is this a "legal" use for enlarge spell?
- Thread starter rossik
- Start date
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
In 3.5 it's become Enlarge Person. So no go on your knife - it's restricted to type humanoid.
rossik said:
In 1e? That depends on the DM. The rules, as written, don't have an option for "knife stuck in someone's arm" in the first place. And the spell doesn't even go into what kind of extra damage you get out of Enlarging a weapon. So, like many things in 1e, it'd call for the individual DM's ruling.
I'll note that most knives are pretty small. And Enlarge, at best, doubles the size of the object. That probably won't be enough to "rip off" an arm. And certainly, if it is stuck in someone else, I'd call it an "unwilling target", so the critter would get a saving throw.
All that being said, this does seem to be a rules question. So, I'm moving this over to the Rules forum...
TheGogmagog
First Post
Edit: Nevermind misread the qustion at first.
No. I'd stick with the rule of thumb that if a spell doesn't say it does damage, it doesn't do damage. If you do allow it, then you have to decide what the damage is, does it scale, is there a cap, can it impose a condition like dismembered, can a knife be 'stuck in an arm' or does it come out.... a can of worms easilly avoided. A DM however may allow it to happen if it makes the story more intersting or memorable, but no reason why he would be obligated to by the rules.
More Spam anyone?
No. I'd stick with the rule of thumb that if a spell doesn't say it does damage, it doesn't do damage. If you do allow it, then you have to decide what the damage is, does it scale, is there a cap, can it impose a condition like dismembered, can a knife be 'stuck in an arm' or does it come out.... a can of worms easilly avoided. A DM however may allow it to happen if it makes the story more intersting or memorable, but no reason why he would be obligated to by the rules.
More Spam anyone?
Last edited:
Similar Threads
