?
You can even grant bonuses to a structure's saving throws based on the level of the wizard you think the builder/owner would have hired to cast the ritual protective spells.
OK, more questions with regard to what the spell does, and does not, permit. Please answer the following:
1) Can you enlarge/reduce a SINGLE brick or stone of a fortification, house, or any structure (so long as it fits within the parameters of the spell)?
2) Can you enlarge/reduce a supporting column, pillar, or post that holds up one of the aforementioned structures (like a temple, shrine, house, lodge, etc).
3) Can you enlarge/reduce a single wooden timber, plank, or log that makes up a ship, wagon, or any building (like log cabin, mead hall, etc)?
4) Can you enlarge/reduce the mast of a ship ONLY (if it is within the area of effect, of course)?
Am thinking the answer is YES since they are discrete objects or units even though they help comprise the overall larger structure (which, unto itself, an object). But I want to know where you all stand on this.
I see potential abuse in the future if the answer to all those questions is 'yes'. But, it shouldn't be a flat-out 'no', either.
Consider your answer to the following question:
Could the spell enlarge a single organ within a living body?
At the very least, the organ or the entity to whom it belongs should get a saving throw versus the effects.
Perhaps that is at least a partial answer: give the non-living object a saving throw if it is an integral part of a larger structure.
The next question then is what bonuses/penalties should any particular item receive when subjected to such a spell when said item is integral to the structure of another item. I'm afraid that may simply require DM adjudication depending upon the circumstances.
Potential for abuse, indeed. I guess it comes down to what is defined as a single item or object, especially once individual components are 'melded' together into a larger object.
Nevertheless, I still want to know where you, and everyone else, stands with respect to those questions. The more input from the collective, the better.
So...if a crossbow is pointing to your proverbial head, Yes or No.
However, I'll direct you back to my explanation of the myriad ritual spells I described above as existing in a magical world. As the DM, I would give every target a saving throw and adjudicate the target's bonuses to said save based upon the wealth and power of the owner.
For example, if an adventurer wishes to reduce the door to a peasant's hovel, I would assume that the peasant lacked the resources to have even a low-level cleric or magic-user cast a simple blessing upon the structure. Therefore, the door would get no bonus to its save and it would save as a low-level peasant.
If, however, an adventurer wished to reduce the portcullis blocking the castle of a powerful warlord or a flying buttress supporting a wall of the Temple of Elemental Evil, I would assume that the person commissioning the building of said structure had the resources to have a high-level cleric or magic-user cast powerful ritual spells upon the structure that would give it a saving throw equal to a high-level PC with serious bonuses in addition.
That in-game explanation is really just a way to justify ameliorating the potential abuses we both mentioned previously. Thus, PCs still have such actions as arrows in their solution quivers, but they are appropriately balanced to their level. (Unless, of course, your 18th level PCs decide to go casting reduce on all the peasant hovels in a frontier town.)
The spell description says “all equipment worn or carried by a creature is enlarged by the spell.”
I infer from this that the magic cannot discriminate between parts of an object. So my answer is no, the caster cannot enlarge a component of a larger object. A mage can enlarge a stone, but not once that stone is set into a wall. The spell would try to enlarge the curtain wall and fail because it is too large.
The spell can enlarge/reduce a door, because the door is a distinct object,even though it is attached to the wall by its hinges.
I’m not sure what my answer is regarding the mast of a ship. I think the answer would be yes. A mast seems sufficiently similar to a door (mentioned in the spell description) that a sufficiently high level mage could affect a mast.
Also, the enlargement is stopped if the available space is insufficient. In the wall example, assuming a single stone could be enlarged, the surrounding stones would prevent enlargement, except perhaps out from the exterior and interior faces of the wall. That enlargement would probably not damage the structural strength of the wall.
In the mast example, the mast could be reduced, but in some respect not enlarged because the wood of the deck/keel/whatever the the mast is fitted to is as strong as the wood of the mast.
EXCELLENT point! I never thought of that counter. This is why I enjoy posting my inquiries to the general collective. Many heads are better than one. Just ask Tiamat!
The door did present a conundrum to me. I went back and forth with my fellow player/DM on that one. At what point does the individual component become an immutable part of the overall structure or object? We debated and his reasoning was that anything that moves (like a window or door) is an individual object not permanently affixed to the overall structure.
So this raises the question about the smaller pieces, like boards, bricks, and stones, that comprise larger objects and structures (primarily buildings, towers, and the like). Thusly, I take it that you reject the idea of altering the size of such items under your rationale listed above...Yes?
That being said, perhaps the mast cannot be singled out since it is part of the overall ship, whereas the individual sails could be. If memory serves, a mast is anchored to the ship below decks and is affixed to the hull. Or would it be considered an ADDITIONAL structure or item to the ship since it is not, technically, a part of the hull...? hmmmm
I like where you are going. This seems like a legitimate, balancing factor to the spell.
Your turn (and anyone else who wishes to chime in!).
thank you
Lanthorn
p.s. to counter what you mentioned about the brick or stone, whereas the Enlarge would likely fail due to the reason you presented, the Reduce would likely work because the shrinking object would 'tear away' from the surroundings and not impact it.
The reduce spell is more complicated in some ways. The spell description says “A shrinking object may damage weaker materials affixed to it.” One could read that to mean that a shrinking object cannot damage affixed materials that are as strong as or stronger than the shrinking object. And “the object will shrink only as long as the object is not damaged.” It’s debatable, but I read these to mean that a mage cannot reduce a stone that is part of a wall because the rest of the wall is equally strong to the particular stone. It’s also possible that the stone would be damaged if it was reduced - being pulled away from the adjacent stones - thus preventing any shrinking.
I would say no to affecting a single brick in the wall or similar components of a larger structure.
Still don’t know about a mast. Masts are supposed to be detachable/removable, though of course when installed are secured below decks. But even if I said no to the mast, I would likely say yes to enlarging/reducing a spar (say, the one holding the main sail) which would have a similar impact on the ship. Spell range is perhaps too short for this spell to have a truly dramatic impact on naval combat, but I can certainly imagine scenarios where this simple spell would be very useful. :)
Generally speaking, I do not allow the components of an object to targeted individually. I.e. a wooden board on it's own is an object and could be Enlarged, the wooden boards comprising part of the hull of a ship are not objects (the ship is the object in such a case) and may not be targeted individually.
As an aside, this is why I disallow the "Light spell to the eyes" tactic. Eyes are not a viable target, the spell would have to be cast on the entire individual.
And well met! Thank you for your input. I like your reasoning and will offer that perspective forth. I guess, then, that a door, not being integral to the overall structure of a house, is fair game.
What about a ship mast?
As for the Light (perhaps another, separate Post is fitting), the spell description allows it to be used to blind opponents by targeting the visual organs. That counters your reasoning, of course (but your game, your rules). I personally HATE how a mere 1st or 2nd level spell can totally incapacitate an enemy, so I consider it a 'called shot' and give the target a bonus to save against the effect.
Re: doors, I allow it, even though it runs sort of counter to the general ruling. I'm not afraid to make exceptions to rules, and this is perhaps one of them. I've never really thought about where the boundary of component vs. separate object lies, but upon a few moments of consideration I think it has to do with the level of permanence for me. A door may be removed and the house is still a house, albeit with a doorway instead of a door. It makes sense in my head, but I'm not sure I can articulate it better than that.
Re: a ship's mast, I'd rule that it's part of the ship. Of course, one that hadn't been installed yet, or had been split off by extreme weather or somesuch would be fair game.
Re: the Light spell, I'm aware that the spell description includes Light to the eyes and dislike it. I house rule that it works otherwise in my games.
I'll note that I consider what makes up an object at the time the spell is cast. For instance, if plank that had yet to be incorporated into a ship had a spell cast on it would not transfer that spell to entire ship when it was nailed in place. One could have a single plank shining with Continual Light incorporated into a ship, so long as the spell was cast when the plank was still just a plank.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
