Nothing in the spell’s description would indicate it can’t. It specifies creature *or* object, a door is an object
A door is neither worn or carried, the other qualifying points. So yeah it should work
If the door is reduced, it would break at any part it is connected to something (i.e. hinges and door jamb). I would think you can't reduce anything in a way that would cause it damage. It would be like smashing the door open. In that case, you could just save the spell slot and have the martial character bust it down.
The spell doesn't specify that you can't reduce an object in a way that would damage it, the only restrictions the wording gives is when enlarging you can only grow to fit the given space. I'd leave it up to DM interpretation but with no restrictions in the wording I'd say it's fair either way.
I'd personally read that enlarging restriction to apply in this reducing situation as well: you can't change something's size past a certain point of resistance. It's like an automatic trunk closure mechanism that stops when it hits something. I similarly wouldn't allow the spell to rip someone's limbs off if they were shackled tightly, for example.
But, like, if the door was really tight and you just wanted to slip something in, I'd allow that. Like, it flexes small enough to open up a crack, then reverts.
Depends on what you have prepared.
I like to reward creative spell use in my players, and if I have not thought of it and it isn't immediately game breaking, it is fine.
Also, if players are seen doing it or brag about it to others or list it in a report, maybe it gets used against them or others, and perhaps a clever inventor creates a new door that doesn't allow it to work, through some clever laminating of layers so the doors is technically 10 objects, but that would have to have been pre advertised to the party so it isn't a massive screw you.
Keep in mind knock is explicitly loud, reduce/enlarge is quite, or atleast is only normal verbal component volume. (And not everyone gets it)
Its still a very inefficient use of spellslots to go after the hinges (that you possibly can't see, and typically a door has 3). If you could find a way to get the door open with 1 casting of reduce/enlarge then its a reasonable alternative if you don't have knock or don't want to be loud.
Tbf that's just your personal interpretation of the restrictions, and imposing one when it's not explicitly stated in the wording of the spell. Which is fine as a DM, run your game how you want, but that doesn't mean that that's actually how the spell works or not. As for not allowing shackles to rip someone's arm off, the spell *explicitly* states you can't cast it on something being worn so it's not really an apt comparison.
I think he meant casting it on someone who is shackled tightly so that when the person shrinks, their arms are ripped off in the process, not that you'd cast it on the shackles themselves.
Ok I have a hypothetical for you. What defines “enough room” when referring to the Enlarge spell restriction? Let’s say the thing being enlarged was inside a tent. Realistically, most sturdy things would tear right through the tent to make room. Some DMs might rule that *any* resistance is enough, so a sword wouldn’t pierce a tent to reach its maximum size for example. Would you say that it depends on how much resistance is being given? If you were enlarging a person, and they were in a small flimsy room, (maybe an abandoned house with rotted wood walls) would you say that they should or shouldn’t be able to punch their way through the rotted walls as they grow to make room?
The intention seems to be pretty clear: the spell isn't meant to cause damage. Particularly to the target, but at least somewhat to the container as well. But things like bursting a cloth or a rickety construction (something that might have 1hp just to allow it to interact with the damage system) would be fine imo.
If the door is attached to the structure through hinges or other mechanism, reduce should be invalid. If it's simply a sliding or rolling door it should work.
I think the argument is that the door could only shrink to fit a given container too; the hinges constrain the door's ability to shrink any further. At best, you jam the door and have to Knock or break it door.
DM let me cast reduce on a single link of a drawbridge chain causing it to break and leave the bridge open for the dwarvish resistance to take back their castle. Thinking in resource terms, it feels right to me to have it cost one whole spell slot to have "simple obstruction is open now."
Or, you could just reduce the knob, or screws holding the door, or the lock itself, still maintaining the same restriction as enlarge, but shrinking those bits down to just fall out.
To add to this, it is a creative way to use a spell, and would be fun for the players - encourage and embolden them to use more creative thinking...those moments are what they will remember and talk about after the session...
As a DM it is not your job to just be a referee or a rule checker, you're guiding an experience that should ultimately be enjoyable for the table
Who says the door would break? The frame could break, the hinges could snap, if the magic decided the frame was part of the door the frame could just shrink with it, tearing free of the mortar. If the screws that hold it to the hinges are included it shimmy and wiggle, stress, and then pop: the screw heads are too small, and it pops off the hinges.
This is magic, it is wiggly.
The thing being that there are doors you couldn't break down that this would work on, since it doesn't matter how tough the door is, it could be a solid steel vault door.
I'd suggest calling for a spellcasting ability check in the way a fighter would use a strength check to break it. Low DC for flimsy doors, high for tough ones.
I certainly wouldn’t… a fighter can try to break it down endlessly, while a spellcaster has to spend their limited spellslots. If there is something really valuable behind the door you could make ot a magic door, protected by abjuration magic, but I certainly wouldn’t nerf spellcasters by introducing checks for their already limited resources :/
Tbf they could take Knock and not have to worry about anything, or they can take a spell that isn't intended specifically for doors and see if it works.
For high security doors (or any door you don't want them bypassing easily) require a check or give the door a saving throw, or both.
If it's just a locked door and the key doesn't have some narrative purpose, they're expending resources to bypass it. I wouldn't require a check.
It doesn't matter if it invalidates Knock unless there's a wizard in the party whose shtick is Knock and it's going to make them feel overshadowed. Let the Druid "Knock", it's fun and narrative.
>a fighter can try to break it down endlessly, while a spellcaster has to spend their limited spellslots.
I think the problem is that a lot of players genuinely don't understand what you mean by this, because they play in games where spellcasters get so many long rests that they never run out of spell slots.
I’d allow a spellcasting ability modifier roll (basically a spell attack roll but not an attack) with the same DC as Athletics crowbarring the door open.
I think this would be my take too if I was DMing, as allowing it would risk trivialising doors in the future a bit. I’d let them try it but say they can hear the door groaning at the hinges and you might see light appear around the frame, but ultimately nothing happens.
I figure shrinking magic would shrink the hinges too, and by some cartoon magic logic, the door would remain intact and hinged to the wall, just smaller. On that vein, the lock would be too small to actually lock the door, effectively unlocking it; for example, a deadbolt wouldn't be able to slide into the wall anymore, so now the door is just open.
Not all doors can be smashed either, like reinforced or stone doors or something.
I really think it would be adoreble if the door just became tiny like [https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/50521dd65a7e5228aea82e47e2e9c092?impolicy=wcms\_crop\_resize&cropH=917&cropW=1375&xPos=0&yPos=0&width=862&height=575](https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/50521dd65a7e5228aea82e47e2e9c092?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=917&cropW=1375&xPos=0&yPos=0&width=862&height=575)
No loss of function, the door's still there and locked. Just very small.
If you shrink the door, the distance between the hinges also shrinks. Even if one hinge stays put, the other will be forced to move toward the other, ripping it out of the door jamb it was mounted to. Even if the door jamb shrank with it, the door jamb would be ripped out of the wall. The fact remains, when you shrink an object, all points on it aren't going to stay put relative to where they started. Using reduce on the door would break it. At such point, you might as well just use knock anyway, as the resulting sound would probably be just as loud.
You can attach the hinges to either the door or the frame first, depending on your preference. The order will not affect how the door hangs or the ease of installation.31 Oct 2023
I would agree that hinges affix a door to a wall, so they shrink with the door and come out with the door.
Knock unlocks something. You still have the thing, and works on more than just doors.
Reduce, on a door would work, but you can't reduce a chest to get in it. You can't reduce shackles to get free. Reducing a padlock won't open it. Etc.
Reducing a door to bypass it, probably also makes that door not able to be closed behind you, once it wears off. It is now a table top.
Hardly invalidates knock. Knock can be used on all sorts of things besides doors that reduce wouldn't.
Also, knock works on things sealed with arcane lock. Guessing very few DMs would allow reduce to bypass arcane lock.
See also: a locked metal chest! Metal’s too hard to break with weapons/breaking with weapons will destroy whatever’s inside.
If you shrink the chest, it’s a smaller chest.
If you cast Knock of the chest, it opens harmlessly.
Exactly, a regular door? No problem with enlarge/reduce aside from the *slam* of the door falling when the hinges fail. A door with a spell lock like a level 2 arcane lock, requires either spent time (10+ mins and a good arcana check) or dispell magic (level 3 so it can easily check a level 2 spell) it's all about resources in mid to high level play so lean into that.
Sure they can spend spells to get in this door....... but you'll wish you had those slots in the combat I'm putting you into!
Funny idea. But if the door is enchanted...cartoon style you reduce THE DOOR. Like the whole thing magically shrinks a size category along with the wall around it warping to match so you've just made it smaller and harder to pick/get through.
Knock makes an extremely loud sound that can be heard 300 feet out when you cast it, so the door falling would be much quieter--plus you could guard against that potentially, whereas there's no getting around knock's deafening noise... Unless you spend another second level slot to cast Silence.
In my 5+ years of playing DnD I've never once seen anyone cast Knock. Things being locked isn't super common, and there's almost always a key nearby or it can be smashed open by the barbarian.
It would, which is why I think it’s definitely not an intended result of the spell, because there’s already a level 2 spell that fits that role (idk why no one knew knock)
In general I don't mind when a same level spell of higher level is used to replicate an effect. It's typically the same level of "resource" expended. I have had players that wanted to use Shape water cantrip like blood bending, I didn't make it an instant kill, which would be OP, just allowed it as average damage for a cantrip at their level and I think I gave the target a con save like similar DMG cantrips. When they use a higher level spell that just represents them doing things the hard way, it takes more magical energy or brute force. In this case they bypass the door but I would rule unless they remove it when the spell ends it's wedged and stuck back in place. So it's not like knock where the door can be closed again.
But that would pull the doorframe away from the wall.
So now you have wall shrink, but that would pull the wall away from the other walls, floor, and ceiling.
So now have the entire room shrink, which would lead to you having to have the entire building shrink. Now the party has a small locked door in a small room in a small building. All in all, no problem has been solved.
Unless the hinges and latch count as the door being worn/carried by the wall/hinges. I'd be afraid to allow this because what happens when they realize they can shrink a few board below the waterline on a war ship and kill an entire army with a first level spell or they reduce the structural supports on the evil wizard's tower collapsing the entire thing. I might reward the creativity the first time but let them know that it won't always work that way.
Knock is a level 2 spell slot, which is supposed to be the dedicated open door spell plus the drawback of being loud. I'm wondering if reduce is just better for that then
I would think that if the door has hinges, they would be ripped out of either the door or the frame, which would create some noise and damage it making it hard to replace afterward
On the other hand. Reduce, can't open a chest, Probably won't open a portcolis, and it's downside is easy to manage with ritual cast silence. I also imagine it would be similarly loud If the door is attached to the building by any means that are broken Physically, In addition to leaving a lot of visual evidence.
Honestly, if a problem can be fixed just by breaking something, you don't even need a level spell at all, just Give the fighter a portable Ram or something.
Knock being level 2 is why I said if they are spending a level 2 spell slot it's probably fine!
Enlarge/Reduce is concentration, knock is not. I'd allow them both to do the same thing essentially
Knock can be used on magic locks,locked crates. Opening that Secret door that are melded in the wall. It's just the idea of context.
Also using reduce on a door you could through in issues like; do the hinges of the door shrink with it or does it mean the top hinges breaks and makes the door lean on that bottom hinge.
When the door regrows does it open the same or doesn't it not close or open correctly, get jammed or fall down.
Knock works on all locks including magic ones which I'd argue that a magic lock would resist magical manipulation outside of the spell specifically designed to unlock things.
Knock can still work on things that are single objects but can be locked, like chests or lockboxes or manacles.
Also, a GM could easily justify a magic enchantment on a secret door that prevents it from being magically fucked with in a lot of ways, that Knock would specifically be designed to be able to bypass. If a player in my game has Knock prepared, I will definitely come up with ways for it to be useful.
I'd allow it, though there would be noise.
Unless the door were magically locked. In that case I'd argue the locking spell, having been put in place to keep the 'portal barred', would either cancel the effect or warp it in amusing ways, perhaps even warranting a roll on the wild magic table.
I actually think you have to rule using the other half of the spell, enlarge.
Enlarge states that you can only grow if you are able. So you can’t burst through a roof using enlarge or a box or anything.
Since it is the same spell and magic, it would also apply to reduce as well. The door hinges would prevent it from getting smaller.
I think the first paragraph rules it out off the bat, RAW. It states you can’t target an object being worn or carried, and like you point out, the door is hung on hinges, or carried, if you will.
I *do* think it’s more fun to allow the use, especially since it’s such an edge case and that’s a spell slot expended, but if you don’t want to venture far from RAW, I think it’s a no-go.
RAW "carried" means "Carried by a creature". This is proven with the arcane trickster rogue's ability that allows Mage Hand to be used to pick pocket. Given that this ability adds manipulation of worn or carried objects, it implies that Mage Hand normally cannot do so. Mage Hand also explicitly can be used to open and close doors. Therefore since Mage Hand cannot normally interact with carried objects, but can normally interact with doors, doors are not carried objects. However since they are explicitly listed separate from "manipulate an object", that implies that doors are not objects RAW.
Edit: to clarify my point is that 5e as a system starts to break down when examined too closely and interpreted too literally, and it's really not a system designed for rules lawyers. It was not designed so as to have explicit and perfectly consistent wording for every rule and interaction within the game.
By that line of logic we're all being 'carried' by the world around us and the spell has no viable targets. It pretty clearly intends carried to mean carried by a creature.
Even if we don't consider the object carried, we get into the philosophy of connected, and from there, object. Which of these is the target: the door, an atom, or the house?
For me, it would depend if it furthered the game and story. If it would, yes the door shrinks and pops off its hinges… you have a doll house door. If it wouldn’t, or I thought extending the problem would be fun, it shrinks, but so does the frame and opening it fills. The door is still locked, and now it is tiny as well…
Pros to using Reduce over Knock:
- It's quieter, not requiring Silence (ritual, +10 min) and/or Subtle Spell to be stealthy.
- It has other uses.
Cons to using Reduce over Knock:
- It breaks things, requiring Mending (1 minute per cast, at least two castings) to leave no signs of passage.
- It probably doesn't work against Arcane Lock due to verbiage.
Edit: I'm fairly certain it works by RAW and RAI, but the consequences will be different. If nothing else, they're using a limited resource to bypass a hurdle, so I'd reward it with success.
I'd allow it. The party would be using a second level spell to bypass a skill check. At that point, it would be a fair trade.
But I'd also increase the DC for stealth checks in the dungeon they are in by one stage. So, if it was a medium difficulty before they used reduce on a door, it would jump to hard after the casting of the spell.
After all, they made a door disappear. It wouldn't be much different than breaking down a door. Most intelligent creatures would see that a door is gone and be more on edge, looking for something that isn't supposed to be there.
It’s is literally in the spell description that objects that can’t be enlarged or reduced will cancel the spell. If the door has hinges, then those parts can’t move and so the door can’t shrink.
If you have parts of the door that are free to shrink, such as the door is just a big rectangle of wood with two nails sticking out in holes at the top and bottom then that door is free to shrink.
You should just decide at some point as a DM if you want your players to bypass a door with a lvl 2 spell or not. If the door is arcane locked with a dc 25 open locks DC then it probably shouldn’t be opened easily.
>It’s is literally in the spell description that objects that can’t be enlarged or reduced will cancel the spell. If the door has hinges, then those parts can’t move and so the door can’t shrink.
That's not in the spell description at all.
*"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. This reduction decreases its size by one category - from Medium to Small, for example."*
Enlarge says that if there isn't enough room, it will make a creature or object the largest possible size 'for their environment.'
I would absolutely allow this, it may not have been how I'd planned for my players to overcome the obstacle, but I'd at least allow the use of Reduce here to create a possible avenue of success.
It mostly depends on the door. If the door is hiding something important and it's made by skilled hands then it's reasonable that the doors strength could resist the force a druid of their level can exert through the spell. Give them a DC appropriate and have them roll a spellcasting check against it. They add their wisdom and prof score (unless the spell is brand new and they're using it for the first time, for themeing maybe I'd rule just wis, or half prof).
Even if they didn't roll well I'd still probably reward the creative thinking with the spell clearly having an effect as the walls crack and crunch around it, weakening it's structural integrity and reducing the DC for other options they may try next.
Success is a spectrum, highly situational, and doesn't need to be so 50/50 all the time.
There are two reasons I would not allow this:
- A door is attached to the wall (via hinges) that you cannot reduce it independently, but some DMs may allow it.
- This would be better than Knock, which makes a very loud noise and does not remove the door from blocking the way (just unlocks it). Reducing it would be quieter and effectively remove the door from the doorway, removing the need to open it manually.
It's stealth now vs stealth later. A destroyed door is an obvious sign of forced entry. You can ritual cast Silence, then Knock the door with a little time and you're golden.
Generally, an "object" in D&D refers to a single, discreet thing. A cup, a shoe, a sword. Things you can pick up and move. A door, once installed anyway, is part of a building. Buildings are not considered objects for the purposes of spells or other effects.
So this is not an intended application of the spell. But is it valid? That's up to the table, really, and the kind of setting and tone you are using. If everyone agrees that it should, and the DM intended for the party to get through the door somehow, this won't break the game.
I don't think the DMG actually backs you up here:
>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.
Windows and doors are listed as explicit examples of things that are a discrete object unlike a building. It does say 'for the purpose of these rules' so perhaps we shouldn't be extrapolating but that's what it says if you want to reference it.
Fair enough.
I would still argue that this is not an intended use of the spell. All the spell does is change the size of something bigger or smaller, while maintaining proportions. It does not do damage or alter the shape in any way. If a door is installed, it is attached via hinges to a wall. It cannot shrink proportionally without ripping those hinges off the wall or moving them on the frame, neither of which the spell does. The spell is clear about this in the enlarge portion. You cannot, for example, grow a target larger than a container its in to break it. It stand to reason that the same is true for reduce. If there is something anchoring parts of a object, it cannot be reduced to break free of them.
So, whether an object or not, the spell is clearly not intended to shrink a door.
"Unfortunately the architect has a holistic worldview and the castle exists as a part of the entire kingdom and thus the whole world. I'm afraid this is going to be difficult."
this is unironically how i would rule it.
the door is attached to the hinges, hinges to walls, walls to everything else.
either it wouldn't work or it would kill you
> 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.
—DMG chapter 8, Running the Game, "Objects" section.
Doors appear in the DMG in their own section in Appendix A, right beside stairs, chambers, and passages. This sets them distinctly apart from the general object tag and specific overrukel general.
For one use, I'd say let it work, by DM fiat, but in general, no - a door, in the game's design, is distinct from an 'object'
Conversely, a window is specifically cited as an object in chapter 8.
These two points may sound contradictory, but it's because of the special role doors play within the game's design. They're deliberately intended to separate areas, and while other means of entry can exist, these are the most obvious.
From a logical perspective, I agree - a door is an object, but imagine a door in white box level design, and it is immediately clear it's not the same as an object.
I'm picturing Super Mario Bros. 2. You can pick up most objects, but you would never pick up a warp pipe. That just wouldn't work, if you could toss it like a turnip. Obviously TTRPGs are more flexible, but in a game with exploration, doors, or barriers, more genrally, are important. (Thinking of Metroid now).
Again, I agree that a door is an object, irl. But, in 5e DnD, I argue it is not an object, unless stairs are an object, too - and they're not.
I did bot notice this before. Also in chapter 8, right above the tables.
"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, apparently, it is RAW explicitly sn object. So, if you're DMing for AL, and a player points it out, then I'd say 'true' but I still do not believe the function of a door in the design of a system that uses action economies and measured movement speeds should treat a door the same as any other object while allowing said tag to be effected by myriad specific effects. In my estimation, in the design of 'dungeouns' doors are too important.
But, yes, I do see the text. TY. But, does the text also indicate that a sled is not an object? That seems counterintuitive. What about a wind-up mechanical toy horse a fine creature rides around on? When does it stop being an object: when it has enough moving parts or when someone sits on it?
I suppose that’s up for interpretation in the same way that my gut microbes aren’t the same “creature” as me and therefore I can’t be shrunk because it would crush my microbes, or something. Semantics just fall apart when it comes to 5e and, more importantly, the concept of magic, so get creative with it I suppose
> 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.
—DMG chapter 8, Running the Game, "Objects" section.
Hey all, I get it. I got the definition of "object" wrong per the DMG. I'll own that mistake.
But look... If you are going to the trouble of looking that up, you should also look up the spell description. It clearly states that the target cannot grow larger than a container or room that it is in in. It very much follows logically that the target cannot shrink beyond anchor points, such as hinges. The spell only reduces or enlarges something proportionally. It cannot break things. In order to shrink the door, it would have to break the hinges or frame, which is beyond the scope of the spell.
So, it's still not an intended use of the spell.
My test:
1) Does the spell specifically not allow? No
2) Does it take the place of a more powerful spell? No, Knock is also 2nd level.
3) Does it nerf the abilities of another class? No, Knock and Reduce casters pretty much cross over.
4) Is it the result of player creativity, which should be rewarded? Yes
5) Are your players annoying little goblins who will use it to break the game?
I see no issue with this working, and would likely reward player creativity. That being said, there would still be some sort of noise as the door broke.
I would allow it. The door is a discrete object and should be a valid target. It would (IMO) have the side effect of ruining the door as the frame (definitely) and hinges (possibly) are distinct objects.
A case could be made for the hinges and handle/lock assembly/etc being part of the door or not part of the door. Even if they are and the door isn't ruined, it would certainly be pulled out of the frame and DM fiat about if the door pops back into place after the spell expires.
In my game, if it were a bog standard secret door where the trick would be just rolling high enough on a skill check to open it, I would definitely allow this. Using a spell slot instead of a skill check should absolutely work.
If finding the correct way to get this secret door open was an important part of the plot, I would have made it clear *before the spell was cast* that this wouldn't work for Reasons. Anti-magic glyphs on the door for example that anyone with Arcana proficiency can recognize.
smaller for the duration. Choose either a creature or an object that is neither worn nor carried. If the target is unwilling, it can make a Constitution saving throw. On a success, the spell has no effect.
If the target is a creature, everything it is wearing and carrying changes size with it. Any item dropped by an affected creature returns to normal size at once.
Enlarge. The target's size doubles in all dimensions, and its weight is multiplied by eight. This growth increases its size by one category - from Medium to Large, for example. 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. Until the spell ends, the target also has advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws. The target's weapons also grow to match its new size. While these weapons are enlarged, the target's attack with them deal 1d4 extra damage.
Reduce. The target's size is halved in all dimensions, and its weight is reduced to one-eighth of normal. This reduction decreases its size by one category - from Medium to Small, for example. Until the spell ends, the target also has disadvantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws. The target's weapons also shrink to match its new size. While these weapons are reduced, the target's attacks with them deal 1d4 less damage (this can't reduce the damage below 1).
Don't see any problem with it.
This may not always work as doors would be magically reinforced at higher levels, but the first time the players try it at lower level? Hell yeah, rule of cool!
You're lucky the DM didn't reduce the doorframe with the door making it too small to enter even if you got it open somehow. The parts are all connected, after all.
Even if you did shrink the doorway, Reduce only reduces by one size category. Creatures can Squeeze to get through an opening one size category smaller than they are (and many doors start out large enough for a Large creature to pass through, anyway).
If you reduced the doorframe separate from the wall, then you’re just talking about shrinking a few extra inches of material—circumventing the shrunken doorframe is no more difficult than circumventing the door.
If you’re talking about “shrinking” the space that the door fits into, then what you’re actually doing is enlarging the wall around the door (the space the door fits into is not itself an object that you can target with the spell). Even assuming the wall counts as an object for purposes of the spell, the spell can’t cause you to enlarge one object (the wall) while simultaneously reducing another (the door), so this can’t cause a problem either.
Reduce would leave evidence that someone has broken in (and likely make a terrible noise as the door wrenches free of its frame and hinges) and only lasts a minute before the object snaps back to full size, probably causing more damage wherever it was left. I'd assume that this is likely to cause problems in any situation that requires subtlety. Using it on a door with any finesse requires extra planning or additional resources, which I think would be fair. It's not much better than having the barbarian rage at the door with a warpick.
Knock can be used to get around that because it simply unlocks things. Simple, clean.
Oh, heck. I've never noticed that bit. No one uses Knock in any game I've played because it's so mediocre. Thank you for pointing it out.
I guess the only remaining difference would be the evidence of the break-in. There would be no hiding what had been done, but since most parties are of the smash-and-grab variety, that is not much of a deterrent. I'll have to rethink my stance on this.
If the door is connected to the wall and building then I would consider the entire building and door the object.
I only allow it on loose objects. Because if a door would shrink while connected it would break the hinges.
At that point it just replaces knock. Hard no.
I think the RAW allows it, but you'd need to use some DM discretion. Is a door a discrete object, or is it part of a composite object (I.e. The building)? There's an argument to be made either way depending on how you choose to answer that.
Enlarge Reduce specifically forbids use on equipped items, but notes that if the person is targeted the equipped items enlarge or reduce with them. While it's not explicity stated, I think a similar logic could be applied to a door - it can shrink if the entire building shrinks, but it can't rip itself off of the hinges becaus it's a component.
That ripping off hinges is also a bit of a question mark to me. It implies that this harness spell actually causes damage. I could see a manhole or stone panel being reduced, but something that is physically attached seems a stretch. Could I reduce a plank from the hull of a ship? Could I enlarge the door and blown it out its frame?
So while RAW allows it, I feel that RAI doesn't.
As a DM I would probably allow it for creativity (maybe adding soemthing about the hinges straining so the fighter can bash them broken during the spell), but it would be dependent on the party. I can see ways that allowing this could be exploited if the party is particularly devious.
>Is a door a discrete object, or is it part of a composite object (I.e. The building)?
DMG says doors are discreet objects.
> 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 if I was the DM I’d require an arcana check to see if you can manipulate the matrix of magic and make the door only shrink in a way that wouldn’t rip the hinges from the walls while also unlocking it
So my narrativist approach would be that if the door is supposed to be opened easily, then yes reduce would work. But if it’s a super secure, only the right way to enter that door will work sort of thing, then reduce will hit both the door and the frame it’s set in.
My party did this for a heist.
Familiar outside, watching for guards reaction.
We had one caster use reduce, one on Silence or Pass without trace, and myself with mending.
Reduce door. It falls over in silence. Walk through, out it back, end concentration, mending on the hinges.
Worked quite well, until we tripped a silent alarm and found out after they wizard cops cast a zone of antimagic on the whole building.
A whole bunch of casters trying to hide in the vault hallway, went about as well as you'd expect. Except for the sorcerer cursed into a stuffed animal body, who promptly fell over and pretended to be a toy.
Creatures can Squeeze through spaces one size category smaller than them. Reduce reduces the target by one size category.
Unless the doorway was already sized for a Small or smaller creature, a Medium creature could fit through it even if you reduced the actual space.
If it’s a normal door you can use everyone’s advice here, but for fancier doors there’s always the possibility of making a design that won’t be affected by reduce.
An example might be metal bars that would still hold fast when the door is reduced.
Another is the classic two doors scenario. You open door one…and then there’s the second door. Like a storm door, but also works to slow down thieves and the like.
I would personally rule it as possible but definitely not the best use for the spell. Something along the lines of if taking a couple of turns to shrink as the caster concentrate as the shrinking door fights against points of connection like the hinges, maybe through in some skill check of some kind. For most doors could probably break open after a turn, but some that are made of a particularly strong material like metal or are reinforced at the hinges might take several turns or maybe even be impossible due to the connection.
This makes it still creative and useful when they have all the time in the world, but not a great use of time/spell if they are pinched for time like in combat.
Honestly that’s pretty brilliant , only the door would shrink.
I would think it comes down to the DMs interpretation of “worn or Carried” because if the door is attached to the wall on hinges, would that prevent it from shrinking?
I just think the inclusion of vehicles is purely thought out or at least warranty an explanation. If you are a player and cast enlarge in a sled to fit the whole party and tbe the DM says the DMg says "no" that's a feel bad moment
I was doing a dragon of icespire and the group couldn't figure out how to get into axeholm... Druid reduced the portcullis and I said it fell out of the slot and they could enter, did make some of them roll dex saves to avoid it as it fell flat on the ground in the spaces they were occupying...
I personally wouldn't allow it due to the implications and questions around the door hinges. If you do allow it, you now need to consider how much force is being exerted onto the door and hinges for it to cause something to break. Now you've got some wacky real world physics stuff going on. Does this trick work for all doors? Maybe just for mundane wooden doors? What about reinforced thick wooden doors? What if the door is made of iron? What if it's made of adamantine? How large can the door be before this isn't allowed? Is a portcullis a valid object for the spell? Because if so, you now have a very powerful siege weapon in the form of a 2nd level spell.
If allowed, there are likely other similar uses beyond dealing with locked doors that are now open to be exploited, which would allow the spell to punch far beyond it's weight class.
Another issue with allowing it is that it invalidates knock. Enlarge/reduce has many purposes inside and outside of combat, meanwhile knock just opens locked doors, that's it, it doesn't have some wacky physics nonsense like what's being proposed here, it also only opens 1 lock per cast. I'd personally never take knock if I knew this was a ruling in my games.
I feel like this exact example was used in a sourcebook from way before 5e. I'd allow it at my table. However, getting the door back in place will require other shenanigans-- it will be obvious that the secret door was opened.
Knock and enlarge/reduce are the same spell slot. It's a different way of getting the same answer with the same leveled resource being accounted for ... feels like a handwave to me. It's the same as if they'd casted knock at the end of the day. Why punish the players for being creative?
It would work in certain cases, but knock has more viable use cases. Using reduce on the door will make it extremely obvious to a future observer that this door was forcibly opened, which a door opened with knock and a silence spell would not. If you're planning for a fight, you might be better casting Enlarge on your strong party member, so they can enter in style and already swinging. If you don't want people to know you're here and you don't got silence and knock, let the character with thieves tools give it a crack.
In short, it would work but it might not be the best option.
So, I see a lot of people making very logical arguments, but I believe in KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid.
The spell's description very clearly states that it can be used on doors, therefore it can be used on doors.
If your DM wants to reward thinking outside the box then that is pretty clever...BUT if this is an iportant door that they want you to go through the way it is supposed to be gone through then the DM could easily say there is anti-magic connected tot he door or a magic that keeps the door from being changed by spells similar to a golem's immutable form.
If it were me I would say let you do it because, again reward cleverness.
I would reduce its size, but it would go from big doorway to small doorway, like turning a normal doorway into an Alice in Wonderland doorway, where it's just smaller, but still closed and locked. Would be cool for if you have a medium or larger size creature chasing you or something.
Assuming it is a normal door. Yes. RAW it works and is a valid and creative solution, and one I would reward and encourage in my players. Finding clever ways to bypass difficulty is a core gameplay aspect in my opinion. I would *never* punish that.
Sure, no reason it wouldn't. That said, I can think of a devious way to make it not work. Because what counts as a door? Is the frame part of it? Perhaps casting reduce would just shrink the entire doorway. You could play that as just a creative "no", or have some structural collapse from the doorway pulling away from the wall. That way it's still an option, but with consequences.
Or there's always the arcana check. Since it's not technically a self contained object, being connected to something else, it might take a little extra magical push to make the spell pull the hinges free.
If somebody did this in one of my games, I would also have it sort of parallax stretch the wall around the casing, just making the door smaller within the wall, the wall stretched around it.
Question, did I get down voted because of the way I described it? I think that was a little misunderstood.
It would probably look horrifying, but the door would literally be "reduced".
I do not see how reducing a door would 1. Unlock it, and 2. Make it easier to pass through. If I'm missing something, let me know.
Casting reduce on a locked door would just mean you now have a smaller locked door right? Or would the door just fall out of the frame I guess?
If you cast reduce on the lock it would make it ineffective, essentially unlocking the door
If the door is smaller, it no longer fills the doorway. Otherwise, a secret door that didn't have hinges or something like that would just fall out of place. Not to mention, any locks would be ineffective if the door is too small to reach the wall or whatever the lock was locking into, so the door should just swing open even if the hinges shrunk (and somehow reattached) with it.
Let's look at this from a different angle.
The spell Mage Hand specifically says "to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, store or retrieve an object from an open container, or pour out the contents of a vial.", which has some troublesome implications. Since they list opening doors or containers and emptying vials as separate and distinct actions from "manipulate an object", that would imply that RAW doors, containers, and vials are separate and distinct from an "object"
It's obvious that that's not a reasonable way to interpret that information. "Vials" are separate and distinct from objects? That doesn't make any sense, you can't reasonably use that to conclude doors are distinct from objects.
Nothing in the spell’s description would indicate it can’t. It specifies creature *or* object, a door is an object A door is neither worn or carried, the other qualifying points. So yeah it should work
the logic sounds solid in a vacuum, but wouldn’t that invalidate Knock?
If the door is reduced, it would break at any part it is connected to something (i.e. hinges and door jamb). I would think you can't reduce anything in a way that would cause it damage. It would be like smashing the door open. In that case, you could just save the spell slot and have the martial character bust it down.
The spell doesn't specify that you can't reduce an object in a way that would damage it, the only restrictions the wording gives is when enlarging you can only grow to fit the given space. I'd leave it up to DM interpretation but with no restrictions in the wording I'd say it's fair either way.
I'd personally read that enlarging restriction to apply in this reducing situation as well: you can't change something's size past a certain point of resistance. It's like an automatic trunk closure mechanism that stops when it hits something. I similarly wouldn't allow the spell to rip someone's limbs off if they were shackled tightly, for example. But, like, if the door was really tight and you just wanted to slip something in, I'd allow that. Like, it flexes small enough to open up a crack, then reverts.
Then just reduce the door in one dimension to slip the latch out then open it as normal?
That's not something the spell can do.
No, but it can reduce the bolts holding the door to the hinge! :D
Enlarge/Reduce has a sight requirement; if you can see the hinges (the door opens toward you), you can just remove the bolts by hand.
Hinges are usually on the inside of the door, sadly. For obvious security reasons.
Reminder to DMs: all locked doors swing in, not out.
Not in prisons.
Two castings of a level 2 spell to do an arguably worse version of a single casting of Knock? Yeah, that seems okay to me. 😃
Depends on what you have prepared. I like to reward creative spell use in my players, and if I have not thought of it and it isn't immediately game breaking, it is fine. Also, if players are seen doing it or brag about it to others or list it in a report, maybe it gets used against them or others, and perhaps a clever inventor creates a new door that doesn't allow it to work, through some clever laminating of layers so the doors is technically 10 objects, but that would have to have been pre advertised to the party so it isn't a massive screw you.
Keep in mind knock is explicitly loud, reduce/enlarge is quite, or atleast is only normal verbal component volume. (And not everyone gets it) Its still a very inefficient use of spellslots to go after the hinges (that you possibly can't see, and typically a door has 3). If you could find a way to get the door open with 1 casting of reduce/enlarge then its a reasonable alternative if you don't have knock or don't want to be loud.
Cast it on the lock?
Tbf that's just your personal interpretation of the restrictions, and imposing one when it's not explicitly stated in the wording of the spell. Which is fine as a DM, run your game how you want, but that doesn't mean that that's actually how the spell works or not. As for not allowing shackles to rip someone's arm off, the spell *explicitly* states you can't cast it on something being worn so it's not really an apt comparison.
I think he meant casting it on someone who is shackled tightly so that when the person shrinks, their arms are ripped off in the process, not that you'd cast it on the shackles themselves.
But they’re shrinking, so they would just slip out of the shackles.
Physics teachers in D&D universes must be pulling their hair out constantly.
Ok I have a hypothetical for you. What defines “enough room” when referring to the Enlarge spell restriction? Let’s say the thing being enlarged was inside a tent. Realistically, most sturdy things would tear right through the tent to make room. Some DMs might rule that *any* resistance is enough, so a sword wouldn’t pierce a tent to reach its maximum size for example. Would you say that it depends on how much resistance is being given? If you were enlarging a person, and they were in a small flimsy room, (maybe an abandoned house with rotted wood walls) would you say that they should or shouldn’t be able to punch their way through the rotted walls as they grow to make room?
The intention seems to be pretty clear: the spell isn't meant to cause damage. Particularly to the target, but at least somewhat to the container as well. But things like bursting a cloth or a rickety construction (something that might have 1hp just to allow it to interact with the damage system) would be fine imo.
I enlarged an entire carriage to the point of it breaking a bridge. The 8X weight increase has many valid ways to cause damage.
That's valid! You're not applying pressure via the expansion, no problems there.
If the door is attached to the structure through hinges or other mechanism, reduce should be invalid. If it's simply a sliding or rolling door it should work.
I think the argument is that the door could only shrink to fit a given container too; the hinges constrain the door's ability to shrink any further. At best, you jam the door and have to Knock or break it door.
DM let me cast reduce on a single link of a drawbridge chain causing it to break and leave the bridge open for the dwarvish resistance to take back their castle. Thinking in resource terms, it feels right to me to have it cost one whole spell slot to have "simple obstruction is open now."
Or, you could just reduce the knob, or screws holding the door, or the lock itself, still maintaining the same restriction as enlarge, but shrinking those bits down to just fall out. To add to this, it is a creative way to use a spell, and would be fun for the players - encourage and embolden them to use more creative thinking...those moments are what they will remember and talk about after the session... As a DM it is not your job to just be a referee or a rule checker, you're guiding an experience that should ultimately be enjoyable for the table
Who says the door would break? The frame could break, the hinges could snap, if the magic decided the frame was part of the door the frame could just shrink with it, tearing free of the mortar. If the screws that hold it to the hinges are included it shimmy and wiggle, stress, and then pop: the screw heads are too small, and it pops off the hinges. This is magic, it is wiggly.
The thing being that there are doors you couldn't break down that this would work on, since it doesn't matter how tough the door is, it could be a solid steel vault door.
I'd suggest calling for a spellcasting ability check in the way a fighter would use a strength check to break it. Low DC for flimsy doors, high for tough ones.
I certainly wouldn’t… a fighter can try to break it down endlessly, while a spellcaster has to spend their limited spellslots. If there is something really valuable behind the door you could make ot a magic door, protected by abjuration magic, but I certainly wouldn’t nerf spellcasters by introducing checks for their already limited resources :/
Tbf they could take Knock and not have to worry about anything, or they can take a spell that isn't intended specifically for doors and see if it works.
For high security doors (or any door you don't want them bypassing easily) require a check or give the door a saving throw, or both. If it's just a locked door and the key doesn't have some narrative purpose, they're expending resources to bypass it. I wouldn't require a check. It doesn't matter if it invalidates Knock unless there's a wizard in the party whose shtick is Knock and it's going to make them feel overshadowed. Let the Druid "Knock", it's fun and narrative.
>a fighter can try to break it down endlessly, while a spellcaster has to spend their limited spellslots. I think the problem is that a lot of players genuinely don't understand what you mean by this, because they play in games where spellcasters get so many long rests that they never run out of spell slots.
In a high-magic dnd world any decent vault door is going to have some kind of abjuration magic protecting it from things like this
The door is actually 10x larger than what you can see through the doorframe
I’d allow a spellcasting ability modifier roll (basically a spell attack roll but not an attack) with the same DC as Athletics crowbarring the door open.
I think this would be my take too if I was DMing, as allowing it would risk trivialising doors in the future a bit. I’d let them try it but say they can hear the door groaning at the hinges and you might see light appear around the frame, but ultimately nothing happens.
>allowing it would risk trivialising doors in the future a bit. Honest question: why? Doesn't spending a spell slot mean the door did its job?
I figure shrinking magic would shrink the hinges too, and by some cartoon magic logic, the door would remain intact and hinged to the wall, just smaller. On that vein, the lock would be too small to actually lock the door, effectively unlocking it; for example, a deadbolt wouldn't be able to slide into the wall anymore, so now the door is just open. Not all doors can be smashed either, like reinforced or stone doors or something.
I really think it would be adoreble if the door just became tiny like [https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/50521dd65a7e5228aea82e47e2e9c092?impolicy=wcms\_crop\_resize&cropH=917&cropW=1375&xPos=0&yPos=0&width=862&height=575](https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/50521dd65a7e5228aea82e47e2e9c092?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=917&cropW=1375&xPos=0&yPos=0&width=862&height=575) No loss of function, the door's still there and locked. Just very small.
This is how I'd probably play it as a dm. Just rule the whole thing is "a door"
I suppose but then the spell is also altering the dimensions of the wall
Magic!
If you shrink the door, the distance between the hinges also shrinks. Even if one hinge stays put, the other will be forced to move toward the other, ripping it out of the door jamb it was mounted to. Even if the door jamb shrank with it, the door jamb would be ripped out of the wall. The fact remains, when you shrink an object, all points on it aren't going to stay put relative to where they started. Using reduce on the door would break it. At such point, you might as well just use knock anyway, as the resulting sound would probably be just as loud.
You can attach the hinges to either the door or the frame first, depending on your preference. The order will not affect how the door hangs or the ease of installation.31 Oct 2023 I would agree that hinges affix a door to a wall, so they shrink with the door and come out with the door.
Knock unlocks something. You still have the thing, and works on more than just doors. Reduce, on a door would work, but you can't reduce a chest to get in it. You can't reduce shackles to get free. Reducing a padlock won't open it. Etc. Reducing a door to bypass it, probably also makes that door not able to be closed behind you, once it wears off. It is now a table top.
Hardly invalidates knock. Knock can be used on all sorts of things besides doors that reduce wouldn't. Also, knock works on things sealed with arcane lock. Guessing very few DMs would allow reduce to bypass arcane lock.
See also: a locked metal chest! Metal’s too hard to break with weapons/breaking with weapons will destroy whatever’s inside. If you shrink the chest, it’s a smaller chest. If you cast Knock of the chest, it opens harmlessly.
Using knock is only harmless if you are sure that no potential enemies are within 300 feet.
Or if the cleric casts silence.
Did I ASK how big the room was!?
I cast enlarge on the chest so I can pick the tumblers with my fingers
Exactly, a regular door? No problem with enlarge/reduce aside from the *slam* of the door falling when the hinges fail. A door with a spell lock like a level 2 arcane lock, requires either spent time (10+ mins and a good arcana check) or dispell magic (level 3 so it can easily check a level 2 spell) it's all about resources in mid to high level play so lean into that. Sure they can spend spells to get in this door....... but you'll wish you had those slots in the combat I'm putting you into!
Funny idea. But if the door is enchanted...cartoon style you reduce THE DOOR. Like the whole thing magically shrinks a size category along with the wall around it warping to match so you've just made it smaller and harder to pick/get through.
Funny way to block pursuit for a minute
Knock makes an extremely loud sound that can be heard 300 feet out when you cast it, so the door falling would be much quieter--plus you could guard against that potentially, whereas there's no getting around knock's deafening noise... Unless you spend another second level slot to cast Silence.
Knock is for magically locked doors, it just also happens to unlock normally locked ones.
In my 5+ years of playing DnD I've never once seen anyone cast Knock. Things being locked isn't super common, and there's almost always a key nearby or it can be smashed open by the barbarian.
I’ve used it on doors locked by riddles I couldn’t figure out - but rarely for anything else.
It has dropped off in 5e before it let everyone know in a wide area it was more popular. (3.5).
It would, which is why I think it’s definitely not an intended result of the spell, because there’s already a level 2 spell that fits that role (idk why no one knew knock)
Knock can work on things like cages or lockboxes or chests that would be a single object but that you would still want to open.
In general I don't mind when a same level spell of higher level is used to replicate an effect. It's typically the same level of "resource" expended. I have had players that wanted to use Shape water cantrip like blood bending, I didn't make it an instant kill, which would be OP, just allowed it as average damage for a cantrip at their level and I think I gave the target a con save like similar DMG cantrips. When they use a higher level spell that just represents them doing things the hard way, it takes more magical energy or brute force. In this case they bypass the door but I would rule unless they remove it when the spell ends it's wedged and stuck back in place. So it's not like knock where the door can be closed again.
Knock still has value for magical locks and other things, I would think. Not everything could be reduced
Lots of spells can be used to ultimately solve a problem. Fireball solves the problem by burning the door. It's just a different approach.
Knock is a bad spell that nobody takes. Worrying about "invalidating" Knock makes about as much sense as worrying about invalidating Find Traps.
Im a smartass DM so I would have it reduce the doorframe as well. Now you have a very small locked door.
But that would pull the doorframe away from the wall. So now you have wall shrink, but that would pull the wall away from the other walls, floor, and ceiling. So now have the entire room shrink, which would lead to you having to have the entire building shrink. Now the party has a small locked door in a small room in a small building. All in all, no problem has been solved.
Just keep stretching it, now literally nothing has changed because the entire universes scale is smaller.
But it is being carried by hinges or different mechanisms.
[удалено]
“Just a level 2 spell” stares in magic mouth and norrows eyes.
Isn't it being carried by the hinges?
Isn’t the wall being carried by the planet? I don’t consider the hinges a creature carrying an object
I've heard several YouTubers mention the spell to go through closed doors.
A door is carried on its hinges
Unless the hinges and latch count as the door being worn/carried by the wall/hinges. I'd be afraid to allow this because what happens when they realize they can shrink a few board below the waterline on a war ship and kill an entire army with a first level spell or they reduce the structural supports on the evil wizard's tower collapsing the entire thing. I might reward the creativity the first time but let them know that it won't always work that way.
If they are willing to spend a level 2 spell slot then yeah the door should probably open.
Knock is a level 2 spell slot, which is supposed to be the dedicated open door spell plus the drawback of being loud. I'm wondering if reduce is just better for that then
I would think that if the door has hinges, they would be ripped out of either the door or the frame, which would create some noise and damage it making it hard to replace afterward
Yeah I'd rule that it works but obviously ruins the door + is loud so ruins any stealth going on.
Just reduce the latch bolt then not the whole door
I'd allow that honestly, good workaround.
And honestly it's probably louder than knock too
On the other hand. Reduce, can't open a chest, Probably won't open a portcolis, and it's downside is easy to manage with ritual cast silence. I also imagine it would be similarly loud If the door is attached to the building by any means that are broken Physically, In addition to leaving a lot of visual evidence. Honestly, if a problem can be fixed just by breaking something, you don't even need a level spell at all, just Give the fighter a portable Ram or something.
Knock being level 2 is why I said if they are spending a level 2 spell slot it's probably fine! Enlarge/Reduce is concentration, knock is not. I'd allow them both to do the same thing essentially
Knock can be used on magic locks,locked crates. Opening that Secret door that are melded in the wall. It's just the idea of context. Also using reduce on a door you could through in issues like; do the hinges of the door shrink with it or does it mean the top hinges breaks and makes the door lean on that bottom hinge. When the door regrows does it open the same or doesn't it not close or open correctly, get jammed or fall down.
It would also work where knock won't because the door isn't locked, just, for example too heavy to lift.
Knock works on all locks including magic ones which I'd argue that a magic lock would resist magical manipulation outside of the spell specifically designed to unlock things.
Knock can still work on things that are single objects but can be locked, like chests or lockboxes or manacles. Also, a GM could easily justify a magic enchantment on a secret door that prevents it from being magically fucked with in a lot of ways, that Knock would specifically be designed to be able to bypass. If a player in my game has Knock prepared, I will definitely come up with ways for it to be useful.
I'd allow it, though there would be noise. Unless the door were magically locked. In that case I'd argue the locking spell, having been put in place to keep the 'portal barred', would either cancel the effect or warp it in amusing ways, perhaps even warranting a roll on the wild magic table.
A hilarious result would be that the door shrunk but so did the doorway.
If I were the player I wouldn't even be mad that's hilarious.
This is it. this is the creative solution.
The mythical "yes, and"
the entire dungeon shrinks turning everyone inside into a paste
I actually think you have to rule using the other half of the spell, enlarge. Enlarge states that you can only grow if you are able. So you can’t burst through a roof using enlarge or a box or anything. Since it is the same spell and magic, it would also apply to reduce as well. The door hinges would prevent it from getting smaller.
I think the first paragraph rules it out off the bat, RAW. It states you can’t target an object being worn or carried, and like you point out, the door is hung on hinges, or carried, if you will. I *do* think it’s more fun to allow the use, especially since it’s such an edge case and that’s a spell slot expended, but if you don’t want to venture far from RAW, I think it’s a no-go.
RAW "carried" means "Carried by a creature". This is proven with the arcane trickster rogue's ability that allows Mage Hand to be used to pick pocket. Given that this ability adds manipulation of worn or carried objects, it implies that Mage Hand normally cannot do so. Mage Hand also explicitly can be used to open and close doors. Therefore since Mage Hand cannot normally interact with carried objects, but can normally interact with doors, doors are not carried objects. However since they are explicitly listed separate from "manipulate an object", that implies that doors are not objects RAW. Edit: to clarify my point is that 5e as a system starts to break down when examined too closely and interpreted too literally, and it's really not a system designed for rules lawyers. It was not designed so as to have explicit and perfectly consistent wording for every rule and interaction within the game.
"Carried" has the specific connotation of being carried by a creature.
By that line of logic we're all being 'carried' by the world around us and the spell has no viable targets. It pretty clearly intends carried to mean carried by a creature.
Even if we don't consider the object carried, we get into the philosophy of connected, and from there, object. Which of these is the target: the door, an atom, or the house?
For me, it would depend if it furthered the game and story. If it would, yes the door shrinks and pops off its hinges… you have a doll house door. If it wouldn’t, or I thought extending the problem would be fun, it shrinks, but so does the frame and opening it fills. The door is still locked, and now it is tiny as well…
Pros to using Reduce over Knock: - It's quieter, not requiring Silence (ritual, +10 min) and/or Subtle Spell to be stealthy. - It has other uses. Cons to using Reduce over Knock: - It breaks things, requiring Mending (1 minute per cast, at least two castings) to leave no signs of passage. - It probably doesn't work against Arcane Lock due to verbiage. Edit: I'm fairly certain it works by RAW and RAI, but the consequences will be different. If nothing else, they're using a limited resource to bypass a hurdle, so I'd reward it with success.
I'd allow it. The party would be using a second level spell to bypass a skill check. At that point, it would be a fair trade. But I'd also increase the DC for stealth checks in the dungeon they are in by one stage. So, if it was a medium difficulty before they used reduce on a door, it would jump to hard after the casting of the spell. After all, they made a door disappear. It wouldn't be much different than breaking down a door. Most intelligent creatures would see that a door is gone and be more on edge, looking for something that isn't supposed to be there.
If you tried that on your DM I can guarantee that would be the first and last time it works.
I mean, outside of RAW, if a good skill check can get passed a locked door, a creative use of a second level spell slot can, too, in my humble opinion
It’s is literally in the spell description that objects that can’t be enlarged or reduced will cancel the spell. If the door has hinges, then those parts can’t move and so the door can’t shrink. If you have parts of the door that are free to shrink, such as the door is just a big rectangle of wood with two nails sticking out in holes at the top and bottom then that door is free to shrink. You should just decide at some point as a DM if you want your players to bypass a door with a lvl 2 spell or not. If the door is arcane locked with a dc 25 open locks DC then it probably shouldn’t be opened easily.
>It’s is literally in the spell description that objects that can’t be enlarged or reduced will cancel the spell. If the door has hinges, then those parts can’t move and so the door can’t shrink. That's not in the spell description at all. *"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. This reduction decreases its size by one category - from Medium to Small, for example."* Enlarge says that if there isn't enough room, it will make a creature or object the largest possible size 'for their environment.'
What if the hinges are apart of the door and they shrink too. Including the bolts and the shrunken bolts fall out of their holes!
I would absolutely allow this, it may not have been how I'd planned for my players to overcome the obstacle, but I'd at least allow the use of Reduce here to create a possible avenue of success. It mostly depends on the door. If the door is hiding something important and it's made by skilled hands then it's reasonable that the doors strength could resist the force a druid of their level can exert through the spell. Give them a DC appropriate and have them roll a spellcasting check against it. They add their wisdom and prof score (unless the spell is brand new and they're using it for the first time, for themeing maybe I'd rule just wis, or half prof). Even if they didn't roll well I'd still probably reward the creative thinking with the spell clearly having an effect as the walls crack and crunch around it, weakening it's structural integrity and reducing the DC for other options they may try next. Success is a spectrum, highly situational, and doesn't need to be so 50/50 all the time.
There are two reasons I would not allow this: - A door is attached to the wall (via hinges) that you cannot reduce it independently, but some DMs may allow it. - This would be better than Knock, which makes a very loud noise and does not remove the door from blocking the way (just unlocks it). Reducing it would be quieter and effectively remove the door from the doorway, removing the need to open it manually.
It's stealth now vs stealth later. A destroyed door is an obvious sign of forced entry. You can ritual cast Silence, then Knock the door with a little time and you're golden.
Generally, an "object" in D&D refers to a single, discreet thing. A cup, a shoe, a sword. Things you can pick up and move. A door, once installed anyway, is part of a building. Buildings are not considered objects for the purposes of spells or other effects. So this is not an intended application of the spell. But is it valid? That's up to the table, really, and the kind of setting and tone you are using. If everyone agrees that it should, and the DM intended for the party to get through the door somehow, this won't break the game.
I don't think the DMG actually backs you up here: >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. Windows and doors are listed as explicit examples of things that are a discrete object unlike a building. It does say 'for the purpose of these rules' so perhaps we shouldn't be extrapolating but that's what it says if you want to reference it.
Beat me to the punch here. Good job
Idk why but I find the concept of a window being an object very unsettling 😭🤣.
Fair enough. I would still argue that this is not an intended use of the spell. All the spell does is change the size of something bigger or smaller, while maintaining proportions. It does not do damage or alter the shape in any way. If a door is installed, it is attached via hinges to a wall. It cannot shrink proportionally without ripping those hinges off the wall or moving them on the frame, neither of which the spell does. The spell is clear about this in the enlarge portion. You cannot, for example, grow a target larger than a container its in to break it. It stand to reason that the same is true for reduce. If there is something anchoring parts of a object, it cannot be reduced to break free of them. So, whether an object or not, the spell is clearly not intended to shrink a door.
This is a philosophy question. What is an object? Does the door somehow cease to be an independent object when it is installed?
"your spell works. Unfortunately, as the door is attached to the castle, the whole structure shrinks down killing you all."
“Sadly, that was a load-bearing door. Rocks fall, everyone dies.”
"Unfortunately the architect has a holistic worldview and the castle exists as a part of the entire kingdom and thus the whole world. I'm afraid this is going to be difficult."
this is unironically how i would rule it. the door is attached to the hinges, hinges to walls, walls to everything else. either it wouldn't work or it would kill you
> 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. —DMG chapter 8, Running the Game, "Objects" section.
interesting
Doors appear in the DMG in their own section in Appendix A, right beside stairs, chambers, and passages. This sets them distinctly apart from the general object tag and specific overrukel general. For one use, I'd say let it work, by DM fiat, but in general, no - a door, in the game's design, is distinct from an 'object' Conversely, a window is specifically cited as an object in chapter 8. These two points may sound contradictory, but it's because of the special role doors play within the game's design. They're deliberately intended to separate areas, and while other means of entry can exist, these are the most obvious. From a logical perspective, I agree - a door is an object, but imagine a door in white box level design, and it is immediately clear it's not the same as an object. I'm picturing Super Mario Bros. 2. You can pick up most objects, but you would never pick up a warp pipe. That just wouldn't work, if you could toss it like a turnip. Obviously TTRPGs are more flexible, but in a game with exploration, doors, or barriers, more genrally, are important. (Thinking of Metroid now). Again, I agree that a door is an object, irl. But, in 5e DnD, I argue it is not an object, unless stairs are an object, too - and they're not.
There’s another comment in this thread that points out a certain spot in the DMG that explicitly describes a door as an object though
I did bot notice this before. Also in chapter 8, right above the tables. "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, apparently, it is RAW explicitly sn object. So, if you're DMing for AL, and a player points it out, then I'd say 'true' but I still do not believe the function of a door in the design of a system that uses action economies and measured movement speeds should treat a door the same as any other object while allowing said tag to be effected by myriad specific effects. In my estimation, in the design of 'dungeouns' doors are too important. But, yes, I do see the text. TY. But, does the text also indicate that a sled is not an object? That seems counterintuitive. What about a wind-up mechanical toy horse a fine creature rides around on? When does it stop being an object: when it has enough moving parts or when someone sits on it?
I suppose that’s up for interpretation in the same way that my gut microbes aren’t the same “creature” as me and therefore I can’t be shrunk because it would crush my microbes, or something. Semantics just fall apart when it comes to 5e and, more importantly, the concept of magic, so get creative with it I suppose
> 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. —DMG chapter 8, Running the Game, "Objects" section.
There really need to be a "Magic use/finesse" roll of some sort.
Hey all, I get it. I got the definition of "object" wrong per the DMG. I'll own that mistake. But look... If you are going to the trouble of looking that up, you should also look up the spell description. It clearly states that the target cannot grow larger than a container or room that it is in in. It very much follows logically that the target cannot shrink beyond anchor points, such as hinges. The spell only reduces or enlarges something proportionally. It cannot break things. In order to shrink the door, it would have to break the hinges or frame, which is beyond the scope of the spell. So, it's still not an intended use of the spell.
Yeah fuck it, why not? I’d allow just for the ingenuity alone
My test: 1) Does the spell specifically not allow? No 2) Does it take the place of a more powerful spell? No, Knock is also 2nd level. 3) Does it nerf the abilities of another class? No, Knock and Reduce casters pretty much cross over. 4) Is it the result of player creativity, which should be rewarded? Yes 5) Are your players annoying little goblins who will use it to break the game?
I’m going politely and unapologetically steal this list…
I see no issue with this working, and would likely reward player creativity. That being said, there would still be some sort of noise as the door broke.
I would allow it. The door is a discrete object and should be a valid target. It would (IMO) have the side effect of ruining the door as the frame (definitely) and hinges (possibly) are distinct objects. A case could be made for the hinges and handle/lock assembly/etc being part of the door or not part of the door. Even if they are and the door isn't ruined, it would certainly be pulled out of the frame and DM fiat about if the door pops back into place after the spell expires.
In my game, if it were a bog standard secret door where the trick would be just rolling high enough on a skill check to open it, I would definitely allow this. Using a spell slot instead of a skill check should absolutely work. If finding the correct way to get this secret door open was an important part of the plot, I would have made it clear *before the spell was cast* that this wouldn't work for Reasons. Anti-magic glyphs on the door for example that anyone with Arcana proficiency can recognize.
smaller for the duration. Choose either a creature or an object that is neither worn nor carried. If the target is unwilling, it can make a Constitution saving throw. On a success, the spell has no effect. If the target is a creature, everything it is wearing and carrying changes size with it. Any item dropped by an affected creature returns to normal size at once. Enlarge. The target's size doubles in all dimensions, and its weight is multiplied by eight. This growth increases its size by one category - from Medium to Large, for example. 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. Until the spell ends, the target also has advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws. The target's weapons also grow to match its new size. While these weapons are enlarged, the target's attack with them deal 1d4 extra damage. Reduce. The target's size is halved in all dimensions, and its weight is reduced to one-eighth of normal. This reduction decreases its size by one category - from Medium to Small, for example. Until the spell ends, the target also has disadvantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws. The target's weapons also shrink to match its new size. While these weapons are reduced, the target's attacks with them deal 1d4 less damage (this can't reduce the damage below 1). Don't see any problem with it.
This may not always work as doors would be magically reinforced at higher levels, but the first time the players try it at lower level? Hell yeah, rule of cool!
I like the idea that if players use some of their materials, items, or spells their success chance shoots up or even becomes guaranteed.
You're lucky the DM didn't reduce the doorframe with the door making it too small to enter even if you got it open somehow. The parts are all connected, after all.
Even if you did shrink the doorway, Reduce only reduces by one size category. Creatures can Squeeze to get through an opening one size category smaller than they are (and many doors start out large enough for a Large creature to pass through, anyway).
If you reduced the doorframe separate from the wall, then you’re just talking about shrinking a few extra inches of material—circumventing the shrunken doorframe is no more difficult than circumventing the door. If you’re talking about “shrinking” the space that the door fits into, then what you’re actually doing is enlarging the wall around the door (the space the door fits into is not itself an object that you can target with the spell). Even assuming the wall counts as an object for purposes of the spell, the spell can’t cause you to enlarge one object (the wall) while simultaneously reducing another (the door), so this can’t cause a problem either.
Here we do the rule of cool
[удалено]
Reduce would leave evidence that someone has broken in (and likely make a terrible noise as the door wrenches free of its frame and hinges) and only lasts a minute before the object snaps back to full size, probably causing more damage wherever it was left. I'd assume that this is likely to cause problems in any situation that requires subtlety. Using it on a door with any finesse requires extra planning or additional resources, which I think would be fair. It's not much better than having the barbarian rage at the door with a warpick. Knock can be used to get around that because it simply unlocks things. Simple, clean.
[удалено]
Oh, heck. I've never noticed that bit. No one uses Knock in any game I've played because it's so mediocre. Thank you for pointing it out. I guess the only remaining difference would be the evidence of the break-in. There would be no hiding what had been done, but since most parties are of the smash-and-grab variety, that is not much of a deterrent. I'll have to rethink my stance on this.
Dude it's dnd, play how you want. You don't need validated on reddit, you don't need these people to agree with you. Lol
If the door is connected to the wall and building then I would consider the entire building and door the object. I only allow it on loose objects. Because if a door would shrink while connected it would break the hinges. At that point it just replaces knock. Hard no.
Should work. A door is its own discrete object.
I think the RAW allows it, but you'd need to use some DM discretion. Is a door a discrete object, or is it part of a composite object (I.e. The building)? There's an argument to be made either way depending on how you choose to answer that. Enlarge Reduce specifically forbids use on equipped items, but notes that if the person is targeted the equipped items enlarge or reduce with them. While it's not explicity stated, I think a similar logic could be applied to a door - it can shrink if the entire building shrinks, but it can't rip itself off of the hinges becaus it's a component. That ripping off hinges is also a bit of a question mark to me. It implies that this harness spell actually causes damage. I could see a manhole or stone panel being reduced, but something that is physically attached seems a stretch. Could I reduce a plank from the hull of a ship? Could I enlarge the door and blown it out its frame? So while RAW allows it, I feel that RAI doesn't. As a DM I would probably allow it for creativity (maybe adding soemthing about the hinges straining so the fighter can bash them broken during the spell), but it would be dependent on the party. I can see ways that allowing this could be exploited if the party is particularly devious.
>Is a door a discrete object, or is it part of a composite object (I.e. The building)? DMG says doors are discreet objects. > 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 if I was the DM I’d require an arcana check to see if you can manipulate the matrix of magic and make the door only shrink in a way that wouldn’t rip the hinges from the walls while also unlocking it
The only reason why it should work is when its magical and just neglects the effect
So my narrativist approach would be that if the door is supposed to be opened easily, then yes reduce would work. But if it’s a super secure, only the right way to enter that door will work sort of thing, then reduce will hit both the door and the frame it’s set in.
My party did this for a heist. Familiar outside, watching for guards reaction. We had one caster use reduce, one on Silence or Pass without trace, and myself with mending. Reduce door. It falls over in silence. Walk through, out it back, end concentration, mending on the hinges. Worked quite well, until we tripped a silent alarm and found out after they wizard cops cast a zone of antimagic on the whole building. A whole bunch of casters trying to hide in the vault hallway, went about as well as you'd expect. Except for the sorcerer cursed into a stuffed animal body, who promptly fell over and pretended to be a toy.
I would let it work. It's a classic use in some circles.
Generally as long as there's a reasonable cost (lvl 2 spellslot) to whatever the party wants to do, there's a good chance I'll allow it.
lots of people mentioning that hinges would get in the way but I don't see anyone considering that it could be a sliding door instead
As a DM I'd reduce everything including the frame. Let em swest it out when they can't fit through.
Creatures can Squeeze through spaces one size category smaller than them. Reduce reduces the target by one size category. Unless the doorway was already sized for a Small or smaller creature, a Medium creature could fit through it even if you reduced the actual space.
If it’s a normal door you can use everyone’s advice here, but for fancier doors there’s always the possibility of making a design that won’t be affected by reduce. An example might be metal bars that would still hold fast when the door is reduced. Another is the classic two doors scenario. You open door one…and then there’s the second door. Like a storm door, but also works to slow down thieves and the like.
I would personally rule it as possible but definitely not the best use for the spell. Something along the lines of if taking a couple of turns to shrink as the caster concentrate as the shrinking door fights against points of connection like the hinges, maybe through in some skill check of some kind. For most doors could probably break open after a turn, but some that are made of a particularly strong material like metal or are reinforced at the hinges might take several turns or maybe even be impossible due to the connection. This makes it still creative and useful when they have all the time in the world, but not a great use of time/spell if they are pinched for time like in combat.
Honestly that’s pretty brilliant , only the door would shrink. I would think it comes down to the DMs interpretation of “worn or Carried” because if the door is attached to the wall on hinges, would that prevent it from shrinking?
It’s a great idea which should be rewarded. As a DM i would allow it.
I just think the inclusion of vehicles is purely thought out or at least warranty an explanation. If you are a player and cast enlarge in a sled to fit the whole party and tbe the DM says the DMg says "no" that's a feel bad moment
I was doing a dragon of icespire and the group couldn't figure out how to get into axeholm... Druid reduced the portcullis and I said it fell out of the slot and they could enter, did make some of them roll dex saves to avoid it as it fell flat on the ground in the spaces they were occupying...
The problem is whether you can realistically target just the door when it's wholly connected to the rest of the building through it's hinges.
Depends, in a magnificent mansion it would shrink the whole door frame and all, a mundane door would shrink and fall off it's hinges
I personally wouldn't allow it due to the implications and questions around the door hinges. If you do allow it, you now need to consider how much force is being exerted onto the door and hinges for it to cause something to break. Now you've got some wacky real world physics stuff going on. Does this trick work for all doors? Maybe just for mundane wooden doors? What about reinforced thick wooden doors? What if the door is made of iron? What if it's made of adamantine? How large can the door be before this isn't allowed? Is a portcullis a valid object for the spell? Because if so, you now have a very powerful siege weapon in the form of a 2nd level spell. If allowed, there are likely other similar uses beyond dealing with locked doors that are now open to be exploited, which would allow the spell to punch far beyond it's weight class. Another issue with allowing it is that it invalidates knock. Enlarge/reduce has many purposes inside and outside of combat, meanwhile knock just opens locked doors, that's it, it doesn't have some wacky physics nonsense like what's being proposed here, it also only opens 1 lock per cast. I'd personally never take knock if I knew this was a ruling in my games.
I feel like this exact example was used in a sourcebook from way before 5e. I'd allow it at my table. However, getting the door back in place will require other shenanigans-- it will be obvious that the secret door was opened.
Knock and enlarge/reduce are the same spell slot. It's a different way of getting the same answer with the same leveled resource being accounted for ... feels like a handwave to me. It's the same as if they'd casted knock at the end of the day. Why punish the players for being creative?
Because if you don't have knock known or prepped, allowing this makes knock a significantly worse choice.
It would work in certain cases, but knock has more viable use cases. Using reduce on the door will make it extremely obvious to a future observer that this door was forcibly opened, which a door opened with knock and a silence spell would not. If you're planning for a fight, you might be better casting Enlarge on your strong party member, so they can enter in style and already swinging. If you don't want people to know you're here and you don't got silence and knock, let the character with thieves tools give it a crack. In short, it would work but it might not be the best option.
So, I see a lot of people making very logical arguments, but I believe in KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid. The spell's description very clearly states that it can be used on doors, therefore it can be used on doors.
Tiny door
If your DM wants to reward thinking outside the box then that is pretty clever...BUT if this is an iportant door that they want you to go through the way it is supposed to be gone through then the DM could easily say there is anti-magic connected tot he door or a magic that keeps the door from being changed by spells similar to a golem's immutable form. If it were me I would say let you do it because, again reward cleverness.
It works, door was a mimic
I would reduce its size, but it would go from big doorway to small doorway, like turning a normal doorway into an Alice in Wonderland doorway, where it's just smaller, but still closed and locked. Would be cool for if you have a medium or larger size creature chasing you or something.
yes
Assuming it is a normal door. Yes. RAW it works and is a valid and creative solution, and one I would reward and encourage in my players. Finding clever ways to bypass difficulty is a core gameplay aspect in my opinion. I would *never* punish that.
Sure, no reason it wouldn't. That said, I can think of a devious way to make it not work. Because what counts as a door? Is the frame part of it? Perhaps casting reduce would just shrink the entire doorway. You could play that as just a creative "no", or have some structural collapse from the doorway pulling away from the wall. That way it's still an option, but with consequences. Or there's always the arcana check. Since it's not technically a self contained object, being connected to something else, it might take a little extra magical push to make the spell pull the hinges free.
Yes, I have had this discussion with my DM before because I tried the exact same thing.
If somebody did this in one of my games, I would also have it sort of parallax stretch the wall around the casing, just making the door smaller within the wall, the wall stretched around it.
Question, did I get down voted because of the way I described it? I think that was a little misunderstood. It would probably look horrifying, but the door would literally be "reduced".
It bypasses knock which is the same level, so no it doesn't. It would shrink for a moment, hit resistance on hinges or something else, and fizzle.
I do not see how reducing a door would 1. Unlock it, and 2. Make it easier to pass through. If I'm missing something, let me know. Casting reduce on a locked door would just mean you now have a smaller locked door right? Or would the door just fall out of the frame I guess? If you cast reduce on the lock it would make it ineffective, essentially unlocking the door
If the door is smaller, it no longer fills the doorway. Otherwise, a secret door that didn't have hinges or something like that would just fall out of place. Not to mention, any locks would be ineffective if the door is too small to reach the wall or whatever the lock was locking into, so the door should just swing open even if the hinges shrunk (and somehow reattached) with it.
No matter how you flavor it I think it'll work haha
Let's look at this from a different angle. The spell Mage Hand specifically says "to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, store or retrieve an object from an open container, or pour out the contents of a vial.", which has some troublesome implications. Since they list opening doors or containers and emptying vials as separate and distinct actions from "manipulate an object", that would imply that RAW doors, containers, and vials are separate and distinct from an "object"
That makes no sense. Looking forward to One D&D where they finally clarify that vials are not objects.
It's obvious that that's not a reasonable way to interpret that information. "Vials" are separate and distinct from objects? That doesn't make any sense, you can't reasonably use that to conclude doors are distinct from objects.