What size creature can I be with Polymorph Any Object?

[Hypersmurf]

Reference? That looks made-up to me.

Oh, it is... I neglected to consider bonus hit points.

I'd note that regardless of any bonus hit points, a living creature who receives negative levels equal to its hit dice is dead... but being dead is hardly an inconvenience to an object, so that's somewhat irrelevant

Regardless, the nonability rule is a precedent for "not applicable" and "zero" being two very different concepts.

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Regardless, the nonability rule is a precedent for "not applicable" and "zero" being two very different concepts.

....for ability scores. I think you are truly reaching here - especially as how the Shrew -> Manticore transformation is still a direct disregarding of the size and hit die limits and is still the official example of how the spell is supposed to work.

No size limits. No hit die limits. If you want to transform mice into footmen or pumpkins into carriages - you can do that.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

No size limits. No hit die limits. If you want to transform mice into footmen or pumpkins into carriages - you can do that.

I actually have no issue with any of that

I just don't feel it's accurate to quantify an object's hit dice... even if that quantity is "zero". They simply don't have hit dice.

I'm not trying to springboard from that to a theory of how PAO does or does not work.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hey, Frank, here's a PAO question for you...

You contend that if you can get a Fighter's intelligence up to 21, even temporarily, you can PAO him into a Titan permanently, right?

Why bother with the Fighter, though? PAO your pet rat - or indeed, your boot - into a Titan. And then PAO the Titan into... a Titan. Before the duration of the first spell runs out.

The second spell is changing a creature into another creature that's the same size, same kingdom, same intelligence, related, etc... so the duration of the second spell would be permanent.

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Well, with the new Polymorph rules that Polymorph changes your type - that would work. When the original PAO effect expires the new one won't be affected in any way as it checks for duration only when cast (otherwise all PAO castings would be permanent because your current Intelligence and Size would always equal that of whatever you turned into) and the old PAO effect is not the last form change and terminating it changes nothing at that point.

Under the old Polymorph rules, where you kept your own type - you in fact did not gain the Kingdom of whatever you turned into and that did not work.

3.5 still has a lot of problems - the fact that double casting PAO is always permanent is so comparatively minor that it hardly even seems worth hitting with a house rule.

-Frank

 

[Iku Rex]

And yet it doesn't state that it ignores the type restrictions - and yet it clearly must. Otherwise, since no object is within any creature type, then despite your ability to turn things into objects you'd still have a null set of objects to choose from!

So it ignores type restrictions - otherwise it can't function.

Objects do not have a creature type, just as objects don't have hit dice. It is self evident that the parts of polymorph that concerns attributes only applicable to creatures (like type and HD) don't apply to objects. They shouldn't have to spell that out, even for you.

How many hit dice to objects have?

Zero.

Reference? Claiming that objects have "zero hit dice" is like claiming that objects have "zero type". It makes no sense, since the "hit dice" term only applies to creatures. Surely you don't expect a special note in the spell explaining that "terms not applicable to objects aren't applicable to objects"? The rules assume a minimum of intelligence in the reader.

And the implied statement is: [one creature or object into another [creature or object]]



When it says "another" - it is implied that the second choice comes from the same set as the first choice.

There is no such implication. You're making up rules as you go along. Once again, if "another" has such a broad meaning, then how come polymorph uses almost the exact same wording as PaO? You yourself agree that "you change the willing subject into another form of living creature [polymorph]" is "subject to any additional restrictions on the spell".

PaO works like polymorph unless otherwise noted. Polymorph has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form. This is not contradicted anywhere in PaO's spell description. Therefore, PaO has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form. QED.

While it is amusing to see you go through contortions to make it say something that you think is more balanced - that simply isn't what it says.

So, PaO doesn't say that it works "like polymorph"? Polymorph doesn't have restrictions on type and hit dice? You're the one who needs special "implication rules" to arrive at your conclusion.

Not to mention the fact that you still haven't figured out a way short of DM fiat to keep it from doing any of the most broken gimics (such as transforming dragon corpses - which are objects - into living breathing good dragons of equal size permanently).

That trick is only possible if the dragon you "want" has less HD than you have caster levels. And you don't need a dead dragon to begin with - any object will do.

I've never claimed that the spell is balanced as written. But that doesn't give any extra credibility to your absurdly broken interpretation.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Once again, if "another" has such a broad meaning, then how come polymorph uses almost the exact same wording as PaO? You yourself agree that "you change the willing subject into another form of living creature [polymorph]" is "subject to any additional restrictions on the spell".

Because Polymorph subsequently lists additional restrictions.

If they didn't - then you'd be good to go with transforming people into Solars and such.

PAO does not have any such restrictions, and you are good to go on that.

You're the one who needs special "implication rules" to arrive at your conclusion.

That's not a "special" implication rule - that's how English works. If there is a sentence that said "Sarah said we have to give the chocolate back to her." then "her" can only refer to Sarah or another female previously discussed within that reference frame. That's how pronouns work - they can only imply something already discussed - not something else entirely.

So in PAO, where it says "another" it has to be refering to a "creature or object" previously discussed. That previously discussed "creature or object" is "any creature or nonmagical object up to 100 cubic feet/level."

If your native language isn't English, this might seem like a pretty difficult concept - but this is how the English Language works. Both naturally and legally. When there is a sentence with an implied object,that's exactly how it works in English. The book is written in English - there is nothing more to discuss.

-Frank

 

[Iku Rex]

Because Polymorph subsequently lists additional restrictions.

If they didn't - then you'd be good to go with transforming people into Solars and such.

PAO does not have any such restrictions, and you are good to go on that.

Are you familiar with the term "arguing from your conclusion"?

My argument is: 1) PaO works like polymorph unless otherwise noted. 2) Polymorph has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form. 3) This is not contradicted anywhere in PaO's spell description. 1+2+3) Therefore, PaO has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form.

Your argument: "Since there are no restrictions on type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form with PaO, the first line of the spell must mean that there are no restrictions on type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form with PaO. This proves that there are no restrictions on type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form with PaO.

Not a very impressive argument if you ask me. No matter how many times you repeat it.

(If I've misrepresented your position, then by all means correct me. Preferably with arguments I haven't already shot down.)

That's not a "special" implication rule - that's how English works. If there is a sentence that said "Sarah said we have to give the chocolate back to her." then "her" can only refer to Sarah or another female previously discussed within that reference frame. That's how pronouns work - they can only imply something already discussed - not something else entirely.

So in PAO, where it says "another" it has to be refering to a "creature or object" previously discussed.

That previously discussed "creature or object" is "any creature or nonmagical object up to 100 cubic feet/level."

"Another" has to be referring to "creature or object" - correct. (So far so good.) However, this "creature or object" does not have to be from the same selection as the creatures or objects that are valid targets for the spell. (Just as with polymorph.)

Example:

1) Spell X changes one fish into another
2) You may not change a fish into a bigger fish with spell X.

Can both statements be True at once? Answer: Yes.

Even though a goldfish can't be changed into a shark (2), it can still be changed into a guppy - another fish (1).

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

I've been ignoring this thread for a few days now - and I finallly decided to go see what the fuss was about.

I must admit my confusion remains, even after reading all the way through the thread and going and poring over Polymorph and PaO in detail.


From what I've read, what I understand is this:

PoA allows you to polymorph any creature or object into another creature or object, with the possible limitation (admittedly arguable) of the new creatures HD cannot exceed your caster level or 15 HD, whichever is lower.

I also have to admit that this was not my first intrepretation of the statement: This spell functions like polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another.

I had thought initially, until I read the whole spell, that this meant you could change any creature into any creature, or any object into any object.

I blame WOTC for their typical lack of good, standard English - but since no one else has a good command of the language, I cna also forgive them.


Now, as to my confusion. What the heck is the question here? It's clear from PoA that PoA ignores size limitations inherent in Poly as well as 'type' limitations (a pebble to a human as an example). I could see a debate about HD limitations, but that's a question for house rules since the spells are so unclear. I personally would argue that they (the limitations) cannot exist as the pebble certainly has only a minor fraction of the hit points of a human.

But again, what is it that y'all are actually arguing?