Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 7236584" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Let's look at the full text of Enlarge Person, if we're going to cite it as a valid reference.I highlighted the paragraph we've both been snipping from.Yes, it says a creature (and presumably an object) may make a Strength check to burst any enclosure.My problem with that is that I have no idea how to roll a Strength check for an inanimate object.  It can't even try, since it has no actions.  (Note the "may" in the sentence.)If it could/did, then the "Pipe bomb" model might apply, since it explicitly talks about bursting it's confinements. As for crushing the contents:  It also says that the spell does no damage to the target, that you can't crush a creature by enlarging it beyond available space.So if we use that as the model (and it is the only example in the rules of something enlarging in confined space), the growth stops when it hits the limits of available space.  It doesn't get crushed, and it doesn't "burst" free.Now I can see some argument here to limit the use.  Objects in Shrink Item are effectively frozen in time. Spell durations will expire, but other than that hot items stay hot and cold items stay cold, campfires and torches stay lit, etc. It would be reasonable to say that that "time stop" aspect expires when the spell does, even if it can't resume full size.  Food spoils, fires go out, things get cold.That will limit some of what's being done.  The main objection, at least as voiced here, isn't the few items that depend on the stasis though.  Its the extending the duration of the size/weight reduction, the existence of this tweak in the first place.As a DM I can make an arbitrary ruling, but I hate doing that.  It's an approved house rule, voted on by the players/DMs.  Moreover, I really am a rules guy:  I like to have a hard rule I can point to to back up such rulings.  It may not always be right, but if it's in writing at least it's inarguable.And, for the record, the Wiz with this utility belt list is mine.  So I can limit, or even drop the use completely, from my character sheet.  That won't necessarily affect anyone else's use/abuse of the spell.I came up with the list as a lark, then pushed it a bit just to test it in play.  It hasn't caused any actual play issues, just a DM who's uncomfortable.When he voiced that discomfort I offered to just drop the list, rather than cause a disruption.  He said it was okay, but I could tell he didn't like it.  Hence, me coming here and asking, "How much is too much".</blockquote>

Verification