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: 2242567" data-attributes="member: 752">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.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: ?<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 <a href="http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdspellsp.rtf" target="_blank">3.0 SRD polymorph any object</a>. 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.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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> 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?</blockquote>

Verification