Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Citan 06-27-05, 06:56 AM	Hi everyone, I've got some problems lately with our very overpowered druid (level 13). He is an unstoppable fighting machine, because he can wildshape into a dire bear, wears a wild shape armor that allows him to retain his armor bonus and has some incredible attack bonus and damage values (mostly because of the physical ability scores of the dire bear). Now the player found out that he could make himself large with the "animal growth" spell. Is that possible? That would grant him huge size and tremendous additional bonuses to Strength, Hit Points, Reach, etc. Oh and yes, there is also his dire wolverine companion that is affected by the spell too and gains huge size... Citan
redkite 06-27-05, 07:38 AM	Under the Rules of the Game, All about Polymorphing (on the WotC D&D site), it is discussed that the change into a Larger creature constitutes a sizing bonus (you were medium, now you are large), so that you could not stack this with the sizing bonus that Animal Growth gives (but you are out of luck as far as the wolverine, or any summoned animals, for that matter). The link to the articles: WotC site is not responding - will edit later. As far as armor and the Wild armor property, there is a large percentage that believe all armor properties are kept when the Wildshape occurs (weight, encumbrance, movement penalties and non-proficiency bonuses) along with the AC, so that may limit your players desire to use this as a strategy, especially if he has added this to heavy armor.
stamhaven 06-27-05, 08:06 AM	Animal growth on a wildshaped druid who's assumed a bigger form is a DM judgement call (there are those that will argue that RAW clearly supports exclusively opposite rulings). Some interpret the size enhancement stacking rules to prohibit it (some leave the size the same but add the stat boosts and DR), others consider polymorph, wildshape and other form altering magic that happens to chage your size, distinct and seprate from size altering magic and alow the combo freely. The animal companion should be eligible to recieve full benefits from Animal Growth regardless of how that ruling falls (unless you house rule that AC are magical beasts that do not have the listed exceptions for being targeted as animals). As DM you should make a ruling on how you want that sort of thing played and realize it will affect polymorph and alter self equally as wildshape (with things like righteous might and enlarge person combined with alter self or polymorph). Animal growth is a group buff and best used on himself, companion and a group of summoned nature's allies if possible. If he WS's to the same form as the summons he can command them without Speak with Animals or handle animal checks and ammounts to a near mirror image with real other similar looking dire wolverenes. Add to AG improved grapple from a single level monk dip, to get wis to ac without the wild armor and Nature's warrior for serpent's coils for net of +4 IG +4 SC +4 AG Size +4 AG Str=+16 to the dire bear grapple bonus of bab +14 for a grand total of bab +30 with improved grab and effectively constrict, all wrapped up in one (or better yet do it from dire lion and do that all with pounce and rake as well but only bab +27 for grapple checks. My recomendation if you want to curtail the melee druid power is to either eliminate Natural spell or curtail that in some way (making it metamagic for +1 spell level forcing him to comit slots to it and making it more costly). Other optoins are to adjust the polymorph rules to have creatures retain their original type for targeting purposes (still vulnerable to dominate person while in animal form). Whatever change you make be sure to discuss it with your players (or at lease announce it in advance and if it takes away from the effectiveness of natural spell then give him the opportunity to pick a different feat.
ajmastrean 06-27-05, 09:44 AM	The Dire Bear shouldn't be any better than a decent fighter-type of the same level, particularly due to the Druid's 3/4 BAB. Use attacks that require touch/ranged touch rolls, as the Dire Bear's Dex is a horrid +1. And keep away from it...don't let it use it's full attack and things wont seem so bad. And why not use his new found Animal type against him and Charm Animal or throw some rangers down with Favored Enemy (Animals). Not that you *must* smash him, but just in case he needs to cool down...or if you have recurring villains, they should pick up some good tactics eventually.
Seeker95 06-27-05, 11:53 AM	The problem is not the stacking of animal growth and wild shape. The problem is that your druid evidently has quite a bit of wealth tied up in his armor. If his armor is not all that impressive, then neither is the animal growth dire bear in said armor. Having the spell affect his animal companion is all well and good... but how effectively can two huge creatures stay within 5' of each other? To effectively prevent this, make both the companion and the druid roll separate initiatives. As soon as one of them moves (even 5') the shared spell ends.
Darken 06-27-05, 12:21 PM	There is no need for Share spell on Animal Growth. Animal Growth affects 1 animal per 2 caster levels. By the time you get it at level 9, You can easily Animal Growth 4 animals each casting. Animal Growth on Wildshape Druid? Yes, it's possible, as Wildshape functions like Polymorph, and Polymorph changes your creature type, thus you yourself will have the animal type, a valid target for Animal Growth spell. Animal Growth should work and increase your size on someone wildshape into large creature. Note that size increase does not stack, but Wildshape, which functions off Polymorph, is not a size increase. You take on physical qualities of the new form, which includes size. It's a size change, not a size increase. Also note that in the article quoted above on changing shapes, it is recommended that DMs houserule Polymorph/Wildshape to be an increase/decease of size if they think it's appropriate; this implies that by the core rules, Polymorph/Wildshape is not an increase/decrease in size, thus further size-increasing bonus should be applicable.
Drachasor 06-27-05, 02:02 PM	Have an enemy spellcaster use dispel magic a bit more liberally. Really this isn't done enough. Area and Targetted dispels can really ruin the buffing of a party, particularly the Druid who is especially susceptible--they need more buffs to compensate for the few magical items they can use while wildshaped. A Dispel Magic on a person by an equal-level Caster is going to take out half the Buffs. If it is over an area and everyone has more than one buff, then it is very likely they'll all lose one buff. Pretty wise idea for villians. And there are ways non-casters can get some dispelling power too: UMD, Rods, etc. That or just run away for a minute or two and those buffs will be gone (as will summons). -Drachasor
Teron Gorefiend 06-27-05, 03:42 PM	Ban the broken Wild Spell feat. Problem solved.
Tony Vargas 06-27-05, 03:59 PM	Now the player found out that he could make himself large with the "animal growth" spell. Is that possible? Anything is possible if you, as the DM, allow it. Animal Growth explicitly does not stack with other magical size increases. Wildshape is certainly magical, and it can be used to increase your size, so not ruling it a magical size increase would be quite a stretch, and, considering that you already find the character overpowered, kinda silly. In a recent article, the Sage affirms your right as a DM to rule either way, though. Keep in mind, though, that your wildshaping druid will still be overpowered, even with this ruling, he just won't be /even more overpowered/, FWTW. To really 'fix' wildshaping druids, you'd have to fix Polymorph and Natural Spell, and Wild Armor. And by 'fix' I mean, get out your nerf stick and hit 'em so hard that Gary Gaygax will feel the impact. Oh and yes, there is also his dire wolverine companion that is affected by the spell too and gains huge size... Yes, the animal companion can benefit from animal growth. So could the druid when he's using wildshape to assume a form that is not larger than his true form.
thegreatbuddha 06-27-05, 04:40 PM	Wild Shape and Animal Growth do stack, since Wild Shape is not a size increase per se. As Tony Vargas pointed out, the Sage said that DMs can rule that Wild Shape + Animal Growth don't stack, strongly implying that it works according to the RAW. Of course, also according to the RAW, Animal Growth doesn't say anything about increasing the size of the animal's equipment, like Wild Armor. If a spell doesn't say it does something, it doesn't do it (to paraphrase the Sage). Next time he casts Animal Growth on himself, he'll either constrict himself to death or destroy his armor. Without his Wild Armor, your druid shouldn't be that much of a problem. If he is, inflict a fair amount of damage on him, and then use targetted dispels to knock him out of Wild Shape. If he has a low natural CON score, he may well die.
Darken 06-27-05, 07:26 PM	Wildshape indeed is not an increase in size if you Wildshape into something bigger than your normal form. You take on physical qualities, which, among other things, include size. As I stated above, this is not an increase, but rather a change; this is not merely a play on the words for some munchkinism, but rather the game does make some important distinctions between the two. Using the exact example, Wildshape/Polymorph, when you change into something, your physical ability score also changes. Your ability score technically do not increase or decrease, or gain some bonus/penalty, but rather it's just different because your form is different. It is the same idea with size change.
yonman 06-27-05, 07:42 PM	If you shapechange into a Large brown bear, then why would you guys think that is a enhancement increase size? You polymorph into a Large brown bear, not because there are Small brown bears, but because brown bears are LARGE...in the game and in real-life. Therefore, there is no size enhancement increase because the animal you are polymorphing into is already large size. Large brown bears + Animal Growth = Huge Brown bear
Drachasor 06-27-05, 08:34 PM	Ban the broken Wild Spell feat. Problem solved. So far, as a level 9 Druid, I think limiting Natural Spell to 3 uses per shift might work fine. So if you cast 3 times while shifted, you'll have to use a shift again to get 3 more uses. Such shift-casts can only be used in the shift you got them (so you can't "save" up casts from previous shifts you only use 1 or 2 casts). I am going to have my DM implement this (he's concerned about my Druid's power, power which partly comes from the class and partly because I am just better at combat than the other players). Anyhow, I know that right now I expend a lot of spells in Wild Shape. I heal (sometimes a lot in a tough fight), I Animal Growth, etc. Particularly, in the last hard-fought battle we had, I know this would have made a huge difference (I was on my last wildshape, and I am sure I cast 6+ spells). Anyhow, worth a try, I figure. One might have to nerf the Extra Wild Shapes feat though (two more uses of Wildshape a day). -Drachasor
Drachasor 06-27-05, 08:35 PM	I will say again, if a group of bad guys are worried, they just need to avoid combat for 10+ rounds after Animal Growth is cast, or simply dispel it. Both are very realistic options. -Drachasor
Tony Vargas 06-27-05, 09:11 PM	Wildshape indeed is not an increase in size if you Wildshape into something bigger than your normal form. You start out medium, you use magic, you end up large as a result. That certainly looks like a magical size increase. (if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....) As I stated above, this is not an increase, but rather a change; this is not merely a play on the words for some munchkinism, If it's not 'muchkinism' (a loaded word, and not always loaded with the same thing), or, at least, an attempt to interpret the rules in the way most favorable to the player of the Druid, then what is it? Sure, you can split hairs like that, and say that a 'change' is distinct from an 'increase,' (even though any increase is also a change, no?) and the Sage even opines that a DM could choose to interpret it either way. Heck, it's even a valid distinction in the sense that not every use of wildshape is going to increase your size - you can wildshape into a same-size animal, or a smaller one (and when you do, Animal Growth should work fine) - but, when it does, ruling it a magical sizen increase is certainly not unreasonable. Your ability score technically do not increase or decrease, or gain some bonus/penalty, but rather it's just different because your form is different. That's one of the big problems with polymorph - it doesn't give a bonus or penalty to a stat, it just replaces your normal stat with that of the assumed form. That can be an increase or decrease or a wash, depending on your stat and the form. You're right that it's not a bonus, and that does wreak havoc with some elements of game balance (like point-buy for stats, or the way bonuses stack).
Tony Vargas 06-27-05, 09:13 PM	So far, as a level 9 Druid, I think limiting Natural Spell to 3 uses per shift might work fine. So if you cast 3 times while shifted, you'll have to use a shift again to get 3 more uses. Similar to a 'Sudden' Metamagic feat? I think making it work like other metamagic feats would be even better (you have to aply it when you prep the spell, and the spell is higher level, even if only +1).
Seeker95 06-27-05, 10:22 PM	You start out medium, you use magic, you end up large as a result. That certainly looks like a magical size increase. (if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....)The Sage already said that you *can* houserule it the way you are interpretting things. By acknowledging that it would be a houserule, the implication is that the core interpretation is that it is NOT a size change. If you turn a horse into a duck, you did not change the horse's size. You changed the horse's form. If you turn the horse into a duck-sized horse, THEN you have a size change. :P *quack* :P
Tony Vargas 06-27-05, 10:54 PM	The Sage already said that you *can* houserule it the way you are interpretting things. Not quite, the passing comment implied that it could be ruled either way - not that it was one way, and your DM might houserule otherwise (your DM might houserule /anything/).
Polaris 06-27-05, 11:01 PM	Not quite, the passing comment implied that it could be ruled either way - not that it was one way, and your DM might houserule otherwise (your DM might houserule /anything/). Tony, I hate to pick nits with you but technically Seeker95 is correct. In this article (Rules of the Game), had Skip Williams wanted to, he could have made a ruling about size changes and polymorph and that ruling would have been official. He deliberately went out of his way to avoid doing this. By doing so, the implication (admittedly it is a negative implication) is that the default assumption is that Polymorph does not constitute a size change. If the default were the other way, Skip would have had to say so (because Polymorph does not say this). -Polaris
farfairer 06-28-05, 01:13 AM	I played a Druid who abused this. I abused it not because I wanted to be a munchkin, but because there is no way for it not to be abusive. Over the entire lifespan of my Druid, he used this trick maybe 3 or 4 times. A couple of the other players complained. The GM decided to bring up the issue with everyone who played in one of his games (instead of making an on the spot ruling). As a group we decided to nerf animal growth (instead of natural spell). We did this because as far as most of the players were concerned Natural Spell wasn't the broken part of the combo. And neither was wild armor. Unlike what Redkite and thegreatbuddha said the Wild ability specificly states that The armor bonus is kept while in wildshape. That means that only the base +bonus from armor applies none of its other properties (including magical enhancements like slick and fortitude) apply. After months of debate we decided that Natural spell allowing Animal growth to work on Druid was nothing compaired to animal growth working on his riding dog animal companion and the (1d4x1.5)+1 direwolves he would summon using his metamagic rod of empower. Even if the druid wasn't effected by the Animal Growth, wildshape allowed him to automaticly talk to the animals he sommoned as long as he was the same animal type (direwolf). The bonuses of the spell are far better than similar spells of the same level that other casters get. Righteous Might for example is caster only lasts 1 round/ level, and grants +4 str, +2 con, +2 nat armor, 3/evil (or good) DR which increases to 6/ evil (or good) at 12th CL and 9/evil (or good) at 15th CL. (This is the official errata version in both the errata PDF on the WoTC site, and printed in the black leather PHB). Animal Growth on the other hand effects 1 animal/ 2 CL, lasts 1 min/ level, and grants +8 str, +4 con, +2 nat armor, 10/magic DR and +4 resistance bonus to all saves. This is what we all felt was the unbalanced part. Not the size stacking issue (we played it that if my druid was a dire bear (or saber tooth tiger as was his preferece) he could use the spell to full effect). So we reqrote the spell and house ruled it as "errata". Our version of Animal Growth now looks like this: Targets: 1 animal /3 Levels, Durration: 1 round/ level The spell grants a +4 enlargement bonus to strength, a +2 size bonus to constitution, +2 natural armor, damage reduction 10/magic and +4 resistance bonus to all saves.
Tony Vargas 06-28-05, 02:53 PM	In this article (Rules of the Game), had Skip Williams wanted to, he could have made a ruling about size changes and polymorph and that ruling would have been official. He deliberately went out of his way to avoid doing this. I think that implies that either ruling is as 'official' as the other. The rules can be read either way, and the official arbiter declined to pick one.
Darken 06-28-05, 05:03 PM	No, it can not be read either way. There is just one way from the wording; it was simply somewhat confusing due to the fact it refereces rules from all over the place (Polymorph spell, Wildshape feature, creature type change, etc). It is also quite powerful, thus he is saying that DMs can houserule it. There is no official ruling in that article at all. He simply makes a suggestion on a houserule, and the only "official" rule remains written clearly in the PHB. Again I draw example from Polymorph, and take Strength as example. Your Strength score changes, it's not a bonus or penalty. Let's say, you have 10 strength, you Polymorph into a troll with strength 25. Your strength score is not 10+15 (you can think of it as base 10 bonus 15), it is just 25 (base 25). If it's an unnamed bonus (in the case of 10+15), by the rules it would not stack and simply overlap from the same source, thus you can polymorph later into a fish, but still have 25 strength, since the fish's bonus/penalty is overlapped by the existing bonus. Size is the samething. If medium size is "0", large is "1", huge is "2", and small is "-1", it's now easy to see as the strength example. When you Polymorph into a troll, which commonly has the size Large, or "1", your size is 1. It is not "0+1", as in the case of Enlarge, Righteous Might, etc, as these spells give you a "bonus on your size." If it's 0+1, you cannot benefit from further "+1's", but if it's just 1, you can benefit from +1 and have size of 1+1.
Polaris 06-28-05, 05:08 PM	Tony, Sorry but Darken and Seeker95 are both correct on this one. Unless a power specifically states that it does 'X' then it does not do 'X'. That is what I mean by negative implication. If a power that gives a stat bonus does not explicitly name that bonus, then the bonus is unnamed (for example). The same applies here. Neither Polymorph, Wildshape, Alter-Self, or Shapechange ever state that you undergo a magical size change. Therefore you don't. I note that even when it is obvious that you do (Enlarge Person and Rightous Might), the spells still explicitly say this to avoid negative implications otherwise. Ergo, going strictly by RAW, Wildshaping (and polymorph and shapechange) do not constitute a magical size change. What Skip Williams gave was an unofficial suggestion as a DM. Nothing more. -Polaris
farfairer 06-28-05, 06:24 PM	Tony: Even if you were right about this (which as Polaris and Darken pointed out, your not), the point is Moot. First off, in order for the Druid to effect himself with the Animal Growth spell he has to: A: Be an animal when he casts it AND B: He has to stay an animal for the durration or the spell is automaticly dissmissed. This means he is spendig a feat to get Natural Spell, and taking two rounds durring combat (1 if he is already an animal or has Fast Wild Shape) to cast the spell. Secondly the spell is rediculusly overpowered even if the druid has no ability to target himself. A 13th level Druid can cast an empowered summon natures ally 5 to summon 1d4x1.5+1 dire wolves (average is 4). He then casts Animal Growth on them and his animal companion (we'll say the companion is a normal wolf). Thats 4 huge direwolved and 1 large wolf on the battle field. Each of which has +8 STR, +4 Con, +2 nat armor, +4 saves, and DR 10/ Magic. Then he uses wildshape to turn into a direwolf himself. Since he is a wolf now, he can talk normally with ALL wolves, and thus command the summoned animals to do whatever he wants. The animals proceede to rip apart all the enemies on the field. If you simply fix the spell, then it doens't matter if a feat allows the druid to target himself with it or not.
Tony Vargas 06-28-05, 07:14 PM	Ergo, going strictly by RAW, Wildshaping (and polymorph and shapechange) do not constitute a magical size change. You're saying that a medium character polymorphed into a large form has not undergone a magical size change. Are you trying to say that polymorph is not magical, or that large is the same size as medium? :uh-huh: Now, I can see the argument that Polymorph isn't a size 'increase' but a size 'change.' I find it to be a tenuous, disengenuous argument, that's inconsistent with the way stacking magical effects generally works, and that is potentially imbalancing - but at least I can see the logic behind it. I don't see how anyone can discount the obvious logic of polymorph into a larger form being a magical size increase, though. I mean, it's magic, and the subject's size increases. On top of that, it's the more balanced and consistent intepretation.
Tony Vargas 06-28-05, 07:22 PM	Secondly Animal Growth is rediculusly overpowered even if the druid has no ability to target himself. If you simply fix the spell, then it doens't matter if a feat allows the druid to target himself with it or not. I'd argue that Polymorph (upon which Wildshape is based) is rediculously overpowered, even if other magical size increases can't be stacked on top of it. But, heck, maybe they both need a tap from the ol' nerf stick. The comparison between Animal Growth and Righteous Might is apt. About the only thing that might balance Animal Growth in the comparison is the target. Either you're casting it on an animal, or on a shape-altered character who's equipment has been mostly rendered non-functional. In contrast, using Righteous Might is compatible with all your usual equipment. :shrug:
Tony Vargas 06-28-05, 07:34 PM	Size is the samething. If medium size is "0", large is "1", huge is "2", and small is "-1", it's now easy to see as the strength example. When you Polymorph into a troll, which commonly has the size Large, or "1", your size is 1. It is not "0+1", as in the case of Enlarge, Righteous Might, etc, as these spells give you a "bonus on your size." If it's 0+1, you cannot benefit from further "+1's", but if it's just 1, you can benefit from +1 and have size of 1+1. I get that. I just don't think it's conclusive. Enlarge, Animal Growth and the like don't have any language about bonuses to size, but to size /increases/. Yes, "1" can be considered distinct from "0+1", but, both are still greater than 0, and both constitute an increase compared to 0. That's an excessively precise way of stating the obvious, but there you go. To re-state the obvious a little differently, Enlarge Person increases your size by one step - small to medium, or medium to large - and that's prettymuch all it does. It is certainly, always a magical size increase, and, it's pretty cogent to note that it won't work if your size has already been increased magically. Polymorph, OTOH, is not always a magical size increase, and doesn't always increase your size by the same amount. It couldn't stack with another already-in-effect magical size increase, because it just increases (or decreases) your size to that of the form assumed, not by any set amount. Saying that it doesn't stack with another magical size change is redundant - by it's very nature, it replaces any other size alterations in effect. Lack of that redundant language doesn't make polymorphing into a different-sized form anything less than a change in size. Clearly, the two do not stack. If you Polymorph into a larger humanoid, then recieve an Enlarge Person, you do not further enlarge, since your size has already been magically increased. If you are Enlarged, then Polymorph into a humanoid of your new size, you simply assume the normal size for that form, per the polymorph description.
Polaris 06-28-05, 08:13 PM	Tony, I understand what you are saying, but it isn't supported by the rules as written (no matter how hard you try). Polymorph is consistant. You replace one form and it's physical properties with another. One legal and physical property is it's size. The rule in any game system is simple: It's not a "size increase" or whatever property unless the ability specifically says so. Enlarge Person and Rightous Might both do; Polymorph does not. Since Polymorph doesn't say it's a size increase, the most literal and basic reading of the rule forces us to conclude that it is not....rules as written. -Poalris
farfairer 06-28-05, 11:27 PM	I'd argue that Polymorph (upon which Wildshape is based) is rediculously overpowered, even if other magical size increases can't be stacked on top of it. But, heck, maybe they both need a tap from the ol' nerf stick. The comparison between Animal Growth and Righteous Might is apt. About the only thing that might balance Animal Growth in the comparison is the target. Either you're casting it on an animal, or on a shape-altered character who's equipment has been mostly rendered non-functional. In contrast, using Righteous Might is compatible with all your usual equipment. :shrug: One 13th level cleric with average stats and average equipment with 2 rounds of prep time (most likely for Divine Power, and Righteous Might) VS One 13th level druid with average stats and average equipment with 2 rounds of prep time (empowered summon natures ally 5 (useing the sumnmon 3 chart for 1d4+1 direwolves), and animal growth) Becomes One 13th level cleric with average stats and average equipment with Divine Power, and Righteous Might active VS 4 huge direwolves, a large wolf, and a large direwolf (druid). (Remember Animal Growth is 1 animal/ 2 caster levels at level 13 thats up to 6 target animals.) I think the Druid and friends win.
Drachasor 06-29-05, 12:16 AM	One 13th level cleric with average stats and average equipment with 2 rounds of prep time (most likely for Divine Power, and Righteous Might) VS One 13th level druid with average stats and average equipment with 2 rounds of prep time (empowered summon natures ally 5 (useing the sumnmon 3 chart for 1d4+1 direwolves), and animal growth) Becomes One 13th level cleric with average stats and average equipment with Divine Power, and Righteous Might active VS 4 huge direwolves, a large wolf, and a large direwolf (druid). (Remember Animal Growth is 1 animal/ 2 caster levels at level 13 thats up to 6 target animals.) I think the Druid and friends win. The Cleric casts Dispel Magic on the area. There's a 30% chance each Wolf is dispelled. There's a 30% chance each animal growth is dispelled. There's a 51% chance that for a given Wolf, either it is dispelled or it's Animal Growth is. The Cleric has just drastically reduced the fighting power of the Druid with 1 third level spell. Or, the Cleric casts 1 Greater Dispel Magic. There's a 50% chance each Wolf is dispelled, and a 50% chance each animal growth is dispelled. That's a 75% chance that either the wolf or the animal growth is dispelled, for each Wolf. So after one spell only 25% of what the Druid took 2 rounds to do remains. Or the Cleric could cast Repulsion, and eliminate all but the Druid as threats. Or Dictum, and those poor Wolves are paralyzed for 1d10 minutes, or dead if the Cleric has a Bead of Karma activated. Frankly, there are many things the Cleric has at his disposal, so he's far from dead. Remember those poor Dire Wolves only have 6 hit dice, and there are many ways to stop them without getting into melee. A 13th level Fighter, on the other hand, might have some large problems (though +16 to hit isn't that great at level 13, the Fighter could easily have an AC of 36 with Plate Mail+4 (13), Dex (1), Ring of Protection +3 (3), Combat Expertise (5), and a Amulet of Natural Armor (3)...and you can switch in a shield, fighting on the defensive, and other options and he can still easily hit an AC of 14). Well, a Rogue might have issues then. (Naturally the Fighter just largely neutralizes the Dire Wolves, the Druid could still probably defeat the him with relative ease...as could any caster.) -Drachasor
farfairer 06-29-05, 04:47 AM	The Cleric casts Dispel Magic on the area. There's a 30% chance each Wolf is dispelled. There's a 30% chance each animal growth is dispelled. There's a 51% chance that for a given Wolf, either it is dispelled or it's Animal Growth is. The Cleric has just drastically reduced the fighting power of the Druid with 1 third level spell. Or, the Cleric casts 1 Greater Dispel Magic. There's a 50% chance each Wolf is dispelled, and a 50% chance each animal growth is dispelled. That's a 75% chance that either the wolf or the animal growth is dispelled, for each Wolf. So after one spell only 25% of what the Druid took 2 rounds to do remains. Check Dispel magic, area dispel can only dispel one effect per target. I think your persentages are a slight bit off. Or the Cleric could cast Repulsion, and eliminate all but the Druid as threats. Or Dictum, and those poor Wolves are paralyzed for 1d10 minutes, or dead if the Cleric has a Bead of Karma activated. Frankly, there are many things the Cleric has at his disposal, so he's far from dead. Remember those poor Dire Wolves only have 6 hit dice, and there are many ways to stop them without getting into melee. Repulsion has a will save. And an animal growthed direwolf's will save is a 10, thats a 50% chance of saving. Dictum only works if the Cleric is Lawful, remember that. And if you are considering a Bead of karma to be average equiptment for a levle 13 cleric then it should also be average equipment for a level 13 druid, so yes the dictum would kill some of the direwolves (but not the animal companion or the druid), but those dispel checks would be harder. Also druids get dispel magic and with natural spell can counterspell while being an animal. Also don't forget, if the druid wins initiative the direwolves will all be in melee range with the cleric befor he can get any of those spells off (base speed 50). Druids also get Owl's Wisdom, Mass. which would help with those will saves, And miasma (Complete Divine) wich will stop a caster from using anything but a silent spell. A 13th level Fighter, on the other hand, might have some large problems (though +16 to hit isn't that great at level 13, the Fighter could easily have an AC of 36 with Plate Mail+4 (13), Dex (1), Ring of Protection +3 (3), Combat Expertise (5), and a Amulet of Natural Armor (3)...and you can switch in a shield, fighting on the defensive, and other options and he can still easily hit an AC of 14). Thats fine, but he has 4 huge combatants. If they stay 10 ft away, a fighter is screwed unless he has a reach weapon. And that huge direwolf has a +14 Attack bonus from the spell. Druids also get the best buff spells in the game. If the druid has the chance he can cast Bear's Heart giving the wolves an additional +4 to Str, and 1d4xcaster level in temp hit points. He can also cast vigorous circle to give them all fast healing 3. Well, a Rogue might have issues then. (Naturally the Fighter just largely neutralizes the Dire Wolves, the Druid could still probably defeat the him with relative ease...as could any caster.) Actually I think a rouge has the best chance of surviving. Not winning mind you, but surviving. Most Druid attack spells have reflex saves, and with full defence and tumble, the rouge should be able to run.
Drachasor 06-29-05, 08:33 AM	Check Dispel magic, area dispel can only dispel one effect per target. I think your persentages are a slight bit off. Area Dispel: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot radius. For each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more spells, you make a dispel check against the spell with the highest caster level. If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks. The creature’s magic items are not affected. 50% chance an animal growth is dispelled (with greater dispel).. If it isn't dispelled, then there's a 50% chance the Wolf is dispelled (or you could go in the other order). For both to not get dispelled, you need to hit the 50% of not dispelling the first, and then the 50% of not dispelling the second. So there's only a 25% chance that a Dire Wolf is unaffected. The other 75% is a 50% chance the first thing you check is dispelled, and a 25% chance the second thing you check is dispelled. Of course, if the Wolf is dispelled the Animal Growth on him is effectively gone too. Repulsion has a will save. And an animal growthed direwolf's will save is a 10, thats a 50% chance of saving. Dictum only works if the Cleric is Lawful, remember that. And if you are considering a Bead of karma to be average equiptment for a levle 13 cleric then it should also be average equipment for a level 13 druid, so yes the dictum would kill some of the direwolves (but not the animal companion or the druid), but those dispel checks would be harder. Also druids get dispel magic and with natural spell can counterspell while being an animal. 1. Repulsion is a 7th level spell. Are you telling me that this Cleric can't manage a save DC higher than 21 on a 7th level spell!? If that's the case, he has other problems. If he started with 16 is Wisdom, by now he'd probably have 19 naturally. He probably also has a +4 Wisdom item. That's a DC of 23 at least. The Wolves have a 40% chance of saving in this case. It's possible for the Cleric to get a higher DC here...certainly a 25 isn't outside the realm of possibility. Admittedly Greater Dispel Magic or Disctum (or equivalent) is a better choice. 2. If not Dictum then Blasphemy, Holy Word, or Word of Chaos. 3. Unfortunately, the Druid doesn't have time to use his Bead of Karma (assuming they both have one), since he's busy prepping his summons and Animal Growth. 4. The Druid can't counter the dispel magic. When the Cleric sees the Druid is going for summons, he readies an action to dispel as soon as the Druid casts Animal Growth. Also don't forget, if the druid wins initiative the direwolves will all be in melee range with the cleric befor he can get any of those spells off (base speed 50). Druids also get Owl's Wisdom, Mass. which would help with those will saves, And miasma (Complete Divine) wich will stop a caster from using anything but a silent spell. Again, the Cleric has a spell readied to cast as soon as the animals are growth, so they don't have a chance to attack. On the first round the Cleric could cast a spell that gives him Flight too, btw, then the Wolves can't touch him without the Druid spending another round casting (giving the Cleric more time). Druids also get the best buff spells in the game. If the druid has the chance he can cast Bear's Heart giving the wolves an additional +4 to Str, and 1d4xcaster level in temp hit points. He can also cast vigorous circle to give them all fast healing 3. Well, the Druid is free to toss as many resources at these 6 hit-die creatures as he wants. That isn't going to help them survive effects that only care about hit dice or caster level. Assuming the Druid even has that much time to buff the Wolves before they are gone or rendered ineffective. This also Assumes the Cleric doesn't see the Druid casting a summon, because if the Cleric sees this, then he can damage the Druid enough so that the spell fails. Summons are great in the right situation, but 1-1 against another caster they are often a waste of time. -Drachasor
farfairer 06-29-05, 12:27 PM	4. The Druid can't counter the dispel magic. When the Cleric sees the Druid is going for summons, he readies an action to dispel as soon as the Druid casts Animal Growth. Again, the Cleric has a spell readied to cast as soon as the animals are growth, so they don't have a chance to attack. On the first round the Cleric could cast a spell that gives him Flight too, btw, then the Wolves can't touch him without the Druid spending another round casting (giving the Cleric more time). This breaks the senario. I had stated 2 rounds of prep time. that means that befor the cleric sees the druid (or has the oportunity to cast anything at him) the druid has already summoned the animals and cast the animal growth spell. But either way this is off topic. My whole point with animal growth, wildshape, and natural spell is that I think that only animal growth is the broken part of the equsion.
Tony Vargas 06-29-05, 01:17 PM	Polymorph is consistant. You replace one form and it's physical properties with another. One legal and physical property is it's size. Nod. And, if the size replacing your own is larger, that's an increase. And polymorph is magical. That's a magical size increase. Just because polymorph doesn't always increase size, and doesn't increase it by a set amount, doesn't mean that polymorphing into a larger creature isn't a 'magical size increase.' The rule in any game system is simple: It's not a "size increase" or whatever property unless the ability specifically says so. Enlarge Person and Rightous Might both do; Polymorph does not. I would contend that the only reason Polymorph doesn't specificaly say so, is because it wouldn't always be true. Polymorph isn't a magical size increase, polymorph into a larger form is. the most literal and basic reading of the rule forces us to conclude that it is not....rules as written. The most literal and basic reading of the rules is rarely the /best/ way to understand the rules. In this case the 'Rules As Written' could be taken two ways. You an take 'magical size increase' at it's word (polymorph is magical, polymorphing into a larger form increases your size), or you could take the presence of the 'multiple magical size increases don't stack' sentence, as the sole indicator of whether an effect is a magical size increase. The former just strikes me as the more reasonable arpoach. It also happens to be the interpretation that's better for game balance. Both are legitimate, even litteral, readings of the rules, though. So, as is so often the case, the DM is left to make the best ruling he can.
Tony Vargas 06-29-05, 01:20 PM	This breaks the senario. I had stated 2 rounds of prep time. that means that befor the cleric sees the druid (or has the oportunity to cast anything at him) the druid has already summoned the animals and cast the animal growth spell. Hey, you give any caster prep time and the drop on an enemy and things will get grim. How do you think the Druid would feel if he rounded a corner and found himself face-to-face with a hostile Cleric that had just cast Righteous Might, Divine Power and Quickened Divine Favor...
Drachasor 06-29-05, 01:30 PM	This breaks the senario. I had stated 2 rounds of prep time. that means that befor the cleric sees the druid (or has the oportunity to cast anything at him) the druid has already summoned the animals and cast the animal growth spell. But either way this is off topic. My whole point with animal growth, wildshape, and natural spell is that I think that only animal growth is the broken part of the equsion. Right, ok then, the Cleric holds a readied action to cast Ethereal Jaunt as soon as he sees the Druid (or on round 2). He waits until it expires. Congratulations, the Druid just wasted a 5th and 7th level spell! The Cleric only used a 7th. Or he has Air Walk up so the Wolves can't get at him. And Dictum and like spells are still good. The point is that while Summons + Animal Growth is a powerful combination there are many ways to beat it with just one spellcaster. As for the Fighter, the Wolves are going to have a very hard time hitting him (I did the AC because even with Animal Growth, they'd need to roll a 20 to hit him, even flanking). Those Dire Wolves just have a +15 when flanking. That's +10 normal, +4 from animal growth, -1 for size, +2 for flanking. Not terribly impressive. The Cleric could certainly get a similar AC, now that I think about it (and is probably using a shield anyhow).... So just how are the Druid Summons hitting the Cleric again? Again, I could do the same analysis with a Wizard. -Drachasor
Darken 06-29-05, 01:55 PM	And, if the size replacing your own is larger, that's an increase. And polymorph is magical. That's a magical size increase. Just because polymorph doesn't always increase size, and doesn't increase it by a set amount, doesn't mean that polymorphing into a larger creature isn't a 'magical size increase.'Using your logic, I can produce the following situation: -A 10 Strength Human Polymorph into a Firborg with 31 Strength. -From your above reasoning, this is magical increase of +21 Strength. -Magical increases, or bonuses, from the same source do not stack as per general rule in PHB/DMG, even if unnamed. -Said Human/Firborg is then Polymorphed back into Human. As per Polymorph rule, his strength should be a 10, the average for a Human. This is a magical increase of +0. -Bonuses do not stack, they overlap. +31 and +0 result in +31. -Now our Human guy have Strength of 31. Is that correct? No, he should have a Strength of 10. This is only possible when you change rather than increase/decrease. This is precisely why at the very beginning I try to make this important distinction between the two, but apparently some simply cannot see the difference.
Darken 06-29-05, 02:12 PM	If you still cannot see it, I have another example. Let's look at something else which the rule says specifically that multiple increases will not stack: Threat range on weapons. Let's say you have +1 Keen Longsword. Its critical range is 19-20 base, magically increased to 17-20, or +2. I cast Polymorph Any Object on this longsword and make it a Scimitar. Scimitar has base range of 18-20, relatively to the longsword, according to your logic, it's a magical increase of +1. In 3.5, it's specifically stated that critical range bonuses do not stack, no matter the source. So from your logic, the threat range of this weapon is now 16-20, since it has base of 18-20 a +2, and a +1 that doesn't stack. Using the correct method, treating this as a change and not an increase/decrease, it has base of 18-20, and a +3, since the Keen functions off the base, which is no longer 19-20 but instead 18-20. This is a change, your threat range is 15-20: The correct threat range.
Tony Vargas 06-29-05, 02:26 PM	Using your logic, I can produce the following situation:No, you really can't. Polymorph doesn't grant bonuses, and multiple castings of polymorph would override eachother, anyway (see SRD, Magic Overview, Same Effect with Differing Results), so even if it did grant bonuses, those bonuses would be replaced, not stacked or overlapped. Of course, Polymorph would be a better spell if it did grant bonuses instead of replacing stats, which is just whacked-crazy-broken, but that's a whole 'nuther tangent... This is only possible when you change rather than increase/decrease. I understand that logic, but I don't find it convincing. Yes, Polymorph changes your size. But, that change can result in an increase. When it does, other magical size increases won't stack with it.
Seeker95 06-29-05, 02:44 PM	Nod. And, if the size replacing your own is larger, that's an increase. And polymorph is magical. That's a magical size increase.Tony, keeping consistent with this interpretation, I assume you do not allow... a belt of strength +4 to work if you polymorphed from a human wizard Str10 into an Ogre Str18 (since this increase must be a strength bonus) expeditious retreat to work if your gnome wizard polymorphed into a centaur (base speed magically changed from 20 to 50) an amulet of natural armor to work if you turn into a troglodyte, since the troglodyte's natural armor is a magical bonus Ruling that polymorphing / wildshaping into a bigger creature counts as a magical size increase opens a can of worm of micromanagement that DMs and players just shouldn't have to worry about. Ruling that it *only* applies to size, and not other benefits of polymorph / wildshape is too ad hoc to serve as a defensible position. The DM is free to so rule, but is doing so with "because I said so" as the only justifiable reason. And a perfectly valid one at that. I have many "because I said so" rules in my game. I just don't try to pass them off as official interpretations.
Tony Vargas 06-29-05, 02:48 PM	Tony, keeping consistent with this interpretation, I assume you do not allow... a belt of strength +4 to work if you polymorphed from a human wizard Str10 into an Ogre Str18 (since this increase must be a strength bonus) expeditious retreat to work if your gnome wizard polymorphed into a centaur (base speed magically changed from 20 to 50) an amulet of natural armor to work if you turn into a troglodyte, since the troglodyte's natural armor is a magical bonus I'd love to rule that way, honestly, but sadly those are all named bonuses, and the increase in strength from polymorphing into a stronger form (or speed from a faster one, or natural armor in a tougher one) isn't just not a named bonus, it's not even a bonus. That's one of the things that makes polymorph (and anything based on it) so broken. I should probably admit that, if Polymorph weren't so broken already, I'd probably be more liberal in interpreting it's interactions with other effects. :rolleyes: Let's say you have +1 Keen Longsword. Its critical range is 19-20 base, magically increased to 17-20, or +2. I cast Polymorph Any Object on this longsword and make it a Scimitar. Scimitar has base range of 18-20, relatively to the longsword, according to your logic, it's a magical increase of +1. In 3.5, it's specifically stated that critical range bonuses do not stack, no matter the source. So from your logic, the threat range of this weapon is now 16-20, since it has base of 18-20 a +2, and a +1 that doesn't stack. Interesting point. I still don't think characterizing them as '+'s is quite right (keen doubles threat ranges, PAO longsword -> scimitar would be a permanent transformation), and PAO doesn't affect magic items, but it's still an interesting point, because the language of the stacking restriction on Keen & Improved Crit is so similar to that on Enlarge and the like. And, while I could see restricting Keen Edge that way, since magic can just get, well, wierd, the idea that a scimitar that's a PAO'd longsword would behave differently in the hands of a character with Improved Crit: Scimitar, is hard to swallow.
Polaris 06-29-05, 05:47 PM	Tony, I'd love to say that you are right because your way is more balanced. To bad you're not. The rule on polymorph is clear. The physical form (and properties therin) get replaced not changed. Thus replacing one size with another is not a size increase. At the end of the day when we want to talk about official default rules, we have to take the most literal and basic reading of the rule minus as much interpretation as possible. You know this as well as I. Anything that requires DM interpretation is almost by definition a house-rule. Ergo, Polymorph rules-as-written does not constitute a size increase magical or otherwise no matter how hard you want it to. -Polaris
Polaris 06-29-05, 05:54 PM	Nod. And, if the size replacing your own is larger, that's an increase. And polymorph is magical. That's a magical size increase. Just because polymorph doesn't always increase size, and doesn't increase it by a set amount, doesn't mean that polymorphing into a larger creature isn't a 'magical size increase.' If a spell doesn't say that it's a magical size increase then it's not. *period* In fact this paragraph of yours illustrates the fundamental weakness (and frankly I would say wrongness) of your position. You are interpretating what the spell is and then taking that interpretation and placing it on the save level as the black-and-white printed rule. We both know that you can't do that. I would contend that the only reason Polymorph doesn't specificaly say so, is because it wouldn't [I]always be true. Polymorph isn't a magical size increase, polymorph into a larger form is. It doesn't matter. Polymorph doesn't say so and that's all that matters. The most literal and basic reading of the rules is rarely the /best/ way to understand the rules. In this case the 'Rules As Written' could be taken two ways. You an take 'magical size increase' at it's word (polymorph is magical, polymorphing into a larger form increases your size), or you could take the presence of the 'multiple magical size increases don't stack' sentence, as the sole indicator of whether an effect is a magical size increase. The former just strikes me as the more reasonable arpoach. It also happens to be the interpretation that's better for game balance. Both are legitimate, even litteral, readings of the rules, though. So, as is so often the case, the DM is left to make the best ruling he can. No it can't. There is only one way to interpret the rules as written because of negative implication. You know (and have agreed in the past) that the only logical way to read a rule is in it's most minimalistic state. That is, if a rule doesn't say you can do something, then you can't. Likewise if a rule/power doesn't grant a specific property, then it does not. I grant that Polymorph (and Wildshape) can mimic a magical size increase, but rules as written that does not mean it's a magical size increase. -Polaris
Tony Vargas 06-29-05, 06:15 PM	I'd love to say that you are right because your way is more balanced.Balance is an important thing to consider when interpreting the rules. At the end of the day when we want to talk about official default rules, we have to take the most literal and basic reading of the rule minus as much interpretation as possible. You know this as well as I. Actually, I don't 'know' any such thing. In fact, I disagree strongly with the assertion. I do not think we should check our sentience at the door when read the rules. We should read them to /understand/ them, not parse them like a computer. Yes, that means it's possible for two people to hold two different interpretations of the rules with no possible way to 'prove' one of them conclusively 'wrong.' I don't see that as a problem. Some aspects of the rules require interpretation, while others are clear. Arguing 'right vs wrong' instead of 'good vs bad' for the former is actually a little counterproductive, though I guess it's unavoidable, and it can occassionally show up something that is clearer than it initially looks... Anything that requires DM interpretation is almost by definition a house-rule. If you want to call it that, fine. But that means a sizeable percentage of the game is house-ruled. Ergo, Polymorph rules-as-written does not constitute a size increase magical or otherwise no matter how hard you want it to. I'm actually starting to come around on this issue - though it has nothing to do with the ceaseless chorus of "you're wrong" nor the overt evangelical zeal for the 'RAW.' It's just that Darken actually came up with a good example of a similarly-worded restriction...
Polaris 06-29-05, 06:21 PM	Tony, It may be possible to find a rule that permits two equally valid interpretations. Unfortunately this isn't one of them. No one is suggesting that we 'check our sentience at the door', but when reading instructions (and rules really are instructions on how to play the game on a mechanical level), the reading of the rule that requires the least interpretation is generally the right one. In this case as Darken pointed out, that means that Polymorph is not a size increase. If you read it that way, then you trap yourself into a contradictory rulings or results that are clearly wrong per the rules as written elsewhere. In short, the basic rule when determining what is default is simple: A rule says what is says and not one iota more. Reading anything more into a rule is houseruling (even if you don't realize it). -Polaris
Tony Vargas 06-29-05, 06:57 PM	It may be possible to find a rule that permits two equally valid interpretations. May be? As long as the keep writing them in english there'll be no shortage of rules with multiple valid interpretations (though 'equal' validity would not be easily judged). No one is suggesting that we 'check our sentience at the door', but when reading instructions (and rules really are instructions on how to play the game on a mechanical level), the reading of the rule that requires the least interpretation is generally the right one. I just can't agree with that. An RPG is a complex beast, and simplistic interpretations of individual rules will too easily lead into badly broken combinations of rules. You have to actually think about the consequences of an interpretation, not just the litteral aspect of it. In this case as Darken pointed out, that means that Polymorph is not a size increase. Well, what he pointed out was that aplying exactly the same logic to a slightly different rule gives an undesireable result. I'm not sure the exact same logic need be aplied. But, still, it's a much better point than anyone else on that side of the fence has made so far, and one that's making me think. True, it attacked my reasoning ("ah, a touch, I must confess it"), but that's a lot more valueable to me than strident denials of my right to aply reasoning at all. A rule says what is says and not one iota more. Reading anything more into a rule is houseruling (even if you don't realize it). Then even the most fanatically by-the-book game is crammed with house rules.
Seeker95 06-29-05, 08:23 PM	Then even the most fanatically by-the-book game is crammed with house rules.There's nothing wrong with that. But you are consistently presenting your house rule as if it were *the* rule. It is *how* you are presenting it that most are objecting to. As Polaris said, it is possibly more balanced to house rule as you have. For myself, I would house rule that polymorph and shapechange and wildshape all actually make you the creature -- exactly as written -- all abilities as written. The only thing of yourself that you keep is memory of who you really are. Even your mental stats would change as you struggle with the complexity of having a new form. This could make natural spell much less impressive!
Tony Vargas 06-29-05, 09:12 PM	But you are consistently presenting your house rule as if it were *the* rule. No, I'm not. I'm presenting one possible interpretation - as just that, a possible interpretation, not the only one. I think it's a good one, but I don't think anyone is obliged to use it, nor required to 'house rule' it away, if they prefer another. As Polaris said, it is possibly more balanced to house rule as you have. Not that it'd fix polymorph by itself, though. Honestly, I don't know why I'm so worried about considering balance with regard to how something stacks with polymorph, when simply casting polymorph in the first place likely casts balance out the window... :rolleyes: For myself, I would house rule that polymorph and shapechange and wildshape all actually make you the creature -- exactly as written -- all abilities as written. The only thing of yourself that you keep is memory of who you really are. Even your mental stats would change as you struggle with the complexity of having a new form. This could make natural spell much less impressive! Woot. Now /that's/ polymorphing. :D Though I do like the classic bit of struggling to maintain thought or even identity in a new form, I'd probably take polymorph in the opposite direction, making it a more tightly-defined and limitted buff or even a movement/utility spell (as in 1E).
Polaris 06-30-05, 01:25 AM	Tony, You said: Said by Seeker 95: But you are consistently presenting your house rule as if it were *the* rule. No, I'm not. I'm presenting one possible interpretation - as just that, a possible interpretation, not the only one. I think it's a good one, but I don't think anyone is obliged to use it, nor required to 'house rule' it away, if they prefer another. Actually that's exactly what you are doing and that's why Seeker, Darken, and I have come down on you as hard as we have. In fact you said earlier: I think that implies that either ruling is as 'official' as the other. The rules can be read either way, and the official arbiter declined to pick one. That is saying that you DO regard your position as the 'official' position of WOTC when in fact it is nothing of the sort. Your other comments say the same thing. If you read the rules and read what Skip actually said in his article, you'd see that it is a suggested houserule only. For that matter, just like there aren't two right ways to install a VCR, there aren't two right answers to this either. Either, rules-as-written, Wildshape and Animal Growth stack or they do not. We have shown clear evidence that they stack. Admittedly this evidence is negative evidence based on a minimalist reading of the rules, but when reading instructions that is the only way to do it. Otherwise you create (or can create) chaos. One more think you need to consider. The 'tag' "Magical Size Change" includes several things in DnD. It changes your size category, reach, but it also changes your stats. In all cases these are NAMED bonuses (or penalties) [in fact they are explicitly called 'size' bonuses] and thus do not stack. You know that doesn't apply to Polymorph, ergo it isn't a 'magical size change'. It may behave like one, but that doesn't mean it is one. -Polaris
farfairer 06-30-05, 02:35 AM	Tony: If I am a druid and I cast baleful polymorph on a cleric who is under the effect of righteous Might (and he fails the save) doesn't he turn into a 1 HD animal who is under the effect of Righteous Might? It means he's a really buff salamader, and one size catagory larger than normal, but he is still a salamader. If Baleful Polymorph works on a person under the effects of a size increase, shouldn't polymorph work also?
TrustTymora 06-30-05, 04:32 AM	If a spell doesn't say that it's a magical size increase then it's not. *period*I'm not sure I agree. The base rule is that multiple magical effects that increase size don't stack. Your stating that: A halfling(S) wizard uses Alter Self to assume the form of a Hobgoblin(M) and then drinks an enlarge potion to become size(L) is perfectly legal because Alter Self does not explicitly mention that it is a magical increase to size if you choose a form that is larger then your present form. I think, as well as every other person I game with, that this is clearly stacking magical effects that are increasing size and would not work. The same holds for the druid who uses magic to change shape/form to something larger and then uses magic again once in the larger form to try to increase in size again. TT
Polaris 06-30-05, 07:19 AM	TT, Then you and every other person you game with would be mistaken. Alter Self does not say it's a size increase any more than Polymorph is. Again you are making the same error that Tony is. You are reading too much into the spell....and Darken already showed where this sort of thinking leads if you extend it to other rules (such as polymorph other and weapons). The correct interpretation is this: The Halfling form is replaced with the Hob-Goblin form (and thus the base size of the character is now medium rather than small). This is not a size increase because the character is no bigger nor smaller than any other hobgoblin and this is the standard. In short, just because it mimics a size increase doesn't mean it is one. -Polaris Caveat: When I say 'correct interpretation', I always take that to mean reading the rules as written with the minimal amount of interpretation possible. That is the only way to read instructions and rules are nothing more than instructions when all is said and done.
Drachasor 06-30-05, 09:43 AM	Tony: If I am a druid and I cast baleful polymorph on a cleric who is under the effect of righteous Might (and he fails the save) doesn't he turn into a 1 HD animal who is under the effect of Righteous Might? It means he's a really buff salamader, and one size catagory larger than normal, but he is still a salamader. If Baleful Polymorph works on a person under the effects of a size increase, shouldn't polymorph work also? Well, if you went by Tony's paradigm then you'd become a small animal (instead of tiny), since one effect increases size and the other decreases (hence they can stack). However, according to Tony, if you cast Polymorph on such a person to change them to their normal form, then their size wouldn't be larger than their normal size. This is because the duration of Baleful Polymorph is permanent, so Righteous Might and Polymorph would be temporary effects, and only the biggest one would work (so Righteous Might wouldn't). Of course there are some true oddities with Tony's approach. Let's say a Druid has sent his Wolf Animal Companion after you, and it is Animal Growthed. If you Polymorph it into Giant Constrictor Snake, all of a sudden it is less dangerous since that's an increase of two size catagories, overwriting the Animal Growth (even though Animal Growth gives the Wolf better much better stats). And Tony, can you change said Wolf into a Horse? Or would Animal Growth prevent it from happening? If you could do that, then there suddenly turning the Wolf into a larger animal than it was originally cancels out the animal growth spell. If for some reason the animal growth remains dominant, then you've made the Wolf immune to certain polymorphs, which clearly isn't in the rules. Of course, this also ruins the nice Druid combo early on of turning into a small creature and then casting "reduce animal" to be even smaller (handy way to be tiny, and certainly not game breaking). I think Animal Growth and Wildshaping also would suffer some oddities. The new physical stats you get are NOT size modifiers, and that cannot be argued (it is simply explicitely not the case). So if you turn into something one size larger, and then cast Animal Growth, if it worked like a normal spell, the most beneficial effects should take hold. That means you get the size bonuses and natural armor improvement as well as the DR, but not the Size Increase (also the dex adjustment, since you always get penalties as far as I know). Afterall, that's how Enlarge Person and Righteous Might would work. If you happened to Polymorph yourself into a strong humanoid of your normal size before those spells took effect, you'd retain the base stats of that creature and gain the better benefits even if Enlarge Person was cast first. I think, Tony, that your interpretation does not mesh with the rules well at all. Treating them as indepedent effects does mesh well. -Drachasor
Seeker95 06-30-05, 10:33 AM	I think, Tony, that your interpretation does not mesh with the rules well at all. Letting them stack does mesh quite well.The bold part of that statement supports Tony's interpretation. I would remove it completely. It is not a matter of making them stack. There is no stacking involved. One is a magical size change. The other is not. That said, I wish to commend Tony for his reasoned responses to all of our objections. (I still disagree with his interpretation. :) )
Drachasor 06-30-05, 10:53 AM	The bold part of that statement supports Tony's interpretation. I would remove it completely. It is not a matter of making them stack. There is no stacking involved. One is a magical size change. The other is not. Cursed English, it's tricksey and false. That said, I wish to commend Tony for his reasoned responses to all of our objections. (I still disagree with his interpretation. :) ) /agree -Drachasor
Darken 06-30-05, 12:02 PM	In addition to Tony's view on the matter, I also disagree with the fact my name is referred to as "Draken", for some reason, multiple times :)
Tony Vargas 06-30-05, 12:02 PM	Actually that's exactly what you are doing and that's why Seeker, Darken, and I have come down on you as hard as we have. No, it isn't. I'm asserting that there isn't a clear 'Rule As Written,' leaving the issue open to interpretation. That is /not/ a house rule, by any stretch of the imagination. It's an opinion about the rules, sure, but it's not a rule, 'house' or otherwise. There's no way that is "consistently presenting my house rule as if it were *the* rule." That is saying that you DO regard your position as the 'official' position of WOTC when in fact it is nothing of the sort. I would say that nothing WotC has come out and said officially contradicts my interpretation. The fact that the magical-size-increase stacking issue came up, and the Sage declined to give a firm for or against ruling certainly doesn't do so. I certainly don't claim that my 'position' - that is, my assertion that the rules don't spell out that clearly whether a magical increase in size is a 'magical size increase' for purposes of spells that note that they don't stack with magical size increases - is the 'official' one. And, I'm not kidding myself that I can, through rhetoric and logical legerdemain, 'prove' that WotC has any such official position until they come right out and say so. In fact, I think all I'm really saying is that we have yet to be made aware of any official ruling one way or the other, so the best we can do is pick a good interpretation. I don't see what's so darn intollerable about that little bit of uncertainty, either. For that matter, just like there aren't two right ways to install a VCR, there aren't two right answers to this either. Hey, if you install a VCR, and it works, and you haven't risked injuring yourself, you did it right. It doesn't matter what order you hook up the RGB cables in. Either, rules-as-written, Wildshape and Animal Growth stack or they do not. Why? Why can't we just acknowledge ambiguity and advise DMs to make the best ruling for thier game? We have shown clear evidence that they stack. Sure, I'm not saying that interpretation can't be supported by the rules, either, I'm not saying it's a house rule. I'm just saying it's not the only possible interpretation - and probably not the best one for game balance. Admittedly this evidence is negative evidence based on a minimalist reading of the rules, but when reading instructions that is the only way to do it. So, if I follow you, your interpretation of the rules is the only right interpretation, because your method of interpreting rules is the only right method? One more think you need to consider. The 'tag' "Magical Size Change" includes several things in DnD. It changes your size category, reach, but it also changes your stats. In all cases these are NAMED bonuses (or penalties) [in fact they are explicitly called 'size' bonuses] and thus do not stack. You know that doesn't apply to Polymorph, Yes, I know that polymorph doesn't give named bonuses - it would probably be a less broken spell if it did. I don't think there's any definition of 'magical size increase' that requires named bonuses, though - the only reasonable definition of a 'magical size increase' is, well, magic, that results in the subject being larger while under it's influence than it was before. ergo it isn't a 'magical size change'. It may behave like one, but that doesn't mean it is one. Y'know, I was warming to the idea of granting a little more creadulity to the 'it's not a size increase, it's a size change' idea, but that kinda blows it out of the water for me...
farfairer 06-30-05, 12:09 PM	In addition to Tony's view on the matter, I also disagree with the fact my name is referred to as "Draken", for some reason, multiple times :) If I am one of the people who called you "Draken", I am sorry. You have a screen name that is easily misspelled and not caught, and I make lots of typos.
Polaris 06-30-05, 12:34 PM	In addition to Tony's view on the matter, I also disagree with the fact my name is referred to as "Draken", for some reason, multiple times :) Sorry Darken, I was careless. I will go back and edit. -Polaris
Tony Vargas 06-30-05, 12:42 PM	If I am a druid and I cast baleful polymorph on a cleric who is under the effect of righteous Might (and he fails the save) doesn't he turn into a 1 HD animal who is under the effect of Righteous Might? That's not that clear. The general rules on stacking magical effects tend to imply that any sort of change into a creature of a particular size would override an existing size/shape changes, for the durration of the spell. I'm not that happy with the idea, since it makes the order spells are implied more important than (IMHO) they should be. :shrug: since one effect increases size and the other decreases (hence they can stack). It's interesting that there's nothing about size /decreases/ stacking, though, isn't it. I mean, if it were a 'law of magic' that size changes don't stack, that'd be one thing. That it's only size /increases/ (that enhance combat potential via STR, reach, damage & size bonuses) certainly makes it look like an arbitrary game-balance decision, more than any sort of rule for continuity or verisimilitude. However, according to Tony, if you cast Polymorph on such a person to change them to their normal form, then their size wouldn't be larger than their normal size. I don't see why not, thier normal form is thier normal form, being the same size as your normal form is not a size increase. Of course there are some true oddities with Tony's approach. Let's say a Druid has sent his Wolf Animal Companion after you, and it is Animal Growthed. If you Polymorph it into Giant Constrictor Snake, all of a sudden it is less dangerous since that's an increase of two size catagories, overwriting the Animal Growth (even though Animal Growth gives the Wolf better much better stats).That might point up a possible problem with Animal Growth - if it really does grant bonuses that are so much better than simply being a larger animal. The DR, for instance, doesn't make much sense, and the stat bonuses are very high. Also, it occurs in both interpretations, as I understand them. Polymorph changes you into a normal example of the assumed form, not into a larger version, it would override any similar magic already in place. Under the stacking interpretation, Animal Growth followed by Polymorph (even into an animal), results in normal-sized animal, while Polymorph (into an animal form), followed by Animal Growth results in a larger one. OTOH, under the non-stacking interpretation, Animal Growth followed by Polymorph (even into an animal), results in normal-sized animal, and Polymorph (into a larger animal form), followed by Animal Growth, results in a normal-sized animal, while Polymorph (into a same-or-smaller size animal), followed by Animal Growth results in a larger one. Neither is exactly elegant. And Tony, can you change said Wolf into a Horse? Or would Animal Growth prevent it from happening? I'm not aware of anything in the magic rules that would prevent it. Polymorphing a creature changes it's shape, and can change it's size, and the general rules for combining magical effects would imply that such a change overrides previous changes, while it lasts. If you could do that, then there suddenly turning the Wolf into a larger animal than it was originally cancels out the animal growth spell. AFAICT, any sort of shape-changing would override pre-existing size-changes, under either interpretation. Of course, this also ruins the nice Druid combo early on of turning into a small creature and then casting "reduce animal" to be even smaller (handy way to be tiny, and certainly not game breaking). Why? Size reductions stack, no? I think Animal Growth and Wildshaping also would suffer some oddities. I think they already /do/. Actually, 'odditty' doesn't begin to describe it. The new physical stats you get are NOT size modifiers, and that cannot be argued (it is simply explicitely not the case). Nod. So if you turn into something one size larger, and then cast Animal Growth, if it worked like a normal spell, the most beneficial effects should take hold. Well, the higher of two named bonuses, sure. But combining magical effects isn't quite that straightforward... Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts. One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion. For instance, Polymorphing into a form, then being polymorphed into another leaves you with none of the abilties of the first form, because the latter polymorph takes precedence while it lasts. Animal Growth, of course, doesn't stack with other magical size increases - and it is /just/ a magical size increase - so, if you interpret Polymorph into a larger form to be a magical size increase, the Animal Growth would have no effect. If you happened to Polymorph yourself into a strong humanoid of your normal size before those spells took effect, you'd retain the base stats of that creature and gain the better benefits even if Enlarge Person was cast first. I think the results of Polymorphing into a same-size humanoind and recieving Enlarge Person would be the same regardless of whether you interpret Polymorphing into a larger form to be a size increase. If the Enlarge came first, it would be rendered 'irrellevant' by the subsequent Polymorph, while the Polymorph followed by the Enlarge would work fine. OK, I'm pretty sure I at least vaguely contradicted myself up there somewhere, a cookie to the forumite who points it out first. ;) I think, Tony, that your interpretation does not mesh with the rules well at all. Letting them stack does mesh quite well. I don't think /Polymorph/ (which replaces stats, like many 1E items and effects that were changed to give named bonuses, instead), meshes that well with the rules. :P But, I do think the stricture on stacking magical size increases is there as a safegaurd vs abuse, and that interpreting a change in shape that also increases size to be such a magical size increase is in line with that. The main effect, afterall, is to prevent the combination of buff spells that increase the same things (size bonuses, damage, reach, STR etc).
Tony Vargas 06-30-05, 12:46 PM	Sorry Darken, I was careless. I will go back and edit. I've fixed my quote of the typo, as well. Though 'Draken' wouldn't be a bad name, either. Drake = Dragon :D
Polaris 06-30-05, 12:58 PM	No, it isn't. I'm asserting that there isn't a clear 'Rule As Written,' leaving the issue open to interpretation. That is /not/ a house rule, by any stretch of the imagination. It's an opinion about the rules, sure, but it's not a rule, 'house' or otherwise. There's no way that is "consistently presenting my house rule as if it were *the* rule." If you go back to my original post, I admitted (IIRC others agreed) that the default rule is found by negative implication. That doesn't mean, however, that the exact rule and intent can't be found. I will agree that it isn't as clear as it ought to be, but that does not mean it's ambigious (which is what you are claiming). Again, go read what Skip said again. What he didn't say is at least as important as what he did. He didn't (and he could have) say that this was an official interpretation of the rules (w/r/t Polymorph and size-stacking). He gave his own personal advice and interpretation. Thus using this is by definition a houserule. There is nothing wrong with houserules as long as you are honest about it. BTW, anytime you read something into a rule that isn't explicitly there you are houseruling....and yes it is so common it is almost routine. There is nothing wrong in that either....as long as everyone knows that by reading text into a rule that isn't there is in fact houseruling. I would say that nothing WotC has come out and said officially contradicts my position. The fact that the magical-size-increase stacking issue came up, and Skip declined to give a firm for or against ruling certainly doesn't do so. Alter-Self, Polymorph, etc all contradict your opinion because of what they don't say. Again, it is admittedly a negative proof, but such proofs are still valid. I don't see what's so darn intollerable about a little uncertainty, either. Uncertainty is bad in any rule system. That doesn't mean there won't be some uncertainty, but it should be avoided if possible. Hey, if you install a VCR, and it works, you did it right. It doesn't matter what order you hook up the RGB cables in. Urm....yeah...and the first time it erases your tape when you press rewind, you might want to rethink that. For that matter, if you have ever had to build/repair anything, you might want to rethink that. Same-same. Why? Why can't we just acknowledge ambiguity and advise DMs to make the best ruling for thier game? Because it's not ambigious. Confusing? Yes. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. A bad core rule? I'll agree to this as well. However, ambigious? Not really. Not when you parse the rules minimally. Sure, I'm not saying that interpretation can't be supported by the rules. Actually you accused those that used 'my' interpretations to be munchkins and claimed that such interpretations were on very shakey ground. That doesn't quite say that 'our interpretation' can't be supported by the rules, granted, but it does seem to cut periously close. So, if I follow you, your interpretation of the rules is the only right interpretation, because your method of interpreting rules is the only right method? It's not my methode, it is the standard method for interpreting *any* set of instructions (and rules fundamentally are just instructions). Yes, I know that polymorph doesn't give named bonuses - it would probably be a less broken spell if it did. I don't think there's any definition of 'magical size increase' that requires named bonuses, though - the only reasonable definition of a 'magical size increase' is, well, magic, that results in the subject being larger while under it's influence than it was before. Except that's not the way the game works. DnD mechanically works on the idea of tags. Like tags don't stack while unlike tags do. Y'know, I was warming to the idea of granting a little more creadulity to the 'it's not a size increase, it's a size change' idea, but that kinda blows it out of the water for me... So you don't like the argument because you don't like what I have to say.....okaay. The fact is that there are many things even in the real world that look like one thing but in fact are something else......or behave like one thing but it isn't. -Polaris
Drachasor 06-30-05, 01:18 PM	That's not that clear. The general rules on stacking magical effects tend to imply that any sort of change into a creature of a particular size would override an existing size/shape changes, for the durration of the spell. I'm not that happy with the idea, since it makes the order spells are implied more important than (IMHO) they should be. :shrug: It's interesting that there's nothing about size /decreases/ stacking, though, isn't it. I mean, if it were a 'law of magic' that size changes don't stack, that'd be one thing. That it's only size /increases/ (that enhance combat potential via STR, reach, damage & size bonuses) certainly makes it look like an arbitrary game-balance decision, more than any sort of rule for continuity or verisimilitude. In fact there is. Go read Reduce Person and Reduce Animal. Magical Size reductions don't stack either. I don't see why not, thier normal form is thier normal form, being the same size as your normal form is not a size increase. Well, clearly two increases can't stack, right? In this scenerio you have (according to your system): 1. Size Decrease. 2. Size increase of 1 from Righteous Might 3. Size Increase of 2 from Polymorph. The two size increases can't stack, so the size increase from Righteous Might doesn't make you larger than your normal form, since Polymorph is a 2 size increaser (according to you), since it is working against the Baleful Polymoprh. On the other hand, do the bonuses from Righteous Might disappear or stay there? Certainly the size doesn't increase in your system, but what of the other bonuses? Is it dispelled since it can't stack? That might point up a possible problem with Animal Growth - if it really does grant bonuses that are so much better than simply being a larger animal. The DR, for instance, doesn't make much sense, and the stat bonuses are very high. If you pick the right weak large animal, you'll find a disparity. As for the DR...it's MAGIC! Stat bonuses are standard for size increases; go check the MM. Also, it occurs in both interpretations, as I understand them. Polymorph changes you into a normal example of the assumed form, not into a larger version, it would override any similar magic already in place. Under the stacking interpretation, Animal Growth followed by Polymorph (even into an animal), results in normal-sized animal, while Polymorph (into an animal form), followed by Animal Growth results in a larger one. OTOH, under the non-stacking interpretation, Animal Growth followed by Polymorph (even into an animal), results in normal-sized animal, and Polymorph (into a larger animal form), followed by Animal Growth, results in a normal-sized animal, while Polymorph (into a same-or-smaller size animal), followed by Animal Growth results in a larger one. You have how it works in the normal system wrong. 1. Animal Growth is cast on an animal. Animal is now larger. 2. Polymorph is then cast on the animal, turning it into another animal. 3. Animal is a larger version than normal BECAUSE Animal Growth is still in effect (the target is still valid). Order of casting doesn't matter. So your idea of having them be the same sort of thing makes the order matter, but normally it doesn't. Neither is exactly elegant. Well, one of them isn't. I'm not aware of anything in the magic rules that would prevent it. Polymorphing a creature changes it's shape, and can change it's size, and the general rules for combining magical effects would imply that such a change overrides previous changes, while it lasts. Well, your stacking thing certailn makes it odd, now doesn't it? Which is the bigger size increase, which one applies? They both seem the same, yet they have different effects, so do you then stack each secondary effect?...I continued this... with further comments... The normal rules for stacking effects is that the larger change/effect is the one that you apply, and you ignore the others (unless the larger one wears off and the smaller one is still around). AFAICT, any sort of shape-changing would override pre-existing size-changes, under either interpretation. That's not how it works. Polymorph doesn't get rid of or cancel previous effects. Reduce and Enlarge Person counter and dispel each other, but those are exceptions to the normal rule. In your view of polymorphing causing magical size changes, Polymorph and Enlarge person could certainly be active on the same target, and you have to arbitrate how that affects the target, even if both are having different size change amounts (again, there are the secondary effects). Why? Size reductions stack, no? No. Not the Reduce Person/Animal, anyhow, they explicitely say they don't stack with other size reductions. Well, the higher of two named bonuses, sure. But combining magical effects isn't quite that straightforward... Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts. One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion. For instance, Polymorphing into a form, then being polymorphed into another leaves you with none of the abilties of the first form, because the latter polymorph takes precedence while it lasts. Animal Growth, of course, doesn't stack with other magical size increases - and it is /just/ a magical size increase - so, if you interpret Polymorph into a larger form to be a magical size increase, the Animal Growth would have no effect. Consider Divine Power and Bull's Strength. Those have two different effects, but part of them overlap. You take the largest effect and apply it. I don't see anywhere that says Polymorph necessarily takes precedence. Sure Animal Growth doesn't *stack* with other Size Increases, but that doesn't mean other size increases overwrite it. The typical way of handling it is you apply the best parts of both. For instance, if you had a 3rd level spell that gave you +4 Strength and +2 Dex (enhancements) and used that with Divine Power, you'd still get the +2 Dex component. So, take Animal Growth cast on an animal that's been polymorphed into a larger animal. Both Polymorph and Animal Growth can affect the original target, and the current one, but which parts take hold? If you treated it like other spells, then you'd have to apply the best parts of each spell, and the sum of their penalties (just the dex penalty, in this case). So the Strength, Constitution, and most certainly the Damage Reduction would still affect Animal. Consider a 2nd level spell that works like Enlarge Person, only it's Enlarge Animal and only works on Animals. No matter what order you cast Enlarge Animal and Animal Growth, the Animal Growth effects are going to be the only ones taken into account. If you made a spell called Dextrous Animal Enlargement that also gave a +6 Dex Enhancement on top of the effects of an Enlarge Person, then that Dex bonus would apply to a creature under the effects of Dextrous Animal Enlargement and Animal Growth, though other than that the Animal Growth qualities would apply. So, you have to deal with how those size bonuses work, and RAW, they are added to the animal you've polymorphed. Of course, one could make a good arguement they'd apply to a Wild Shaped Druid too, since that Druid now has a Type of Animal, and if you ignore that type for spells then just why have type changes at all? In which case Animal Growth would boost a Druid's physical stats, but not increase his size if he is in a form larger than normal. I think the results of Polymorphing into a same-size humanoind and recieving Enlarge Person would be the same regardless of whether you interpret Polymorphing into a larger form to be a size increase. If the Enlarge came first, it would be rendered 'irrellevant' by the subsequent Polymorph, while the Polymorph followed by the Enlarge would work fine. The Enlarge Person is not dispelled by Polymorph, so the creature who had both cast on him in two rounds would have both spell effects on him. In the standard view: A humanoid polymorphed into a larger humanoid who then has Enlarge Person cast on him grows larger. In fact, it doesn't matter what order this is done, since both forms are valid targets. In your view: If the person is a humanoid in both forms, then the order doesn't matter, but both ways he gets a +2 strength size bonus and a -2 dex penalty. Suppose the original form was a halfling. If they are then Polymorphed into a Gnome then they are a Medium-sized Gnome, thanks to Enlarge Person. If they are Polymorphed into any humanoid smaller than small they will be one size larger (thanks to Enlarge Person), but if they are polymorphed into something larger, then they don't change size from the polymorph. So, such person would be the same size as a Human, Gnome, Halfing, Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Kobold, etc...It's weird. To say nothing of how you handle type changes and size-changes spells that depend on type for stacking. One would presume you have to use the new type.... -Drachasor
Tony Vargas 06-30-05, 01:20 PM	Because it's not ambigious. Confusing? Yes. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. A bad core rule? I'll agree to this as well. However, ambigious? Not really. Not when you parse the rules minimally.Think about that. You deal with a confusing set of rules by 'parsing them minimally,' and conclude that the proper, unambiguous rule, is the /bad/ one? To me, that says you're using an inadequate set of tools to help you understand the rules. Actually you accused those that used 'my' interpretations to be munchkins and claimed that such interpretations were on very shakey ground. That doesn't quite say that 'our interpretation' can't be supported by the rules, granted, but it does seem to cut periously close. I'm pretty sure I never used the word 'munchkin.' And, yes, I find interpreting 'magical size increase' to not aply to magical effects that happen to increase size to be pretty shakey. But, I will acknowledge that, yes, that 'magical size increase' language is present in spells like Enlarge Person, and not in Alter Self or other shape-changing magic, and that you /could/ interpret that lack as implying that they such spells, though magicall, cannot ever be counted as magical size increases, even when they do increase size. I'd characterize that as 'tenuously' supported by the rules, but still, supported. I'm happy to go with a tenuous interpretation, too, if it's the better interpretation - the one that's better-balanced, and/or better for playability or more in-line with the rest of the rules or just more reasonable. That just doesn't seem to me to be the case here. It's not my methode, it is the standard method for interpreting *any* set of instructions (and rules fundamentally are just instructions). I'm not aware of that standard, and I don't think that characterizing RPG rules as being the same order of communication as VCR instructions is at all apropriate. Except that's not the way the game works. DnD mechanically works on the idea of tags. Like tags don't stack while unlike tags do. And where, in your minimalist analysis of the rules did you find this reference to and definition of tags? I mean, that's a fair characterization of stacking bonuses, but combining magical effects is a lot less clearly defined. I can see how you might look at the system, and deduce that such a design philosophy might be at it's base, but I wouldn't place a lot of confidence in such a deduction. So you don't like the argument because you don't like what I have to say.....It's probably more the way you say it. You tend to put forth your ideas in a very absolute and strident way. In this medium, that can easily come accross as beligerant, angry, arrogant or condescending. I try not to read such things into posts, because it is usually /is/ the medium, not the person, and it's safer to assume such. I may have slipped there, and let myself feel some unjustified frustration that shaded my response. I'm sorry about that. I really like to try to keep these discussions as civil as possible, and I wouldn't participate in them if I wasn't interested in others' ideas. However, it was actually the assertion that polymorph can't constitute a magical size change, that I was refering to. I can see the counter-argument that polymorphing 'changes' size rather than 'increasing' it - and that 'change' and 'increase' can have distinctly different in-game meanings. But saying it can't even be a change..?
Polaris 06-30-05, 01:44 PM	Tony, You're right. 'Tag' was my interpretation, but the game does explicitly used 'named' labels....and 'size increase' is no exception and all the changes from a size increase are labled as "size bonuses"....a 'named bonus'. Shapechanging magic in DnD replaces one set of physical attributes with another. Regardless of whether or not you think that's a good idea or not (and I don't either), it's not the same thing as a size change or a size increase. It is what it is: A replacement. As for "my" method of reading the rules, you and others (such as Oberoni who by no means agrees with me on many issues btw) have agrued for years (at least as I recall) that the rules say what they say and no more. -Polaris
Polaris 06-30-05, 01:48 PM	Um Tony, You certainly did use Munchkin in the context I mentioned: You start out medium, you use magic, you end up large as a result. That certainly looks like a magical size increase. (if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....) If it's not 'muchkinism' (a loaded word, and not always loaded with the same thing), or, at least, an attempt to interpret the rules in the way most favorable to the player of the Druid, then what is it? As I read this, you certainly are at least suggesting that those who read the rules minimally (at least as I and others have been presenting them) are munchkins. -Polaris
Tony Vargas 06-30-05, 02:14 PM	In fact there is. Go read Reduce Person and Reduce Animal. Magical Size reductions don't stack either. Oookay, actually, I hadn't read them, but I thought, a little earlier in the same post, you said that they didn't. I must have misinterpreted something there. Well, clearly two increases can't stack, right? The wording in, say, Enlarge Person, is that 'multiple magical size increases' don't stack. Polymorph, OTOH, just changes your shape to a target form & size - which /can/ result in an increase. In this scenerio you have (according to your system): 1. Size Decrease. 2. Size increase of 1 from Righteous Might 3. Size Increase of 2 from Polymorph. How 'bout I explain how this would work under my interpretation. Which Scenario? The Righteous Might, followed by Baleful Polymorph, followed by Polymorph back to yourself? Like I said, I don't think it matters which interpretation you use at all, since you're dealing with the more general rules on combining magical effects. The Baleful Polymorph trumps the Righteous Might and is then trumped by the Polymorph (for it's durration). If you rule that Righteous Might is different enough from polymorphing that it would stay in effect (or if you just cast it after the two shape-altering spells), then the Baleful Polymorph decreases your size, which would then sack with the RM, and the Polymorph restores your normal size (you're a size M creature, currently at size M - though there's a lot of magic on you at the moment, it's not actually increasing your size), so you could be subject to RM. . As for the DR...it's MAGIC! Stat bonuses are standard for size increasesSure, it's magic - it's DR/magic - but why is it thrown in with Animal Growth? :shrug: The stat increases out of the MM are not just for size, IIRC, but for advancement. Similar increases in Righteous Might were nerfed. You have how it works in the normal system wrong. 1. Animal Growth is cast on an animal. Animal is now larger. 2. Polymorph is then cast on the animal, turning it into another animal. 3. Animal is a larger version than normal BECAUSE Animal Growth is still in effect (the target is still valid). Order of casting doesn't matter. I suppose you could look at it that way, too. Another area that's less than clear. (goes back and adds to above response) So your idea of having them be the same sort of thing makes the order matter Yeah, and I don't like the order mattering, but that's just the way combining magical effects works. The normal rules for stacking effects is that the larger change/effect is the one that you apply, and you ignore the others (unless the larger one wears off and the smaller one is still around).For stacking bonuses, yes. Combining magical effects, not really, often the latest effect takes precedence. That's not how it works. Polymorph doesn't get rid of or cancel previous effects. The wording in the SRD is 'rendered irrellevant' rather than cancel, yes. Reduce and Enlarge Person counter and dispel each other, but those are exceptions to the normal rule. Nod. In your view of polymorphing causing magical size changes Look, I don't think anyone is saying that polymorphing isn't magical, and can't result in the subject's size becoming differnt - and that's certainly a change. In my view, that change counts as a 'magical size increase,' in yours, it doesn't - but it's still a change. Polymorph and Enlarge person could certainly be active on the same target, and you have to arbitrate how that affects the target, even if both are having different size change amounts They could be active, but, depending on the order ( :rolleyes: ), one could be 'rendered irrellevant' for the durration of the other. Consider Divine Power and Bull's Strength. Those have two different effects, but part of them overlap. You take the largest effect and apply it. Well, yeah, that's how stacking named bonuses work. I don't see anywhere that says Polymorph necessarily takes precedence. Polymorph changes you to a normal example of the form picked by the caster. That will render moot any other prior changes to your form, for the durration of the spell. So, take Animal Growth cast on an animal that's been polymorphed into a larger animal. Both Polymorph and Animal Growth can affect the original target, and the current one, but which parts take hold? If you consider being polymorphed into a larger form to be a 'magical size increase' then Animal Growth doesn't stack with the polymorph. If you consider any of the bonuses given by Animal Growth (like, maybe, the DR or the save bonus) to be unrelated to the size increase bestowed by the spell, those aspects would presumably happen. It'd be pretty reasonable, though, to attribute all the mechanical effects of Animal Growth the change in size, and thus aply none of it's modifiers. Consider a 2nd level spell that works like Enlarge Person, only it's Enlarge Animal and only works on Animals. No matter what order you cast Enlarge Animal and Animal Growth, the Animal Growth effects are going to be the only ones taken into account. Really, if you created such a spell, some explanation of how it would interact with Animal Growth would be in order - and, for that matter, some rationale for why increasing an animal to Large size would have such radically different effects would be nice, too... ;) The Enlarge Person is not dispelled by Polymorph, so the creature who had both cast on him in two rounds would have both spell effects on him.Yes, they'd both be on him, but, Polymorph would override the Enlarge. In my view: A humanoid polymorphed into a larger humanoid who then has Enlarge Person cast on him grows larger. In fact, it doesn't matter what order this is done, since both forms are valid targets. In your view: A humanoid polymorphed into a larger humanoid who then has Enlarge Person cast on him gains no benefit from the Enlarge, as it does not stack with the existing magical size increase (though, would benefit from the enlarge if the Polymorph were dispeled and the Enlarge were still in force). OTOH, if a humanoid recieved Enlarge Person, and were then polymorphed into a humanoid of any size, the effects of the Enlarge Person would be 'rendered irrellevent' (per the combining magical effects rules) for the durration of the polymorph (again, if the polymorph and not the Enlarge were removed before the Enlarge expired, the humanoid would be Enlarged).
Polaris 06-30-05, 02:41 PM	Tony, The point is this: If we were to accept your interpretation, then spell order would always matter (and be a nightmare to adjudicate) with shapechanging magic. On the other hand if one were to read the spell minimally (and as I see it correctly), then order doesn't matter. That alone should tell you which interpretation is easier, simplier and more likely to be correct (hat-tip to William of Occam). -Polaris
Tony Vargas 06-30-05, 02:43 PM	As I read this, you certainly are at least suggesting that those who read the rules minimally (at least as I and others have been presenting them) are munchkins. Not exactly, consider what I was responding to: As I stated above, this is not an increase, but rather a change; this is not merely a play on the words for some munchkinism, If it's not 'muchkinism' (a loaded word, and not always loaded with the same thing), or, at least, an attempt to interpret the rules in the way most favorable to the player of the Druid, then what is it? I don't consider the argument that an increase is not an increase, but a change, to be that minimalist (though neither is it an argument entirely without merit). And I didn't pull out the m-word - which can vary in meaning depending on who's using it from 'powergamer' to merely 'young gamer' - yes, I responded to a post, and mirrored the language of that post. Not an unwarranted rhetorical device, and I even noted that it was a loaded word, and clarified how it might be taken in that case. The truth is, that an interpretation that allows stacking allows greater power. That might be an unfortunate but very real loophole, or an attempt to twist the rules to your advantage. I think you've made it clear that you prefer to parse the rules without regard to advantage, and that certainly doesn't make you a munchkin (far from it, it's a dispasionate, almost scientific aproach to a game). I would not characterize anyone on the 'stacking' side of the discussion as a munchkin - even though the arguments put forth by that side certainly might be picked up and used by some munchkins, somewhere.
Tony Vargas 06-30-05, 02:47 PM	The point is this: If we were to accept your interpretation, then spell order would always matter (and be a nightmare to adjudicate) with shapechanging magic. On the other hand if one were to read the spell minimally (and as I see it correctly), then order doesn't matter. That alone should tell you which interpretation is easier, simplier and more likely to be correct (hat-tip to William of Occam). If we were trying to puzzle out the details of a physical law, rather than the rules of a game, I'd certainly agree. However, order already /does/ matter when it comes to combining magial effects. The 'non-stacking' interpretation might cause it to matter even more often, which doesn't exactly thrill me, but a little more clunk in an already clunky aspect of the system is better than opening an imbalancing loophole that further boosts the power of an already overpowered set of effects (and sadly, effects not fixable through mere 'interpretations.')
Seeker95 06-30-05, 04:31 PM	Polymorph, OTOH, just changes your shape to a target form & size - which /can/ result in an increase.Not really. It just changes your shape to a target form. It does not change your shape into a different size. You cannot become a medium troll. You cannot become a large gnome. It changes your shape into a target form. That form can be a different size than your normal form. But *your* size has not changed.
Tony Vargas 06-30-05, 04:42 PM	Not really. It just changes your shape to a target form. You cannot become a medium troll. That's what I meant. The normal size of an average example of the form you assume determines your size in that form. You never polymorph into a medium or huge troll, if you polymorph into a troll, you become large.
Seeker95 06-30-05, 04:48 PM	if you polymorph into a troll, you become large.No you don't. If you polymorph into a troll, you are a troll. Trolls are large. But this has gone on long enough. Tony thinks changes where size is different as a secondary effect count as "magical size changes". I do not. Since we disagree on the premises, there is no way we can reach the same conclusion.