Mixing
What size category is a reduced Tarrasque?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
The ruling of a creature's size is as follows:
And the Reduce spell states:
The target's size is halved in all dimensions, and its weight is reduced to one-eighth of normal. This reduction decreases its size by one category - from Medium to Small, for example.
Emphasis mine.
In the case of our Tarrasque, these statements in Reduce are contradictory:
It's new size is now 25'x35', which means it's still classified as Gargantuan.
Which rule takes priority?
edit:
We can break the rules even more here. If we assume the Tarrasque is now huge rather than gargantuan, PHB 192 states:
Squeezing into a Smaller Space: A creature can squeeze through a space that is large enough for a creature one size smaller than it. Thus, a Large creature can squeeze through a passage that's only 5 feet wide. While squeezing through a space, a creature must spend 1 extra foot for every foot it moves there, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage while it’s in the smaller space.
This means our 25x35 beastie can now get through a 10ft door.
dnd-5e monsters creature-size
asked 1 hour ago
Berry M.
1675
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
The ruling of a creature's size is as follows:
And the Reduce spell states:
The target's size is halved in all dimensions, and its weight is reduced to one-eighth of normal. This reduction decreases its size by one category - from Medium to Small, for example.
Emphasis mine.
In the case of our Tarrasque, these statements in Reduce are contradictory:
It's new size is now 25'x35', which means it's still classified as Gargantuan.
Which rule takes priority?
edit:
We can break the rules even more here. If we assume the Tarrasque is now huge rather than gargantuan, PHB 192 states:
Squeezing into a Smaller Space: A creature can squeeze through a space that is large enough for a creature one size smaller than it. Thus, a Large creature can squeeze through a passage that's only 5 feet wide. While squeezing through a space, a creature must spend 1 extra foot for every foot it moves there, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage while it’s in the smaller space.
This means our 25x35 beastie can now get through a 10ft door.
dnd-5e monsters creature-size
asked 1 hour ago
Berry M.
1675
"In the case of our Tarrasque, these statements in Reduce are contradictory: It's new size is now 25'x35', which means it's still counted as Gargantuan." You lost me here. A Tarrasque is gargantuan, so when it is reduced it becomes Huge. Where's the problem?
– Pink Sweetener
43 mins ago
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure how I could clarify the issue any more than I have in the post.
– Berry M.
35 mins ago
2
I think you could include the quote describing the size of the Tarrasque, which is probably what is causing the confusion. In other words, answering the question: where did you get those "25x35" from?
– Sdjz
34 mins ago
Fair enough. I'll edit this later when I can.
– Berry M.
32 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
The ruling of a creature's size is as follows:
And the Reduce spell states:
The target's size is halved in all dimensions, and its weight is reduced to one-eighth of normal. This reduction decreases its size by one category - from Medium to Small, for example.
Emphasis mine.
In the case of our Tarrasque, these statements in Reduce are contradictory:
It's new size is now 25'x35', which means it's still classified as Gargantuan.
Which rule takes priority?
edit:
We can break the rules even more here. If we assume the Tarrasque is now huge rather than gargantuan, PHB 192 states:
Squeezing into a Smaller Space: A creature can squeeze through a space that is large enough for a creature one size smaller than it. Thus, a Large creature can squeeze through a passage that's only 5 feet wide. While squeezing through a space, a creature must spend 1 extra foot for every foot it moves there, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage while it’s in the smaller space.
This means our 25x35 beastie can now get through a 10ft door.
dnd-5e monsters creature-size
asked 1 hour ago
Berry M.
1675
The ruling of a creature's size is as follows:
And the Reduce spell states:
The target's size is halved in all dimensions, and its weight is reduced to one-eighth of normal. This reduction decreases its size by one category - from Medium to Small, for example.
Emphasis mine.
In the case of our Tarrasque, these statements in Reduce are contradictory:
It's new size is now 25'x35', which means it's still classified as Gargantuan.
Which rule takes priority?
edit:
We can break the rules even more here. If we assume the Tarrasque is now huge rather than gargantuan, PHB 192 states:
Squeezing into a Smaller Space: A creature can squeeze through a space that is large enough for a creature one size smaller than it. Thus, a Large creature can squeeze through a passage that's only 5 feet wide. While squeezing through a space, a creature must spend 1 extra foot for every foot it moves there, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage while it’s in the smaller space.
This means our 25x35 beastie can now get through a 10ft door.
dnd-5e monsters creature-size
dnd-5e monsters creature-size
asked 1 hour ago
Berry M.
1675
asked 1 hour ago
Berry M.
1675
edited 41 mins ago
asked 1 hour ago
Berry M.
1675
asked 1 hour ago
Berry M.
1675
asked 1 hour ago
Berry M.
1675
1675
"In the case of our Tarrasque, these statements in Reduce are contradictory: It's new size is now 25'x35', which means it's still counted as Gargantuan." You lost me here. A Tarrasque is gargantuan, so when it is reduced it becomes Huge. Where's the problem?
– Pink Sweetener
43 mins ago
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure how I could clarify the issue any more than I have in the post.
– Berry M.
35 mins ago
2
I think you could include the quote describing the size of the Tarrasque, which is probably what is causing the confusion. In other words, answering the question: where did you get those "25x35" from?
– Sdjz
34 mins ago
Fair enough. I'll edit this later when I can.
– Berry M.
32 mins ago
add a comment |Â
"In the case of our Tarrasque, these statements in Reduce are contradictory: It's new size is now 25'x35', which means it's still counted as Gargantuan." You lost me here. A Tarrasque is gargantuan, so when it is reduced it becomes Huge. Where's the problem?
– Pink Sweetener
43 mins ago
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure how I could clarify the issue any more than I have in the post.
– Berry M.
35 mins ago
2
I think you could include the quote describing the size of the Tarrasque, which is probably what is causing the confusion. In other words, answering the question: where did you get those "25x35" from?
– Sdjz
34 mins ago
Fair enough. I'll edit this later when I can.
– Berry M.
32 mins ago
"In the case of our Tarrasque, these statements in Reduce are contradictory: It's new size is now 25'x35', which means it's still counted as Gargantuan." You lost me here. A Tarrasque is gargantuan, so when it is reduced it becomes Huge. Where's the problem?
– Pink Sweetener
43 mins ago
"In the case of our Tarrasque, these statements in Reduce are contradictory: It's new size is now 25'x35', which means it's still counted as Gargantuan." You lost me here. A Tarrasque is gargantuan, so when it is reduced it becomes Huge. Where's the problem?
– Pink Sweetener
43 mins ago
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure how I could clarify the issue any more than I have in the post.
– Berry M.
35 mins ago
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure how I could clarify the issue any more than I have in the post.
– Berry M.
35 mins ago
2
2
I think you could include the quote describing the size of the Tarrasque, which is probably what is causing the confusion. In other words, answering the question: where did you get those "25x35" from?
– Sdjz
34 mins ago
I think you could include the quote describing the size of the Tarrasque, which is probably what is causing the confusion. In other words, answering the question: where did you get those "25x35" from?
– Sdjz
34 mins ago
Fair enough. I'll edit this later when I can.
– Berry M.
32 mins ago
Fair enough. I'll edit this later when I can.
– Berry M.
32 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
This is one of those edge cases where a DM would need to make a ruling.
Given that the Tarrasque is exceptionally large, it would be reasonable for the line
This reduction decreases its size by one category
to take precedence over the line
The target's size is halved in all dimensions
In other word, the Tarrasque is reduced by more than half such that it can be considered a Huge creature, rather than still a Gargantuan creature. Given that magic has been used to reduce the Tarrasque (meaning that presumably a resource has been expended and the Tarrasque has failed a save, etc), it seems fair for the Tarrasque's opponents (presumably the party) that this should be the case.
Of course, it may also be reasonable for a DM to say that the Tarrasque is so large that reducing doesn't reduce its category, so the lines above take precedence the other way around, leaving the reduced Tarrasque as still being a Gargantuan creature.
Ultimately, without a Word of God answer, this one is up to the DM.
answered 44 mins ago
NathanS
16.3k471174
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In 5e, specific overrules general. However, which is the specific, might be up to DM discretion.
The following would allow the benefit of Reduce without contradicting size.
I would say the Tarrasque is still gargantuan, but half as gargantuan as he was so reduce it's damage due to the size reduction.
Reduce Specifies:
Until the spell ends, the target also has disadvantage on Strength Checks and Strength Saving Throws.The target's Weapons also shrink to match its new size. While these Weapons are reduced, the target's attacks with them deal 1d4 less damage (this can't reduce the damage below 1).
answered 59 mins ago
ravery
5,1721841
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
This is one of those edge cases where a DM would need to make a ruling.
Given that the Tarrasque is exceptionally large, it would be reasonable for the line
This reduction decreases its size by one category
to take precedence over the line
The target's size is halved in all dimensions
In other word, the Tarrasque is reduced by more than half such that it can be considered a Huge creature, rather than still a Gargantuan creature. Given that magic has been used to reduce the Tarrasque (meaning that presumably a resource has been expended and the Tarrasque has failed a save, etc), it seems fair for the Tarrasque's opponents (presumably the party) that this should be the case.
Of course, it may also be reasonable for a DM to say that the Tarrasque is so large that reducing doesn't reduce its category, so the lines above take precedence the other way around, leaving the reduced Tarrasque as still being a Gargantuan creature.
Ultimately, without a Word of God answer, this one is up to the DM.
answered 44 mins ago
NathanS
16.3k471174
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
This is one of those edge cases where a DM would need to make a ruling.
Given that the Tarrasque is exceptionally large, it would be reasonable for the line
This reduction decreases its size by one category
to take precedence over the line
The target's size is halved in all dimensions
In other word, the Tarrasque is reduced by more than half such that it can be considered a Huge creature, rather than still a Gargantuan creature. Given that magic has been used to reduce the Tarrasque (meaning that presumably a resource has been expended and the Tarrasque has failed a save, etc), it seems fair for the Tarrasque's opponents (presumably the party) that this should be the case.
Of course, it may also be reasonable for a DM to say that the Tarrasque is so large that reducing doesn't reduce its category, so the lines above take precedence the other way around, leaving the reduced Tarrasque as still being a Gargantuan creature.
Ultimately, without a Word of God answer, this one is up to the DM.
answered 44 mins ago
NathanS
16.3k471174
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
This is one of those edge cases where a DM would need to make a ruling.
Given that the Tarrasque is exceptionally large, it would be reasonable for the line
This reduction decreases its size by one category
to take precedence over the line
The target's size is halved in all dimensions
In other word, the Tarrasque is reduced by more than half such that it can be considered a Huge creature, rather than still a Gargantuan creature. Given that magic has been used to reduce the Tarrasque (meaning that presumably a resource has been expended and the Tarrasque has failed a save, etc), it seems fair for the Tarrasque's opponents (presumably the party) that this should be the case.
Of course, it may also be reasonable for a DM to say that the Tarrasque is so large that reducing doesn't reduce its category, so the lines above take precedence the other way around, leaving the reduced Tarrasque as still being a Gargantuan creature.
Ultimately, without a Word of God answer, this one is up to the DM.
answered 44 mins ago
NathanS
16.3k471174
This is one of those edge cases where a DM would need to make a ruling.
Given that the Tarrasque is exceptionally large, it would be reasonable for the line
This reduction decreases its size by one category
to take precedence over the line
The target's size is halved in all dimensions
In other word, the Tarrasque is reduced by more than half such that it can be considered a Huge creature, rather than still a Gargantuan creature. Given that magic has been used to reduce the Tarrasque (meaning that presumably a resource has been expended and the Tarrasque has failed a save, etc), it seems fair for the Tarrasque's opponents (presumably the party) that this should be the case.
Of course, it may also be reasonable for a DM to say that the Tarrasque is so large that reducing doesn't reduce its category, so the lines above take precedence the other way around, leaving the reduced Tarrasque as still being a Gargantuan creature.
Ultimately, without a Word of God answer, this one is up to the DM.
answered 44 mins ago
NathanS
16.3k471174
answered 44 mins ago
NathanS
16.3k471174
answered 44 mins ago
NathanS
16.3k471174
answered 44 mins ago
NathanS
16.3k471174
16.3k471174
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In 5e, specific overrules general. However, which is the specific, might be up to DM discretion.
The following would allow the benefit of Reduce without contradicting size.
I would say the Tarrasque is still gargantuan, but half as gargantuan as he was so reduce it's damage due to the size reduction.
Reduce Specifies:
Until the spell ends, the target also has disadvantage on Strength Checks and Strength Saving Throws.The target's Weapons also shrink to match its new size. While these Weapons are reduced, the target's attacks with them deal 1d4 less damage (this can't reduce the damage below 1).
answered 59 mins ago
ravery
5,1721841
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In 5e, specific overrules general. However, which is the specific, might be up to DM discretion.
The following would allow the benefit of Reduce without contradicting size.
I would say the Tarrasque is still gargantuan, but half as gargantuan as he was so reduce it's damage due to the size reduction.
Reduce Specifies:
Until the spell ends, the target also has disadvantage on Strength Checks and Strength Saving Throws.The target's Weapons also shrink to match its new size. While these Weapons are reduced, the target's attacks with them deal 1d4 less damage (this can't reduce the damage below 1).
answered 59 mins ago
ravery
5,1721841
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
In 5e, specific overrules general. However, which is the specific, might be up to DM discretion.
The following would allow the benefit of Reduce without contradicting size.
I would say the Tarrasque is still gargantuan, but half as gargantuan as he was so reduce it's damage due to the size reduction.
Reduce Specifies:
Until the spell ends, the target also has disadvantage on Strength Checks and Strength Saving Throws.The target's Weapons also shrink to match its new size. While these Weapons are reduced, the target's attacks with them deal 1d4 less damage (this can't reduce the damage below 1).
answered 59 mins ago
ravery
5,1721841
In 5e, specific overrules general. However, which is the specific, might be up to DM discretion.
The following would allow the benefit of Reduce without contradicting size.
I would say the Tarrasque is still gargantuan, but half as gargantuan as he was so reduce it's damage due to the size reduction.
Reduce Specifies:
Until the spell ends, the target also has disadvantage on Strength Checks and Strength Saving Throws.The target's Weapons also shrink to match its new size. While these Weapons are reduced, the target's attacks with them deal 1d4 less damage (this can't reduce the damage below 1).
answered 59 mins ago
ravery
5,1721841
edited 38 mins ago
answered 59 mins ago
ravery
5,1721841
answered 59 mins ago
ravery
5,1721841
answered 59 mins ago
ravery
5,1721841
5,1721841
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f132459%2fwhat-size-category-is-a-reduced-tarrasque%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
"In the case of our Tarrasque, these statements in Reduce are contradictory: It's new size is now 25'x35', which means it's still counted as Gargantuan." You lost me here. A Tarrasque is gargantuan, so when it is reduced it becomes Huge. Where's the problem?
– Pink Sweetener
43 mins ago
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure how I could clarify the issue any more than I have in the post.
– Berry M.
35 mins ago
2
I think you could include the quote describing the size of the Tarrasque, which is probably what is causing the confusion. In other words, answering the question: where did you get those "25x35" from?
– Sdjz
34 mins ago
Fair enough. I'll edit this later when I can.
– Berry M.
32 mins ago