Stacking question, Giant Size + Expansion
- Thread starter GammaPaladin
- Start date
nick012000
First Post
I'd allow it. I'd also happily use it against the PCs; I tend to enjoy min/maxing my NPCs, and turnabout is fair play.
eamon
Explorer
I wouldn't allow it.
A similar but more dubious case would be for instance a person polymorphing into a larger animal and then casting animal growth, or a person polymorphing into anything bigger and casting righteous might. There's a case to be made that polymorph indeed simply replaces your shape and that it's inconsistent that some dire bears can turn huge whereas others cannot. If you baleful polymorph a giant into a monkey, can you shrink the monkey? If you enlarge the monkey, what's it's size?
I think it's pretty clear the rules don't address these issues satisfactorily. Neither ruling is a good one; the size changing and shape-changing rules interact in unfortunate ways. From a balance perspective you're probably best off interpreting any size modifications by any means to overlap. Not that that makes a lot of sense, really, but it's better than nothing.
However, it does give me an idea for a lawful neutral druid NPC with a dire bear animal companion - that was once a particularly disruptive ogre mage...
A similar but more dubious case would be for instance a person polymorphing into a larger animal and then casting animal growth, or a person polymorphing into anything bigger and casting righteous might. There's a case to be made that polymorph indeed simply replaces your shape and that it's inconsistent that some dire bears can turn huge whereas others cannot. If you baleful polymorph a giant into a monkey, can you shrink the monkey? If you enlarge the monkey, what's it's size?
I think it's pretty clear the rules don't address these issues satisfactorily. Neither ruling is a good one; the size changing and shape-changing rules interact in unfortunate ways. From a balance perspective you're probably best off interpreting any size modifications by any means to overlap. Not that that makes a lot of sense, really, but it's better than nothing.
However, it does give me an idea for a lawful neutral druid NPC with a dire bear animal companion - that was once a particularly disruptive ogre mage...
nick012000
First Post
eamon said:
I think that's stupid; they address the issues you're raising perfectly well. You cast one spell, and resolve its effects. You then cast another spell, and resolve its effects. If someone casts Polymorph to turn them into a bear, and then cast Animal Growth on themselves, they become a bigger bear. If someone turns a giant into a monkey, and then does the same, it'll become a bigger monkey.
I see no problem with this; it's all really very simple.
GammaPaladin
First Post
Technically, no. It doesn't have a table of changes. The wording of the spell is such that it simply grants a +32 strength when you grow to colossal, regardless of what your initial size was, the bonus does not change.
If you were for instance, an elder wyrn red dragon, and already colossal, who happened to be a level 20 wu jen for some reason, you could cast Giant Size, not change size at all, and still gain the 32 strength. It's written as an explicit ability bonus, not as something due to the size change.
In fact, you could shrink two size categories to Huge, and still get stronger
I do think it's a very poorly worded spell. I'm from the "If it isn't explicitly written, it doesn't exist" school when analyzing RAW, and the way this is written, it's a tad broken. It's probably not what they intended it to say, but it's what it does say. They should really errata it or something.
I came across it while trying to create broken builds for fun over on the Wizards CO boards (Not that I can compete with those guys), to build the strongest monk I could come up with. I'd never actually try to play it. I just like seeing what the letter of the rules will allow, and noted Giant Size as a particularly broken spell.
Yeah, it's Wu Jen only, but if you go Warforged Monk/WuJen/Enlightened Fist with Arcane Thesis and Practiced Spellcaster, Improved Natural Attack, and a Battlefist, you can still hit the Colossal +2 size table for your monk unarmed damage, and with a monk's belt, you even do it as a level 20 monk.
I can't remember the exact base damage, but it's like 27d10 or something.
That one doesn't bend a single rule either, although you could certainly rule that Battlefists and Improved Natural Attack don't stack, and force him down one size category...
But yeah, Giant Size is way too powerful.
Last edited:
eamon
Explorer
nick012000 said:
Consider that polymorph is a magical effect, and that it (potentially) changes your size, and that animal growth is also a magical effect which changes your size. As animal growth says, "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack."
If you first cast enlarge person as a gnome, and then polymorph into a shape one size larger (say, a human), are you then a Large human, or a medium human? What if you polymorph into a dire bear - are you then Large, or Huge?
Edit: the point is that size stacking questions just aren't well addressed in the rules. The very relevant "multiple size increasing effects don't stack rule" is just tacked onto most spells, it's not clearly defined what sort of magical size altering effects are included in that category (Alter Form? Polymorph?). The whole infrastructure is shaky. For that matter, spells don't cease when their target is no longer valid, which is probably a bad design. Hold person cast on a polymorphed minotaur does not stop when the minotaur reverts to his natural form, and neither would enlarge person, say, if a dragon were to shift from a humanoid form to his draconic form.
Last edited:
Sorry for the thread necro, but this kind of thing is exactly the kind of thing that pisses me off.
A guy posts a question about the RAW of how 2 spells would interact if they were cast on the same person.
He is responded to by a number of people talking about how they would personally houserule it. Furthermore, the spells in question are called broken (when Giant Size, 7th level Wu Jen spell, is anything but - compared to Scrying and Teleport, you call that broken?) and it's strongly implied that he is a munchkin for even considering the implications of the two spells being used in conjunction. When he tries to re-phrase his question, clarifying that he was asking about the RAW, and not, say, whether various DMs in the audience would 'allow it' or what they would houserule it to or whatever, he gets basically shouted down, he leaves, and the thread devolves into people muttering about how broken it is and how it's similar to other kinds of magic and therefore under RAW it doesn't stack or something equally ridiculous.
If this happened to any other thread, the mods would be all over it for derailing in an instant. But because of the whole massive 'no true scotsman' crap DnD has been labouring under the weight of since fecking forever, not only is this sort of useless plotz put up with, it's actively encouraged! Damn those munchkin munchkiners! And if you dislike it, you're a munchkiner too!
1. ALL DMS HAVE RULE 0. IF A PLAYER DOES NOT LIKE THAT, HE CAN FIND A NEW DM. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BEAT DOWN RULES DISCUSSIONS ON THE INTERNET SO THAT YOU CAN FEEL JUSTIFIED HOUSERULING YOUR OWN GAMES. YOU TOTALLY CAN. GO FOR IT.
2. IF SOMEONE ASKS ABOUT RAW, RULES AS WRITTEN, HE IS NOT ASKING ABOUT YOUR HOUSERULES. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BERATE HIM BECAUSE HE DOES NOT PLAY BY YOUR HOUSERULES. YOUR HOUSERULES ARE YOUR HOUSERULES. THEY HAVE NO BEARING AWAY FROM YOUR GAME.
3. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO GIMP HIS LEVEL 30 CHARACTER IN ORDER TO MAKE HIMSELF REALLY REALLY BIG, THEN HE IS A ROLEPLAYER. NOT A MIN/MAXXER. SOMETIMES TO ROLEPLAY SOMETHING THAT ISN'T A STEREOTYPE OR DRIZZT DO
ING URDEN, YOU NEED MECHANICAL BACKING FOR THE CONCEPT. THIS IS NOT MINMAXING. STOP WITCHHUNTING. THIS IS 2011. GROW UP.
4. LASTLY BUT NOT LEASTLY. DND HAS RULES. IF YOU ALTER THOSE RULES WITH VAGUE EXPECTATIONS LIKE 'NO MINMAXXERS' AND 'THINGS THAT ARE MAGIC AND ALTER SIZE AT ALL ARE SIZE-ALTERING MAGIC AND DON'T STACK, KIND OF, MOSTLY, ACCORDING TO MY INTERNAL SYSTEM OF HOW I THINK MAGIC WORKS' THEN YOU ARE BEING A DICK. YOU MAY HAVE A GREAT GROUP OF PLAYERS WHO ARE MOSTLY NARRATIVISTS AND DON'T CARE TOO MUCH ABOUT RULES, OR HAVE PLAYED WITH VAGUE ADND HOUSERULES LIKE THAT SINCE FOREVER SO IT DOESN'T BOTHER THEM, BUT YOU ARE STILL, BEING, A DICK. IF YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE RULES AS WRITTEN, CHANGE THEM CLEANLY, CHANGE THEM CONCISELY, AND CHANGE THEM WITH A FIRM UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANICAL AND MATHEMATICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE GAME. Cause otherwise you're rewarding the players who can read your mind and skirt the line of what you think is acceptable, and punishing those who can't, which is, since your mind isn't, y'know, readily available to the players, a DICK MOVE.
Thank you, and goodnight.
A guy posts a question about the RAW of how 2 spells would interact if they were cast on the same person.
He is responded to by a number of people talking about how they would personally houserule it. Furthermore, the spells in question are called broken (when Giant Size, 7th level Wu Jen spell, is anything but - compared to Scrying and Teleport, you call that broken?) and it's strongly implied that he is a munchkin for even considering the implications of the two spells being used in conjunction. When he tries to re-phrase his question, clarifying that he was asking about the RAW, and not, say, whether various DMs in the audience would 'allow it' or what they would houserule it to or whatever, he gets basically shouted down, he leaves, and the thread devolves into people muttering about how broken it is and how it's similar to other kinds of magic and therefore under RAW it doesn't stack or something equally ridiculous.
If this happened to any other thread, the mods would be all over it for derailing in an instant. But because of the whole massive 'no true scotsman' crap DnD has been labouring under the weight of since fecking forever, not only is this sort of useless plotz put up with, it's actively encouraged! Damn those munchkin munchkiners! And if you dislike it, you're a munchkiner too!
1. ALL DMS HAVE RULE 0. IF A PLAYER DOES NOT LIKE THAT, HE CAN FIND A NEW DM. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BEAT DOWN RULES DISCUSSIONS ON THE INTERNET SO THAT YOU CAN FEEL JUSTIFIED HOUSERULING YOUR OWN GAMES. YOU TOTALLY CAN. GO FOR IT.
2. IF SOMEONE ASKS ABOUT RAW, RULES AS WRITTEN, HE IS NOT ASKING ABOUT YOUR HOUSERULES. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BERATE HIM BECAUSE HE DOES NOT PLAY BY YOUR HOUSERULES. YOUR HOUSERULES ARE YOUR HOUSERULES. THEY HAVE NO BEARING AWAY FROM YOUR GAME.
3. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO GIMP HIS LEVEL 30 CHARACTER IN ORDER TO MAKE HIMSELF REALLY REALLY BIG, THEN HE IS A ROLEPLAYER. NOT A MIN/MAXXER. SOMETIMES TO ROLEPLAY SOMETHING THAT ISN'T A STEREOTYPE OR DRIZZT DO
ING URDEN, YOU NEED MECHANICAL BACKING FOR THE CONCEPT. THIS IS NOT MINMAXING. STOP WITCHHUNTING. THIS IS 2011. GROW UP.4. LASTLY BUT NOT LEASTLY. DND HAS RULES. IF YOU ALTER THOSE RULES WITH VAGUE EXPECTATIONS LIKE 'NO MINMAXXERS' AND 'THINGS THAT ARE MAGIC AND ALTER SIZE AT ALL ARE SIZE-ALTERING MAGIC AND DON'T STACK, KIND OF, MOSTLY, ACCORDING TO MY INTERNAL SYSTEM OF HOW I THINK MAGIC WORKS' THEN YOU ARE BEING A DICK. YOU MAY HAVE A GREAT GROUP OF PLAYERS WHO ARE MOSTLY NARRATIVISTS AND DON'T CARE TOO MUCH ABOUT RULES, OR HAVE PLAYED WITH VAGUE ADND HOUSERULES LIKE THAT SINCE FOREVER SO IT DOESN'T BOTHER THEM, BUT YOU ARE STILL, BEING, A DICK. IF YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE RULES AS WRITTEN, CHANGE THEM CLEANLY, CHANGE THEM CONCISELY, AND CHANGE THEM WITH A FIRM UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANICAL AND MATHEMATICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE GAME. Cause otherwise you're rewarding the players who can read your mind and skirt the line of what you think is acceptable, and punishing those who can't, which is, since your mind isn't, y'know, readily available to the players, a DICK MOVE.
Thank you, and goodnight.
arcseed
First Post
Are you sorry? You didn't have to post at all. The behavior that so offended you is from three years ago.
Please, no thread necro for all-caps rants. Particularly if you just want to insult people and use language Erik's grandma wouldn't appreciate.
Behaviour that happens pretty much daily regardless of how old this is. This was just a really great example in that it was fairly pure and clearcut and easily showcased.
Generally when you're trying to make a point, a simpler example of what you're making a point about is preferable to a muddy complex one that touches on other issues.
And no, I don't want to insult people. But I find that if I use less than strong language, people tend to ignore. What does not provoke is generally, especially on the internet, ignored wholesale.
Generally when you're trying to make a point, a simpler example of what you're making a point about is preferable to a muddy complex one that touches on other issues.
And no, I don't want to insult people. But I find that if I use less than strong language, people tend to ignore. What does not provoke is generally, especially on the internet, ignored wholesale.
