Locking Garrotes and the Reduce spell

[Mahali]

A cursed item my be damaging you (or damaging to you) but it's still your equipment.

That garrote on your neck is not attended by anyone but you (the person who put it on let go) and is therefor part of your equipment. It gets shrunk along with you, your clothes, weapons, and... everything else.

From the spell description in PHB.

Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (object)

A shrinking object may damage weaker
materials affixed to it, but a reduced object
shrinks only as long as the object itself is
not damaged.

The creature that the garrote is on gets a saving throw.

A generous DM will allow it to do max damage if the saving throw fails. This and certainly nothing more is supported by the rules.

 

[Sigma]

Hmmm...not a lot of consensus on this issue I see...

Any other opinions out there? Is the garrote equipment or not?

If a character were tied to a chair, and had reduce cast on him, would he shrink out of them?

What if the character only had his hands tied behind his back?

 

[Macbrea]

hmm, I would have to rule that the garrot is not property of the victim as it is no longer attended by anyone else.



Basicly there are some states an object can be.

Animated or Unanimated.

Attended or Unattended.

Items locked round someones throat but released by the original attacker are definitely Unanimated Attended objects. Just because a item is harmful to you doesn't mean that it isn't yours. The previous owner didn't want it.


The harpoon presents a similar problem. If you throw a harpoon at someone 10ft away from you and it sticks in the opponent. Do they provoke an AoO for sundering it? Is it their or the person that threw it and is holding the other end? I would rule the harpoon end now is theirs. Though, sundering it would still do the damage of pulling it out.

 

[The Sigil]

Wrong question...

I think we're barking up the wrong tree here... Rather than worry about "can the spell differentiate between a necklace and a garrotte?" we should ask, "what - or who - determines what is equipment and what is not?"

My answer would be... the character wearing the item determines what is equipment and what is not. The spell itself does not determine this.

There IS a precedent for this ruling... spells and effects that affect "allies" affect those whom the caster (or target, as applicable) perceives to be his allies (even if they are traitorous and have murderous intentions). In other words, the spell or effect doesn't HAVE to differentiate between whether a particular being is an ally or not - it "asks" the caster/target and acts accordingly. It may affect an "ally" (as seen by the caster/target) right before that "ally" plunges a knife into the character's back (though presumably, subsequent effects based on that caster/target's perceptions would not see the knifer as an "ally").

Now, we return to the case of the garrotte... or the arrow... or whatever else we want to use as an example. If the caster casts a spell on the character who has been garrotted, the spell "asks" the character if he considers the garrotte part of his equipment. My guess is "no" in the same way that the character wouldn't consider someone who just stabbed him in the back an "ally." The character is reduced, the garrotte is not, and that's the end of it.

If the garrotte is shrunk, well, let's examine the rules again...

A shrinking object may damage weaker materials affixed to it, but a reduced object shrinks only as long as the object itself is not damaged.

Please note the use of the word "affixed," not "contained by" or "near" or "surrounding." Shrink the keystone of an arch, and the arch will collapse - because the keystone holds the arch in place. If you tie a rope to a couple of trees and shrink the rope, it may pull the two trees together as its length shrinks, but does not slice the trees neatly in half as the loop around each tree shrinks. If the loops were loose, it could shrink until the rope was tight, but then it would stop. In the same manner, a locked garrotte will shrink only a tiny bit before encountering resistance - the character's neck. In other words, as soon as an object encounters resistance along the path of the shrink, it stops shrinking. It can be "pulled" from the outside and continue shrinking - but not "pushed" from the inside.

It's always good to try to take abuse to its logical and ridiculous conclusion just to see what the ramifications are... let me ask, "if I can loop a rope around the balor, could I cast reduce on the rope and cut the balor in half?" I think not. Reduce is a first-level spell and as such should NEVER be able to be made into an "instant death" spell under such easy circumstances.

(Shrinking the rock that a guy standing over lava is using to support himself so he tumbles into the lava is a different story - the object shrunk does not do the damage and I see no problems using the spell in this manner).

My ruling... based on precedent of "ally" definition for spells, a character's equipment consists only of those items the character himself considers to be HIS equipment and does not include a garrotte around his neck, an arrow in his belly.

I would suggest making this a "negative list." He must be able actively recognize the objects as not his own... a gem that the party thief planted in his pocket to frame him WOULD shrink because he essentially gives the spell a list of items and says, "that's not mine" - if he doesn't know about an item and it is on his person, it is considered equipment.

Summary:
What constitutes a character's "equipment" is determined by that character (unconsciously). The character tells the spell what is "not equipment" and should therefore not be affected; the character must be aware of the existence of such an item on his person for it not to be affected. A cursed item IS recognized by the character to be his provided he chose to don it/use it (hence ownership is determined unconsciously - a character cannot choose to relinquish ownership of an item he doesn't want to gain extra benefits of this spell - however, since he never chose to wear the garrotte, it makes sense that he doesn't consider it "his" equipment, either).

A spell does not actively differentiate between "equipment" and "not equipment" any more than "ally" and "enemy" - it has to "ask."

A shrinking object can be pulled in a direction opposite that of the shrink and continue shrinking (i.e., a rope can be pulled from the end and continue shrinking). A shrinking object stops shrinking the moment something pushes against the direction of the shrink (e.g., a cage hits something inside the cage or a length or rope hits something inside the loop of the rope).

Armed with these three rulings, all consistent with the definition of the spell and previous precedent, we can answer the questions posed... without turning a first-level spell into an "instant kill" spell.

--The Sigil

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Nice argument, Sigil. I think you convinced me.

As for insta-kill uses of Reduce, I never bought those ideas in the first place.

 

[The Sigil]

Not accusing...

Nice argument, Sigil. I think you convinced me.

Good to hear... I managed to convince myself in the course of writing the post, too (that's why it's long).

As for insta-kill uses of Reduce, I never bought those ideas in the first place.

I didn't say you brought them; it really doesn't matter WHO brought them... the question isn't "who brought them" but "how badly can they be abused?" And if the abuse is too bad, it's time to find a ruling that curbs the abuse.

In some ways, it's good to try to abuse the rules just to curb arguments before they start... kind of like hiring a hacker to see if your computer firewall is any good. The tools and results may look munchkinish, but the idea is to prevent problems by finding them first, not to revel in the fact that they exist. Most on this thread (hopefully) view rules exercises such as this in that light.

--The Sigil

 

[Magus_Jerel]

The tools and results may look munchkinish, but the idea is to prevent problems by finding them first, not to revel in the fact that they exist. Most on this thread (hopefully) view rules exercises such as this in that light.

yep... and I TOTALLY disagree with you.

1. A harmful item may be "planted" on the character without their knowledge (indeed - it is the only reasonable way). Making the list a "negative" one could mean "all items except the one that is not harming me are to be shrunk" - which (because it is a double negative) strikes the "unknown harmful object"

2. Items worn - willingly or otherwise - count as equipment. Your would mean that reducing out of manacles becomes just as possible as reducing out of the necklace that is a wee bit too tight. Barring the fact that one might not wish to destroy the method of sealing in the process - the spell can effectively "replace" knock on the spellcaster's list - which is 2nd level. Reduce is 1st, and has uses beyond opening things. Bad move...

3. The spell is ALREADY potentially lethal ... drop a hood over someone - and then shrink the hood to induce suffocation.

4. A "Hold" effect may also be possible... if you could shrink full plate mail to skin tight...

5. If the arrow is "sticking in" you - and YOU are reduced - you could declare the arrow as "not your equipment" with the deliberate intent of making the spell fail. As you would shrink - and the arrow wouldn't - the arrow would relatively "get bigger inside your flesh... and that would injure you.

This be the tip of the iceberg.

- My general ruling on this is that items you wear (as opposed to hold in your hand) CANNOT be targeted by a spell that is capable of targeting YOU the individual unless you are using that spell to sunder or break a given object in a creature's posession.

Thus - it is possible to use heat metal on a suit of armor (object only) but NOT reduce. Damage dealing spells may automatically be targeted on objects - as they DO have hit points per se.


Your "metalogic" problems are threefold:

1. If the "determination" is "unconcious" - (a contradiction in and of itself) a character must be able to not only conciously override his uncioncious thought pattern, but also be aware of it. While the second is possible - the first in and of itself is inherently NOT possible - by the virtue of the fact that the thought is unconcious.

2. It is physically possible to suspend or control the rate of one's breathing or heartbeat - but you cannot PREVENT them from occuring entirely. Eventually, reflex forces people biologically capable of doing so to breathe - no matter how hard they try not to do so. The "brain waves" emmited can only change - or temporarily counter the signal being emitted. Once the "override" stops working - the signal resumes its normal pattern - and you start to breathe normally again. Your interpretation seems to rely on the fact that a function only possible in the concious mind; determination - exists in the unconcious mind. It doesn't.

3. The "arrow is not my equipment causing the spell to fail" trick is problematic. - as the concious choice (legal) allows for something undesired - namely the possible PREVENTION of the spell taking effect despite a failed save.


- footnote

D&D Magical compulsion, and by indirect extension most cursed magic items. require understanding the fact that it is quite possible to "force" a behaviour into the subconcious. The lay term is hypnotic programming. Being "hypnotized" is inducing the state under which this programming can occur; and as yet nobody has figured out how to "program" someone to enter that state readily.

Charms - inherently work on PC's only in that they force the PC to use the NPC's reaction system - with the appropriate modifier. This is essential - due to the "player conflict of interest" involved.

 

[The Sigil]

Points...

yep... and I TOTALLY disagree with you.

That is of course your perogative.

1. A harmful item may be "planted" on the character without their knowledge (indeed - it is the only reasonable way). Making the list a "negative" one could mean "all items except the one that is not harming me are to be shrunk" - which (because it is a double negative) strikes the "unknown harmful object"

Agreed that it is the only reasonable way. However, the "negative" list I referenced could not include "some unknown harmful object" - you must have the ability to identify the object using one of your five senses ("the thing around my neck choking me" is okay - thanks to touch - but "whatever it is that is causing my clothes to catch fire" is not). It does walk a fine line, though, and requires some use of Rule 1 - "Use your head" on the part of the DM.

2. Items worn - willingly or otherwise - count as equipment. Your would mean that reducing out of manacles becomes just as possible as reducing out of the necklace that is a wee bit too tight. Barring the fact that one might not wish to destroy the method of sealing in the process - the spell can effectively "replace" knock on the spellcaster's list - which is 2nd level. Reduce is 1st, and has uses beyond opening things. Bad move...

I must disagree with your definition of equipment. "My equipment" to me means "the stuff that I have decided to bring along." I certainly am not going to think "my, these manacles I have been chained with are nice... they're part of MY equipment." It's a semantics game, and since we are disagreeing on definitions, we're obviously going to be at odds on this one. But I would say that casting "reduce" on yourself to slip out of manacles is not only a good possibility, but well within the classical fictional uses of such a spell. You can't reduce out of the necklace if you put it on (or told someone else to put it on), though - you accepted it as "your equipment" when you did so. That's why I don't let the player tell me "oh, that's not my equipment any more." Essentially, as the DM, this ruling tells me, sloppy bookkeeping aside, "if it's on your character sheet, it's your equipment; if it's not on your character sheet, it's not." One presumes that the garrotte is not something I'm going to write on my character sheet.

3. The spell is ALREADY potentially lethal ... drop a hood over someone - and then shrink the hood to induce suffocation.

An interesting point... reminds very much of the "clothes shrinking ray" from Mystery Men. But do you really need to shrink the hood to do that? Once it's over the face, one presumes that's enough... if the hood is of such sheer material that it can be breathed through, shrinking it won't help.

4. A "Hold" effect may also be possible... if you could shrink full plate mail to skin tight...

That is a good point - I give you full marks here. Don't have a way to weasel out of that one

5. If the arrow is "sticking in" you - and YOU are reduced - you could declare the arrow as "not your equipment" with the deliberate intent of making the spell fail. As you would shrink - and the arrow wouldn't - the arrow would relatively "get bigger inside your flesh... and that would injure you.

I would rule the arrow basically "falls out" as you shrink... it's all in a matter of perspective. If it's not in too deep, wouldn't you shrink away from the arrowhead faster than you shrank around it? Now we get into all sorts of arguments over "how deep is the wound" and D&D isn't set up to handle that.

This be the tip of the iceberg.

- My general ruling on this is that items you wear (as opposed to hold in your hand) CANNOT be targeted by a spell that is capable of targeting YOU the individual unless you are using that spell to sunder or break a given object in a creature's posession.

Thus - it is possible to use heat metal on a suit of armor (object only) but NOT reduce. Damage dealing spells may automatically be targeted on objects - as they DO have hit points per se.

That is probably a better ruling than the one I gave, and I am willing to adopt it.

Your "metalogic" problems are threefold:

1. If the "determination" is "unconcious" - (a contradiction in and of itself) a character must be able to not only conciously override his uncioncious thought pattern, but also be aware of it. While the second is possible - the first in and of itself is inherently NOT possible - by the virtue of the fact that the thought is unconcious.

This was a fancy way of saying, "check the character's character sheet... if it's not on there (barring bad bookkeeping), it's not equipment." Make a logical exception for a "planted" item that the character has been carrying but is unaware of.

2. It is physically possible to suspend or control the rate of one's breathing or heartbeat - but you cannot PREVENT them from occuring entirely. Eventually, reflex forces people biologically capable of doing so to breathe - no matter how hard they try not to do so. The "brain waves" emmited can only change - or temporarily counter the signal being emitted. Once the "override" stops working - the signal resumes its normal pattern - and you start to breathe normally again. Your interpretation seems to rely on the fact that a function only possible in the concious mind; determination - exists in the unconcious mind. It doesn't.

Again, it was admittedly a fix to try to avoid a player putting on a cursed helm then trying to tell me, "I don't want it anymore so it's not mine."

3. The "arrow is not my equipment causing the spell to fail" trick is problematic. - as the concious choice (legal) allows for something undesired - namely the possible PREVENTION of the spell taking effect despite a failed save.

Not quite sure what is meant here... perhaps I'm just not understanding what you're getting at... how would the spell be prevented from taking effect despite a failed save?

You have raised a couple of flags with regard to my argument, and posited an equally useful solution... but I do have one question...

I really like the "if the wearer can be targeted by the spell, you can't target a worn object unless trying to sunder/break it" rule and am happy to adopt it as it solves several problems (not all of them).

I do have a couple of questions though, just to satisfy my own curiosity... as it refers to objects not "worn" but in similar situations to those that might be worn.

In the case of tying two trees together and shrinking the rope, what happens? Do the trees get bent together? Sliced in two? IOW, what happens when the question of a character/creature wearing something is not an issue as far as targeting a spell? Will your ruling have self-consistency?

My other unhappiness is that I am STILL inclined to say that the garrotte is *not* part of a character's equipment, but that is because we fundamentally disagree on the definition of equipment, so I don't think there can be much fruitful discussion there. I won't give you your definition of equipment and you won't give me mine, so we have no common ground for argument. I'll agree to disagree with you on this one. Your definition of equipment is "anything worn/carried" while mine is "only what is on the character's character sheet (barring recordkeeping sloppiness) with exceptions made on a case-by-case by the DM for items transported by the character of which the character is totally oblivious." By your definition, the garrotte - or manacles - or hood - is equipment. By mine it is not. Nothing really to discuss since I doubt either of us is going to change his definition.

--The Sigil

 

[Magus_Jerel]

3. The "arrow is not my equipment causing the spell to fail" trick is problematic. - as the concious choice (legal) allows for something undesired - namely the possible PREVENTION of the spell taking effect despite a failed save.

Not quite sure what is meant here... perhaps I'm just not understanding what you're getting at... how would the spell be prevented from taking effect despite a failed save?

Because if the player decides the arrow sticking in Him is "not mine" - and his body starts to shrink around the wound - this would theoretically deal additional damage - causing the spell to fail.

D&D is not able to determine wether the arrow would "fall out" or "stay in" in the first place for one... and the ambiguity allows for both rulings. This becomes an issue if the ammunition might explode on the next round - because it is filled with alchemist's fire.

As to your questions concerning My counter proposal/ruling

In the case of tying two trees together and shrinking the rope, what happens? Do the trees get bent together? Sliced in two?

The rope goes as taut as it can - without damaging the trees. Bending is not breaking, but sliced in two is. Depending on how the rope is tied - this could generate a tripwire. If you are dealing with a tree and a cliff face - you might even be able to uproot the tree... like a giant weed; but the latter is a bit dependent on wether or not you are talking about a 6 ft tree or a 200 ft redwood.

IOW, what happens when the question of a character/creature wearing something is not an issue as far as targeting a spell? Will your ruling have self-consistency?

Please note that the ruling does initiate a need to differentiate between "items worn" and "items on one's person". This means that while clothes aren't targetable - that dagger in your belt or in your hand most certainly is.

In order for the ruling to "affect" targeting - all of the following must be the case.

1. The object must be "worn" - willingly or unwillingly.
2. The spell must NOT state that it may explicitly target objects
3. The spell must NOT deal damage directly.


Perhaps a better definition of equipment would be "any item that is being worn or carried on your person. Setting it to "what is on the character sheet" can change in the course of a normal adventure. People pick up and lose things... Pickpockets strike. (and finding out that magic dagger ISN'T on your belt when you think it is there can be quite annoying) and you might have something planted on you.

As far as my counterpoints ...

There are several "otherwise inoccuous" spells that - if you allow reduce to be abused - become infinitely more lethal, as these other spells can be abused in a similar fashion.

Mage hand, Unseen Servant, and Telekenesis become a whole lot more dangerous - particularly Telekenesis. Enlarge - while not as easy to abuse - can be so abused if you aren't careful.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I'd rule on the reduce getting them out of trouble.

Reasons 3fold.

1. locking garoute doesn't seem to fit the intent of equipment to me. I think they were more looking at a non instant nude fest spell.

2. I generally try to promote creative spell casting and the taking and prep of unusual spells. While this isn't a brilliant use, it is somewhat creative.

3. I generally give defense and saves more power than some silly little attack item. Basically should a semmingly appropriate 1st level spell be able to defeat some lame non magical strangulation item, um heck yes.