Shrinking treasure ?

[Patlin]

Either version is subject to abuse... small items expanding can do nasty things if allowed to damage their surroundings in that way, and simple methods to permanently prevent expansion are also problematic. I know this is a rules board, but a catch 22 of this kind is why we have DMs, not just rules. Shrink Item is a nice little spell that shouldn't be ruined by abuse, and the DM should prevent either abuse even if it's inconsistent.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes. The expanding item does not cause damage while exanding. If this means the item cannot expand, then it does not expand. This is a standard rule for D&D, and is true for similar spells (enlarge, shapechange, summonings, etc.), unless they specifically say they cause damage when expanding (like an instant fortress for example).

When in doubt, the rules for Enlarge person are suitable guidelines:
"If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, the creature attains the maximum possible size and may make a Strength check (using its increased Strength) to burst any enclosures in the process. If it fails, it is constrained without harm by the materials enclosing it— the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by increasing its size."
(note: inanimate objects do not make str checks)

This rule is not applicable.

This rule is for growing things with magic.

The example is for removing the shrinking magic from an item. With this ruling, you could make an item permanently shrunk.

Another example is taking the shrunk item into an Antimagic Field. If you suppress the magic keeping it shrunk, it should grow to it's natural size.

 

[mvincent]

This rule is not applicable.

I stated that the rules could be used as "suitable guidelines". I stand by that, especially since I have seen this exact issue being discussed in minute detail on the WotC boards (with the same conclusion).

With this ruling, you could make an item permanently shrunk.

The DM can handle this possible abuse as he sees fit: have the item slowly exerting constant pressure against it's container (which could eventually break it, like water wearing away stone), having the item get stuck, etc.

But the concensus is that it should not cause actual "damage" from expanding unless the spell specifically says so. That said, a DM could still rule (in order to reward inventive players) that a slowly expanding item in a dragon's stomach could certainly cause some distress... just no 'explosions'.

 

[KarinsDad]

But the concensus is that it should not cause actual "damage" from expanding unless the spell specifically says so. That said, a DM could still rule (in order to reward inventive players) that a slowly expanding item in a dragon's stomach could certainly cause some distress... just no 'explosions'.

And what if you put your pebble above a doorframe and when enemies come through the door, you say the command word?

Does it turn into a boulder and still crush the enemies beneath it?

Or do you rule that the spell does not state that it does damage for a falling object, so the pebble either does not expand, or the boulder does not fall?

 

[mvincent]

And what if you put your pebble above a doorframe and when enemies come through the door, you say the command word?

Does it turn into a boulder and still crush the enemies beneath it?

Or do you rule that the spell does not state that it does damage for a falling object, so the pebble either does not expand, or the boulder does not fall?

The rules do give rules for falling damage, which the shrink spell doesn't contradict (but by then the shrink spell is likely moot anyway... it's over with and you're dealing with a regular big rock).

There are certainly abuses in regard to the falling rules (interpreting the unshrinking process as taking a second or two can eliminate these)... but that is a different topic.

If the rules had generic expanding rules (with detailed damage), I would certainly follow them also (and this discussion would be moot). However, closest D&D has is the rules for enlarge person (since it is effectively a dispel for reduce person, it is at least somewhat pertinent mechanics-wise). This is consistent with rulings for similar effects (polymorph, summoning, etc.)

Assuming that something does damage when expanding still won't stop enterprising players from making it permanent by reinforcing the shrunk item's container. Unless you rule that the expansion is an unstoppable force... in which case you might have PC's trying to create plasma bombs by unshrinking items inside walls of force.

Feel free to play as you like... I'm just trying to provide you with some insight and information that I've picked up in long, previous discussions about this.

 

[KarinsDad]

If the rules had generic expanding rules (with detailed damage), I would certainly follow them also (and this discussion would be moot). However, closest D&D has is the rules for enlarge person (since it is effectively a dispel for reduce person, it is at least somewhat pertinent mechanics-wise). This is consistent with rulings for similar effects (polymorph, summoning, etc.)

The rules you quoted were about crushing creatures. To me, crushing creatures is not damaging them by enlarging within them. Two totally different concepts with regard to damage.

The rules you quoted would allow a swallowed Wizard to Enlarge himself and make a Strength roll against the Strength of the swallowing creature to burst out. But, you just flat out disallow it for the Shrunk object scenario.

The rules you quoted were for adding magic to get an effect. That to me is not applicable to dispelling magic to remove an effect.

Using the rules you quoted to prevent a Shrunk object from growing means that the object still stays shrunk in an Antimagic Field. This to me breaks a different set of rules.


You see it as apples and apples. I see these two scenarios as apples and oranges. Both fruits, but two different types.


The fact that something is "growing" in both scenarios is interesting but irrelevant to the rules involved. IMO.