If a grey dwarf rune knight uses their "Giant Might" then casts their "Enlarge" on themselves to they become Gargantuan? If they become Size->Large from Giant Might then double their height with enlarge they would be twice as tall (and one would assume as wide) as whatever Size->Large gave them (10x10 ft) making them 20x20 ft, which is the minimum size category of Gargantuan. Even if this isn't exactly how the rules work out I would love to have this as a player or one of my players if I'm the DM. A 4ft Dwarf suddenly growing to over 30ft tall sounds hilarious.
The real question is if the additional D6 and D4 stack or if Gargantuan has its own additional dice.
For reference Gargantuan would make the player a Purple worm sized Dwarf, amazing.
Enlarge/Reduce clearly states that it increases your size category by one level, so Large to Huge. You would be the size of a regular Giant. Unfortunately the two size increases do not otherwise combine very well; you would get the bonus 1d6 + 1d4 damage, but the advantage on Str checks and saves doesn't stack.
These types of modifications tend not to stack. Such as Powerful Build and an older UA feature (forgot what it was called) dealing with increased sizes.
I don't think there's any smoking gun that makes this specific combination definitively incorrect by RAW, so there's that. I tend to view these types of interactions through two logic tests: redundancy & order agnosticism.
If two abilities modify the character in the same way, I look for redundancies. If there are significant redundancies, it is unlikely they are meant to stack. There are redundancies, but not significant enough to outright deny their ability to be used together. The wording of both effects is significantly different enough to consider the possibility.
If the abilities are worded differently enough to assume they could stack, then I look for issues in order of usage. If the two abilities are meant to be stackable, then the order in which they are activated ought not matter. In this case, the order matters. Giant Might doesn't actually increase a creature's size category by a set integer; it's hard-coded to size Large. Enlarge/Reduce specifically increases the target's size by one category.
If we are to assume that these abilities function off of what a creature's current size is, rather than their base size, then activating Giant Might followed by Enlarge/Reduce results in a size Huge creature with an additional 1d6 & 1d4 damage to weapon attacks. In reverse order, Giant Might would fail to increase your size past Large (as you're already Large from Enlarge/Reduce). This tells me that the features of both are not intended to stack, and I would treat Giant Might as a superior version that would overwrite the active effects of Enlarge/Reduce.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a grey dwarf rune knight uses their "Giant Might" then casts their "Enlarge" on themselves to they become Gargantuan? If they become Size->Large from Giant Might then double their height with enlarge they would be twice as tall (and one would assume as wide) as whatever Size->Large gave them (10x10 ft) making them 20x20 ft, which is the minimum size category of Gargantuan. Even if this isn't exactly how the rules work out I would love to have this as a player or one of my players if I'm the DM. A 4ft Dwarf suddenly growing to over 30ft tall sounds hilarious.
The real question is if the additional D6 and D4 stack or if Gargantuan has its own additional dice.
For reference Gargantuan would make the player a Purple worm sized Dwarf, amazing.
Enlarge/Reduce clearly states that it increases your size category by one level, so Large to Huge. You would be the size of a regular Giant. Unfortunately the two size increases do not otherwise combine very well; you would get the bonus 1d6 + 1d4 damage, but the advantage on Str checks and saves doesn't stack.
These types of modifications tend not to stack. Such as Powerful Build and an older UA feature (forgot what it was called) dealing with increased sizes.
I don't think there's any smoking gun that makes this specific combination definitively incorrect by RAW, so there's that. I tend to view these types of interactions through two logic tests: redundancy & order agnosticism.
If two abilities modify the character in the same way, I look for redundancies. If there are significant redundancies, it is unlikely they are meant to stack. There are redundancies, but not significant enough to outright deny their ability to be used together. The wording of both effects is significantly different enough to consider the possibility.
If the abilities are worded differently enough to assume they could stack, then I look for issues in order of usage. If the two abilities are meant to be stackable, then the order in which they are activated ought not matter. In this case, the order matters. Giant Might doesn't actually increase a creature's size category by a set integer; it's hard-coded to size Large. Enlarge/Reduce specifically increases the target's size by one category.
If we are to assume that these abilities function off of what a creature's current size is, rather than their base size, then activating Giant Might followed by Enlarge/Reduce results in a size Huge creature with an additional 1d6 & 1d4 damage to weapon attacks. In reverse order, Giant Might would fail to increase your size past Large (as you're already Large from Enlarge/Reduce). This tells me that the features of both are not intended to stack, and I would treat Giant Might as a superior version that would overwrite the active effects of Enlarge/Reduce.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.