Hi dudes! I have a doubt, reduce/enlarge spell is cumulative with hunter's mark?
I like your point of view, but what you what to say with design philosophy? Is just "feelings" about the rules or something more consolidated?Player-character? Ask your DM.
Dungeon master? If you want it to.
5e design philosophy? No, take the larger.
Me? Sure, why not?
I would take that as just feelings. PHB says that all Spells stack unless the exact same name, and in the DMG (in errata so not in earliest printings) they expand this out to everything else. If it's the exact same name it does not stack, everything else does. That sets a pretty clear picture of the design philosophy.
And it's worth noting that an enlarged rune knight can gain +1d4 from Enlarge and +1d6 from Giant's Might, even though both set the character's size to large.If you are asking Rules as Written, in D&D 5e spells stack unless they have the exact same name. It's int he PHB under Combining Magical Effects, pg 205.
So an Enlarged creature attacking a foe they have a Hunter's Mark on would gain +1d4+1d6 to damage to each attack above what they would normally do.
The design philosophy was "rulings, not rules." So WotC tried to trim the fat. One example of this is the Advantage rule - if any number of things gives you a better shot on your roll, you get to roll twice, and if any number of things makes things worse, you don't. There's no adding of dice upon dice, or bonuses on bonuses.PHB says that all Spells stack unless the exact same name, and in the DMG (in errata so not in earliest printings) they expand this out to everything else.