The Souljourner said:
There's a difference between "increasing" and setting. A spell that adds +6 to your strength is increasing your strength. A spell that sets your strength to 18 is not increasing your strength, it is simply setting it to a value. It might be higher, it might be lower, it might be the same, but it's not a "strength increasing spell" per se.
Strength increasing magic doesn't have this problem because we get the simplicity of bonus types to compare. If the spell increases size using an enhancement bonus, then it stacks with an enlargement bonus (or unnamed bonus). Simple. Changing size has no bonus types or names to fall back on, so there is no comparison.
The Souljourner said:
So are you saying that if you used polymorph on a half-ogre to change it into a tiger, it could be animal growthed, but do the same to a human, and it suddenly can't be animal growthed? Or are you saying you couldn't do it to the half ogre either, even though he's not even changing size?
Oddly enough, if a storm giant is a 5th level druid he must shrink down to small and medium animals. He cannot become an elephant (for example) dispite the animal being the same size and having less HD. How fair is that?
So yes, there is a double standard. Thus is the fickle arbitrariness of magic. Sux, donut?
The Souljourner said:
My way is always consistant, yours is not. I believe the designers intended it only to be spells that specifically say "you increase in size" a la enlarge person, righteous might, and animal growth.
And I genuinelty believe otherwise. Funny how we both read it and get different impressions. Or are you saying I'm just making stuff up here?
See my giant example above. No, there isn't always consistancy when dealing with unusally sized base-creatures and their new transformed shapes.
I'd also like to point out that my interpretation tries to maintain some semblance of balance where yours takes a hearty stroll down Broken-ville (see my previously posted examples).
The Souljourner said:
I'd be interested in what the Sage has to say only as a curiosity, since I put very little faith in his replies. If Andy Collins were to state "I intended it to work this way" then I would attribute a lot more weight to the answer.
I hear that a lot from people. But he is the authority on the matter nonetheless. I may not agree with everything he says either, but it's a start.
As I've said, I'll post a reply either way. He may very well agree with you. I will disagree with his decision in that case. But at least we'll have heard from him on the matter.