D&D 5E What exactly is an "object" for purposes of the Reduce spell?

[toucanbuzz]

Players are strategizing for this weekend (assault on a fort) and asked if the Reduce spell would affect a wooden gate in a fort. Reduce shrinks "1 object." There is no mention of any other limitations, such as size of the object.

The DMG object rules say: "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects." They also say: "...given enough time and the right tools, characters can destroy any destructible object." I include this part because the definition wants to make clear a "stone wall," for example, isn't considered an object although it is inanimate and can be discrete if free standing (individually separate).

In 2016, sage advice Crawford replied to reducing doors: "I would ask the wizard which part of the door they're trying to reduce. Most doors are made of multiple objects."

How would you handle a gamer request to shrink a fortress gate, whether it be made of wood or stone or steel? Would this mean the massive 40 ton block of stone that the dwarven fortress of Thorbardin uses in Dragonlance could be thwarted by a 2nd level spell because, technically, it's just one big door? Does the ability to "destroy" the object through mundane means distinguish this "big door" from a normal door (for purposes of spell targeting and game rules)?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'd call a door a single object, no matter how big. Based on the wording of other spells, it's meant to distinguish objects from creatures which are at least sentient and capable of Actions) and locations. A door isn't a place, although a guardhouse is.

I think Sage Advice tends to have a mentality about the rules that I find detrimental to actually fun play: they tend to read the rules rather literally, as though it were technical writing. But it's not, it's natural language. The most obvious meaning is usually the best, and when in doubt, err on the side of fun.

So the pc's could reduce a door if it fails its Con save (do objects get saves?) and the door isn't warded. (If it is, they'd make some sort of roll to overcome the ward. Usually a casting-ability check with proficiency.)

(For what it's worth, I tell players very explicitly that dang near everything that can be warded is warded in my settings, because everyone knows that magic exists. Not all wards are powerful, but they're out their. Warding.)

 

[Asisreo]

Players are strategizing for this weekend (assault on a fort) and asked if the Reduce spell would affect a wooden gate in a fort. Reduce shrinks "1 object." There is no mention of any other limitations, such as size of the object.

The DMG object rules say: "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects." They also say: "...given enough time and the right tools, characters can destroy any destructible object." I include this part because the definition wants to make clear a "stone wall," for example, isn't considered an object although it is inanimate and can be discrete if free standing (individually separate).

In 2016, sage advice through Crawford replied to reducing doors: "I would ask the wizard which part of the door they're trying to reduce. Most doors are made of multiple objects."

How would you handle a gamer request to shrink a fortress gate, whether it be made of wood or stone or steel? Would this mean the massive 40 ton block of stone that the dwarven fortress of Thorbardin uses in Dragonlance could be thwarted by a 2nd level spell because, technically, it's just one big door? Does the ability to "destroy" the object through mundane means distinguish this "big door" from a normal door (for purposes of spell targeting and game rules)?

Sounds unnecessarily pedantic of Crawford to ask that. It actually shouldn't even matter since most people would just say "The door part that actually obstructs where we're going." And not the door knob.

If the players cast a spell and the spell says it does something, it does it. There's probably many other ways to tear down the gate to the fortress since siege weapons exist and other such stuff. If they were going for something impenetrable, they should have had a good way to prevent 3rd level wizards from being able to tear down their doors with a single spell.

 

[Charlaquin]

In 2016, sage advice through Crawford replied to reducing doors: "I would ask the wizard which part of the door they're trying to reduce. Most doors are made of multiple objects."

This seems like a strange ruling in light of the fact that “a door” is literally one of the listed examples of objects.

 

[DemoMonkey]

If you shrink the hinges, the door will snap right off under it's own weight. Problem solved.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you shrink the hinges, the door will snap right off under it's own weight. Problem solved.

If you treat the hinges as separate objects from the door, wouldn’t that require one casting per hinge?

 

[DemoMonkey]

It depends on how many hinges there are whether that would matter. One might be enough to start a domino effect.

However to answer your question, yes. Do they only have one available?

 

[Mort]

It depends on how many hinges there are whether that would matter. One might be enough to start a domino effect.

However to answer your question, yes. Do they only have one available?

One 2nd level spell to open a door may be worth it. 2+ and you're starting to get into too many resources for the task at hand (and can probably find a less expensive solution)!

 

[jgsugden]

Sage Advice generally represents the interpretation of the rules by the person responsible for them, but it is subject to imperfect memory. This is one of those situations where his memory contradicts the explicit rules. In those cases, the explicit rules win. The DMG states doors are objects, and the spell can target an object.

If a player asked me if they could reduce a door, I'd say that we have a situation similar to what is discussed in the enlarge area. There, when something is enlarged in such a way that there is insufficient room, it will only grow to the point where there is enough space. Here, trying to reduce the door would be troubled by the door being attached to the hinges. Reducing the door would effectively increase the size of the wall that it is attached to, and there is no room to do so because the hinges constrain the size change. As such, no change would take place. I might allow the caster to make an arcana check as if it were an athletics check to break the door with the spell.

That pretty much limits reduce and enlarge to free standing objects.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think Sage Advice tends to have a mentality about the rules that I find detrimental to actually fun play: they tend to read the rules rather literally, as though it were technical writing. But it's not, it's natural language.

Yeah, and there's a reason for that. 5E and all the designers within keep telling all of us that the DM should make a ruling that makes sense for their table. It's literally the DM's job to interpret the rules and make the decision.

But yet all these people STILL keep bugging Jeremy (aka Sage Advice) about "what's right?". "What's RAW?" Because they won't take "What your DM decides" for an answer. So instead, Jeremy just gives the most straightforward, nitpicky, English language interpretation of the rules language he can and says "This is what the rules say." Even if HE HIMSELF does not actually play the game that way. It's simply his way of telling these people "Be careful what you wish for." Cause I believe he hopes that if the people who read the ruling go "That's STUPID!" that they will ignore Sage Advice and make their own ruling instead.

Which is what they should have been doing in the first place.