Does Polymorph restrict size-changes?

[Thanee]

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".

The size rule, too: "You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine..."

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

As I said, "bacteria", people tried stuff like that in 3.0, that's why I think it was some kind of "overreaction" in adding such a redundant restriction in.



BTW, I was reading the Polymorph Any Object spell today. Quite interesting.

It says, it works just like Polymorph, but mentions nothing about lifting a size restriction. It even has a similar wording in the first sentence: "This spell functions like polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another."

Yet, it's crystal clear from the spell description/examples, that you can alter size more than one step: "Pebble to human", "Shrew to manticore", etc.

And I'd bet, that the same person was responsible for this whole line of spells, so there is a rather clear indicator for the beforementioned intent by this very person, even if you don't accept the RotG article as such.

If we would follow your logic with this spell, the spell would not work as described, because most of the guidelines would fall outside of the restrictions inherited by Alter Self, mostly the size limitation. Therefore your logic cannot be right, obviously.

This alone is IMHO enough proof, that I can now clearly say, that my reading is the correct one. It's not even just one viable option, it is how the spell works.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

That's not what the spell says though. Alter self says the assumed form may have no more than caster level, to a maximum of 5hd at 5th.
Poly says that the assumed form may have no more than caster level, to a maximum of 15hd at 15th.

The maximums are not the maximum hit dice that the spell gives - they're the upper limit for that spell for the hit dice assumable. And alter self's hit die limit falls within that of poly, so it overrides.

Unless, of course, you admit that the newer, more inclusive text overrides that of alter self, at which point polymorph loses the 'within one size category' restriction.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Unless, of course, you admit that the newer, more inclusive text overrides that of alter self, at which point polymorph loses the 'within one size category' restriction.

Except it never explicitly overwrites this restriction. At best it implies it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Except it never explicitly overwrites this restriction. At best it implies it.

Then it doesn't overwrite the 5hd limit either, it just specifies another condition which is more broad (albeit pointless...). Same goes for type.

 

[Iku Rex]

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".

The size rule, too: "You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine..."

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.

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

As I said, "bacteria", people tried stuff like that in 3.0, that's why I think it was some kind of "overreaction" in adding such a redundant restriction in.

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.)

Let's watch Thanee the DM try to use this "clarification" to explain why a player can't use polymorph to turn into a bacteria.

Player: I use polymorph to turn into a bacteria.
Thanee: You can't do that.
Player: Why not?
Thanee: You can't be smaller than Fine. It's clarified in the spell description.
Player: Bacteria are smaller then 6 inches and lighter then 1/8 pound. That means they're Fine. It says so in the MM. Therefore, bacteria are not smaller than Fine.
Thanee: ?

BTW, I was reading the Polymorph Any Object spell today. Quite interesting.

It says, it works just like Polymorph, but mentions nothing about lifting a size restriction. It even has a similar wording in the first sentence: "This spell functions like polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another."

Yet, it's crystal clear from the spell description/examples, that you can alter size more than one step: "Pebble to human", "Shrew to manticore", etc.

[paragraph moved down a bit - IR]

If we would follow your logic with this spell, the spell would not work as described, because most of the guidelines would fall outside of the restrictions inherited by Alter Self, mostly the size limitation. Therefore your logic cannot be right, obviously.].

<sigh>

Please, please start thinking through your arguments before posting.

Using the same logic we both [?] used on alter self/polymorph the "within one size category" rule is, by default, part of polymorph any object. It applies unless polymorph any object "says otherwise".

Option 1: The table is an "equal" part of the spell description. The examples are a roundabout way to convey information about what the spell lets you do (rather than just illustrate it). In that case, polymorph any object "says otherwise", and any polymorph rule contradicted by the examples doesn't apply to polymorph any object. This does not help your case, since all it proves is that polymorph any object is not identical to polymorph. (We already knew that.)

Option 2: (My preferred option). The examples are just that - examples. They're supposed to be based on the actual spell description. The "within one size category" rule is, by default, part of that description. Since the table (copy-pasted from 3.0) contradicts the spell description, it's in need of errata. Based on WotC's errata policy a mistake like that won't even be listed in the errata documents. The text overrules the table.

Option 2 is supported by the 3.0 SRD polymorph any object. Compare the SRD version with the PH version - they fixed the spell chain problem Plane Sailing complained about earlier by writing the relevant parts of polymorph other directly into polymorph any object, and as a result the spell description contradicts the table. Just as in 3.5.

This alone is IMHO enough proof, that I can now clearly say, that my reading is the correct one. It's not even just one viable option, it is how the spell works.

You understand that the examples also contradict rules found "directly" (not through inheritance) in polymorph?




Have you stopped to consider the result of your interpretation of polymorph any object? Random pebble to tarrasque? Sure - no problem. The entire party changed into epic monsters with awe-inspiring stats? Go ahead.

According to you polymorph any object lets you change any subject into any form. That makes it less restricted than the personal only, 9th level spell shapechage. And the person who wrote polymorph any object decided to tell us this by copy-pasting a 3.0 table rather than using the language in shapechnage (bar the restrictions). Very sensible.

[moved - IR] And I'd bet, that the same person was responsible for this whole line of spells, so there is a rather clear indicator for the beforementioned intent by this very person, even if you don't accept the RotG article as such.

This would be the same person who felt it necessary to point out that, as opposed to polymorph, shapechange lets you change into any creature from Fine to Colossal? Right?

 

[Thanee]

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.

Of course not. Likewise it is not impossible to have both a 5 HD and a 15 HD limit in place at the same time. Both, however, makes no sense in context, of course. And it makes no sense in particular to rule one that way and the other the opposite way. Therefore the only reasonable way to look at it is, that all three restrictions are overruled.

Please, please start thinking through your arguments before posting.

Where did you get that from, that I would not do this?
In fact, I'm extremely confident, that my arguments are very well thought through.

Using the same logic we both [?] used on alter self/polymorph the "within one size category" rule is, by default, part of polymorph any object. It applies unless polymorph any object "says otherwise".

No, it would be, if we would follow your logic, but the guidelines clearly say, that it is not in place. Therefore you must be wrong. And this also applies to Polymorph. Simple logic.

Option 2: (My preferred option). The examples are just that - examples. They're supposed to be based on the actual spell description. The "within one size category" rule is, by default, part of that description. Since the table (copy-pasted from 3.0) contradicts the spell description, it's in need of errata. Based on WotC's errata policy a mistake like that won't even be listed in the errata documents. The text overrules the table.

Well, this might be possible, of course, but it's not very reasonable to assume, given how the clarifications for Polymorph turned out (see WotC website; you know, the guys that made this game ). It's OTOH extremely reasonable to assume, that the table is exactly right and is therefore not in need of errata, which in turn is the reason, that there is still no errata for it.

You understand that the examples also contradict rules found "directly" (not through inheritance) in polymorph?

No, why should they? Looks all perfectly fine.

There are only contradictions, if you don't read the spell descriptions right.

Have you stopped to consider the result of your interpretation of polymorph any object? Random pebble to tarrasque? Sure - no problem. The entire party changed into epic monsters with awe-inspiring stats? Go ahead.

There is still a 15 HD limit in place, thanks to Polymorph, please note the fine difference between the parts where the exceptions are outlined.

According to you polymorph any object lets you change any subject into any form.

No, I never said that. Polymorph Any Object does not say anything about different forms, only Polymorph does. It does not lift the restrictions on size and type and HD placed by Polymorph therefore (in the way Polymorph does related to Alter Self, because it allows completely different forms). The first only adds objects into the mix and alters the duration and how mental stats are figured in.

This would be the same person who felt it necessary to point out that, as opposed to polymorph, shapechange lets you change into any creature from Fine to Colossal? Right?

Probably, yes. He would surely have saved everyone some trouble by simply using the same language in Polymorph as well, except for this cryptic stuff. But it's obviousenough after some research, that both have the same size limits.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Iku Rex]

That's not what the spell says though.

Alter self says the assumed form may have no more than caster level, to a maximum of 5hd at 5th.
Poly says that the assumed form may have no more than caster level, to a maximum of 15hd at 15th.

The maximums are not the maximum hit dice that the spell gives - they're the upper limit for that spell for the hit dice assumable. And alter self's hit die limit falls within that of poly, so it overrides.

Let's see what the spells say:

The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to your caster level, to a maximum of 5 HD at 5th level. --alter self

The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level.-- polymorph

You're telling me that the polymorph rule doesn't obviously overrule the alter self rule? In your mind the value representing "maximum allowed HD" can very well be both "5" and "15"? There is no way these rules can reasonably belong in the same spell.

Unless, of course, you admit that the newer, more inclusive text overrides that of alter self, at which point polymorph loses the 'within one size category' restriction.

I "admit" that the newer more inclusive text overrides that of alter self? Have I ever said otherwise?

Let's see what you consider a "newer, more inclusive text" with regards to size.

The new form must be within one size category of your normal size. --alter self
You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, ... -- polymorph

How is polymorph "more inclusive"? If the rule actually did anything (as we know, it doesn't) it'd be more restrictive. Are you saying that polymorph can't add a restriction not found in alter self? If alter self didn't exist and these two rules both appeared in polymorph (almost as in 3.0...) nobody would bat an eyelid.

It seems to me that you, much like Thanee, are arguing from your conclusion. Try "proving" that the alter self rule is contradicted by polymorph without first assuming that polymorph lets you change into a creature of any size because the alter self rule doesn't apply to polymorph.

 

[Thanee]

You're telling me that the polymorph rule doesn't obviously overrule the alter self rule?

No, I'm telling you that all three restrictions are overruled... HD, type and size, because these are the limits for the "form", which Polymorph excepts from the inherited rules.

It seems to me that you, much like Thanee, are arguing from your conclusion. Try "proving" that the alter self rule is contradicted by polymorph without first assuming that polymorph lets you change into a creature of any size because the alter self rule doesn't apply to polymorph.

Yes, since the intent is clear from both the RotG article and the PAO spell, I'm looking mostly for an explanation, how this might be meant (it obviously is meant that way, so that is out of question, anyways).

If you only look at it from Alter Self upwards, and disregard everything except clearly pronounced sentences, that are written in the exact same pattern as a previous rule, then, of course, you will never get to that conclusion, because you are missing out many pieces of the puzzle, so to say.

But even from Alter Self upwards, it certainly works that way...

Alter Self allows you to assume a form (defined as your own type, max 5 HD, within +/- 1 size category).
Polymorph allows you to assume another form (other than that defined by Alter Self), therefore the definition for the form do no longer apply. New ones take their place (specific type list, max 15 HD, size from Fine to unlimited).
Polymorph Any Object further builds upon that by allowing objects to be altered or assumed, mental stats to be assumed and alters the duration.

Very logical without any assumptions needed other than what is written in the spell descriptions.

The only tricky part is to understand, what they mean with "form", but thinking about it for a moment, can only lead to this conclusion, as otherwise the rules have way too many parts that make absolutely no sense at all (like the redundant Fine limitation, which can only be seen as an overly cautious approach).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

...otherwise the rules have way too many parts that make absolutely no sense at all (like the redundant Fine limitation, which can only be seen as an overly cautious approach).

Just for clarification: I mean that this part still makes no real sense, but there are otherwise more like it.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Iku Rex]

Of course not. Likewise it is not impossible to have both a 5 HD and a 15 HD limit in place at the same time. Both, however, makes no sense in context, of course. And it makes no sense in particular to rule one that way and the other the opposite way. Therefore the only reasonable way to look at it is, that all three restrictions are overruled.

(See my above reply to Saeviomagy.)

Using the same logic we both [?] used on alter self/polymorph the "within one size category" rule is, by default, part of polymorph any object. It applies unless polymorph any object "says otherwise".

No, it would be, if we would follow your logic, but the guidelines clearly say, that it is not in place. Therefore you must be wrong. And this also applies to Polymorph. Simple logic.

"Simple logic" in bizarro-world, perhaps... :\

Hey, I have an idea for how to explain this! I'll call it "option 1".

Option 1: The table is an "equal" part of the spell description. The examples are a roundabout way to convey information about what the spell lets you do (rather than just illustrate it). In that case, polymorph any object "says otherwise", and any polymorph rule contradicted by the examples doesn't apply to polymorph any object. This does not help your case, since all it proves is that polymorph any object is not identical to polymorph. (We already knew that.)

You understand that the examples also contradict rules found "directly" (not through inheritance) in polymorph?

No, why should they? Looks all perfectly fine.

There are only contradictions, if you don't read the spell descriptions right.

There is still a 15 HD limit in place, thanks to Polymorph, please note the fine difference between the parts where the exceptions are outlined.

The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level.-- polymorph

Shrew to manticore-- polymorph any object

I don't know how many HD a shrew has, but I'm sure it's less than a manticore. Thus the above polymorph rule is contradicted. (You can [and I would] argue that only this rule is removed, and not all, but that doesn't help you.)

Also note that 3.0 polymorph any object had the same wording, and 3.0 polymorph did unquestionably have a size restriction preventing a shrew-manticore transformation.

According to you polymorph any object lets you change any subject into any form.

No, I never said that. Polymorph Any Object does not say anything about different forms, only Polymorph does. It does not lift the restrictions on size and type and HD placed by Polymorph therefore (in the way Polymorph does related to Alter Self, because it allows completely different forms). The first only adds objects into the mix and alters the duration and how mental stats are figured in.

Huh?

This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. --polymorph

This spell functions like polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another [implied: creature or object]. -- polymorph any object

So the word "another" should be read as "any other" in the first sentence, but the exact same word, in the exact same context should not be read the same way in the second sentence. Looks to me like you're "[ruling] one that way and the other the opposite way"...