Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 2247023" data-attributes="member: 752">Given how the spell had a very similar size limitation to the one I'm describing in 3.0, it does not seem reasonable that the person writing the 3.5 version would simply assume that it was gone. Quite the contrary, in fact.Here's the 3.0 rule:The new form can range in size from Diminutive to one size larger than the subjects’s normal form. Now imagine that you're writing 3.5 polymorph. You still want the pretty much the same rule in polymorph, but you've decided to make the spell less restricted downwards. (Why would a Tiny Fey be unable to change into a mouse [Fine], while a Colossal dragon can change into a toad [Diminutive]?)Proposed intended new rule: The new form can range in size from Fine to one size larger than the subject's normal form. Yeah. That'll work. But wait. The new polymorph will be based on alter self, and any rule that applies to both should only be stated in alter self to save space. You want alter self limited to relatively minor changes (like in 3.0, where you could add or subtract one foot).So you make the following rule for alter self. The new form must be within one size category of your normal size.What do you need to add in polymorph in order to get the rule you want? You want to replace the downward restriction (only)  with a rule saying that you can be as small as Fine. (The first half of the shapechange size rule.)  Unfortunately, what you, or some later edit, leaves us with is...You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine.  The statement in itself is nonsense, and no interpretation can make it "sense". But if you see it as intending to permit forms as small as Fine, replacing the downward restriction in alter self, the intent makes sense. The end result would have been (but technically isn't) a minor tweak from 3.0. So that's my suggested "reason for the wording of the spell".</blockquote>

Verification