D&D 5E Issues about Reduce/Enlarge

[Jushirambo]

Hi dudes! I have a doubt, reduce/enlarge spell is cumulative with hunter's mark?

 

[GMMichael]

Player-character? Ask your DM.

Dungeon master? If you want it to.

5e design philosophy? No, take the larger.

Me? Sure, why not?

 

[billd91]

Why would it not be cumulative? They're two completely different spells and effects. Page 205 of the PH is fairly clear - the effects of different spells add together.

 

[Oofta]

I don't see any reason the bonuses would not stack, they come from different bonuses. Bonuses don't stack if they're from the same spell. See Combining Magical Effects in chapter 10 of the PHB, but that's not the case here.

 

[Jushirambo]

Player-character? Ask your DM.

Dungeon master? If you want it to.

5e design philosophy? No, take the larger.

Me? Sure, why not?

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?

 

[Jushirambo]

tnx for all for the answers I use this information in my next video in my YT channel

 

[JiffyPopTart]

In the narrative reduce/enlarge is changing your physical size. This comes with mechanical benefits/drawbacks. Hunter's Mark is something that puts a magical "tag" on an opponent that makes them easier for you to kill. This comes with mechanical benefits/drawbacks. Since the origin and narrative description of the source of the mechanical benefits/drawbacks is completely different, i'd rule that both would apply.

 

[Blue]

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.

 

[Blue]

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?

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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?

It's feelings.

RAW, in the absence of a rule that says otherwise, they stack.