Does Polymorph restrict size-changes?

[Plane Sailing]

Personally I find Thanees logical presentation here compelling, and Iku Rex's uncompelling.

Unless Iku is able to do more than repeat the assertion that Alter Self prohibits polymorph granting larger sizes and actually present some sound logical argument for his view, I don't see that there is any argument about the way the spell should be used. Quite apart from the fact that it is the way that WotC currently obviously expect it to be used according to their website

Cheers

 

[ThirdWizard]

I agree with Iku.

From my reading it looks like the writer of the spell assumed that everyone already "knew" that polymorph had no restriction on size, writing around the assumption that it was already understood by the reader. If you read it like this, then the wording starts to make sense, I think. Thus, the writer never actually got around to stating that the size restriction was off, and so ironically, the size restriction remains from alter self. So while it might be implied by the text, there is nothing there stating that the restriction is gone, leaving it in tact.

 

[Hosweay]

I realize that the Rules Article states that Polymorph can be used for any size but it seems odd that Shapechange would then state that it functions like polymorph except that you can assume any creature from fine to colossal. Why would one spell based one another be so vague in its size description and another be so explict?

 

[Thanee]

The difference to Shapechange probably results from the transition from 3.0 to 3.5, where Polymorph got changed a lot more than Shapechange (well, it was changed a lot inside the 3.0 framework already ).

Of course, editing and re-editing and re-re-editing leaves some traces.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Plane Sailing]

I guess that in truth polymorph ought to be rethought from the ground up, possibly taking ECL into account rather than simply HD, possibly divided up into a wider range of polymorph spells going from 2nd up to 9th with additional types and stuff added.

I know that there have been a number of interesting house rule threads which have attempted to tackle this, and Rich (Order of the Stick) Burlew has made his own attempt here http://www.giantitp.com/Func0012.html

Cheers

 

[moritheil]

Personally I find Thanees logical presentation here compelling, and Iku Rex's uncompelling.

Unless Iku is able to do more than repeat the assertion that Alter Self prohibits polymorph granting larger sizes and actually present some sound logical argument for his view, I don't see that there is any argument about the way the spell should be used. Quite apart from the fact that it is the way that WotC currently obviously expect it to be used according to their website

Cheers

But I haven't seen anyone refute his logic. I have, however, seen:

it seems odd that Shapechange would then state that it functions like polymorph except that you can assume any creature from fine to colossal.

While it is not a direct quote, I'll assume that the poster was looking at the rule at the time, and I'll assume (as no one has cried foul yet) that this is not a misreading, and the Shapechange text does say this.

PS: It looks like that wasn't a bad assumption.

This spell functions like polymorph, except that it enables you to assume the form of any single nonunique creature (of any type) from Fine to Colossal size. The assumed form cannot have more than your caster level in Hit Dice (to a maximum of 25 HD).

 

[Iku Rex]

Personally I find Thanees logical presentation here compelling, and Iku Rex's uncompelling.

Since you apparently failed to notice my argument the first time I presented it I'll try to be clearer. Please tell me which premise(s) you don't agree with, and why.

The RAW:

1. Alter self states that the new form must be within one size category of your normal size. (Not in dispute.)

2. The rules in alter self apply to polymorph unless polymorph says otherwise.
(This is not really debatable, based on context, similar spells, and the explicit rule on page 181 in the PH.)

3. Polymorph does not say that you can turn into creatures more than one size category removed from your normal size.
(For the logic impaired out there: No, it is not impossible to have both a downward limit and a limit based on your normal size. Example: The 3.0 spell had a downward limit and a limit based on your normal size.)

Conclusion: The rule stating that the new form must be within one size category of your normal size applies to polymorph.

I also belive this more or less represents the intent of the original writer (see [3] though). Why?

1. If he intended to remove all size restrictions in polymorph he would not have expressed that by just saying "you can't be smaller than Fine".

2. Shapechange does allow you to change into a creature of any size, and specifies this by saying that (implied: "as opposed from polymorph") the new form can be of Fine to Colossal size. (Thanks Hosweay.)

3. Since the "no smaller than Fine" rule doesn't make sense as written (regardless of interpretation) it seems reasonable to me that the likely intent was to create a rule similar to the 3.0 polymorph other rule: "The new form can range in size from [Fine] to one size larger than the subject’s normal form." (This is not directly supported by the RAW.)

Re: Thanee's argument.

Thanee offers an alternative interpretation attempting to show that my interpretation (while valid [?]) is not the only possible interpretation. It goes like this: If we assume that "another" means "any other", then rules preventing you from changing into "any other" creature no longer apply. (Removing the alter self rule as per premise 2 in my argument - polymorph does "say otherwise".)

Thanee here commits the logical fallacy known as "begging the question" (arguing from the conclusion). By default the base rules from alter self apply to polymorph. The only way one can reasonably assume that "another" is supposed to mean "any other" is if the alter self restrictions on new forms don't apply to polymorph.* So, the only people willing to accept Thenee's argument will be people who already agree with its conclusion - the alter self restrictions on new forms don't apply to polymorph. Needless to say, that makes it rather useless.

*Footnote: And that the purpose of the nonsense "except" part is to get rid of said restrictions in alter self, as polymorph too contains restrictions on new forms, contradicting Thenee's interpretation. My take on the "exception" is that its a copy-paste holdover from 3.0, where the spell opened with "polymorph other changes the subject into another form of creature". "Another" certainly didn't mean "any other" then, and since 3.0 polymorph wasn't based on alter self its purpose wasn't to signal to the initiated that parts of alter self shouldn't apply to polymorph. If I had to try for a RAW interpretation, I'd argue that the "exception" part is that polymorph only allows living creatures as targets and new forms - a change from alter self, which has no such limitation.

 

[Iku Rex]

(See my previous post for my reply to your argument. Let me know if I've misrepresented your position or left out key points.)

A somewhat late reply...

Bah.

Well, you cannot take on any size, just Fine to virtually unlimited, as long as there is a creature of that size within the type and HD restrictions of Polymorph available to change into... maybe they just wanted to be sure, that people don't try to turn into bacteria and stuff like that.

Like I've said a few times now, "Fine" is the smallest size possible. (MM page 314, creatures <6 in. and <1/8 lb.) If bacteria are "creatures" they are Fine. (If they're not creatures they're not valid polymorph forms.)

 

[Thanee]

See, it's just meant as an explanation how it might be meant. We cannot discern how it was meant, because the spell is so badly worded. We do have the RotG article, though, to back my interpretation up.

But I think it's a quite reasonable assumption, that the "you can change a willing subject into another form of living creature" does actually mean what I explained above.

Because that sentance otherwise makes absolutely no sense.

3. Polymorph does not say that you can turn into creatures more than one size category removed from your normal size.

That depends on how you read the "you can change a willing subject into another form of living creature" part. It's surely not as definite as you put it, it's just one way to interprete the whole mess that is Alter Self and Polymorph.

"Another form" can very well mean other than as defined (read "restricted") by Alter Self.

Also, if you say, that the part does not lift the restrictions placed by Alter Self, then Polymorph would let you assume only a form of 5 HD or less, since that restriction is still in place and is stronger than the 15 HD restriction of Polymorph. Both restrictions would then apply!

You cannot just cherry-pick the restrictions, which get "overwritten". It's all or nothing. Everything, type, HD limit and size, gets redefined by Polymorph. So, that is no excuse.

Bye
Thanee

P.S. Re: "bacteria": I see the "no smaller than Fine" part as a clarification. It might be unnecessary, ruleswise, but often people read the rules in such a weird way, so sometimes it's good to state unnecessary stuff like that.

 

[Iku Rex]

But I think it's a quite reasonable assumption, that the "you can change a willing subject into another form of living creature" does actually mean what I explained above.

And I've already explained why it's not a reasonable assumption. Do you have anything to say about that?

Because that sentance otherwise makes absolutely no sense.

Like I said, it makes a certain kind of sense if you consider "living" creature the exception. Like I said, it's unreasonable to assume it has a "special" meaning in 3.5 when 3.0 had almost the exact same wording.

And finally, polymorph clearly doesn't allow you to change into "any other" form. So to prevent a self-contradictory spell description, that sentence must really mean (according to you) "...,except that you change the willing subject into ["any other"] [within the limitations of the spell] living creature". At which point it's just as true for alter self as before. (Alter self also lets you change into any other creature within the limitations of the spell.)

Also, if you say, that the part does not lift the restrictions placed by Alter Self, then Polymorph would let you assume only a form of 5 HD or less, since that restriction is still in place and is stronger than the 15 HD restriction of Polymorph. Both restrictions would then apply!

You cannot just cherry-pick the restrictions, which get "overwritten". It's all or nothing. Everything, type, HD limit and size, gets redefined by Polymorph. So, that is no excuse.

Rubbish. If you apply the exact same method you're willing to use on the rest of the spell to the three sentences you (for some inexplicable reason...) removed from your list of "what polymorph inherits from alter self", the HD rule and the type rule gets "overruled by polymorph".

Like I said: The maximum allowed HD of an assumed form cannot be both "5" and "15" at the same time. You could argue that the "type rule" isn't explicitly contradicted, but that's not a problem since polymorph does explicitly say that you can change into "any of the following types" in addition to your normal type, expanding on the rule from alter self.

Are you claiming that 5=15? And that polymorph doesn't say that you can change into creatures not of your own type?

P.S. Re: "bacteria": I see the "no smaller than Fine" part as a clarification. It might be unnecessary, ruleswise, but often people read the rules in such a weird way, so sometimes it's good to state unnecessary stuff like that.

What does it "clarify"? Can you give an example of a possible misunderstanding it might prevent?