Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 2239394" data-attributes="member: 752">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. </blockquote>

Verification