Wildshape + Animal Growth =/= huge size

[Nail]

Hey guys => Knock off the personal attacks. That's not what this board is for.

Especially you, Corwin; you should know better. You've often had some excellent points and arguments in other threads I've watched. Don't let yourself be dragged down into the muck.

 

[Corwin]

The "greatsword grow on trees" part was funny. The first half was a mistake people still make a lot, so go figure.

Hmmm, I'm missing you here. The first part of that post was a rules statement about the size of the weapon growing with the character. This is indeed true.

The second part was the joke about greatswords growing on trees. But for that joke to have meaning, there needs to be a reason the druid grows them. So insinuating their need to use wooden weapons makes the case. Thus, the joke flows.

Uhg, now I'm explaining how comedy works...

 

[Corwin]

Hey guys => Knock off the personal attacks. That's not what this board is for.

Especially you, Corwin; you should know better. You've often had some excellent points and arguments in other threads I've watched. Don't let yourself be dragged down into the muck.

Wow, I got a couple comments about this.

First, you're right. I appologize. Sometimes I get rubbed the wrong way. I shouldn't let it get to me.

Second, why especially me? It's not like I started it. At least I don't think I did...

And why bold me out like that?



BTW, don't think I didn't notice that subtle little part where you say I've had excellent points and arguments in other threads... (I guess this isn't one of them...)

Hehe

 

[Lord_Fergus]

Doesn't matter, since a Wildshaped druid doesn't change his type to animal, just his form. Since Animal Growth only works on animals, not druids who have assumed the shape of one, it's a moot point.

Actually - according to 3.5 - Wildshape acts as the spell Polymorph except for any exceptions noted within the Wildshape description itself. The only thing mentioned in the Wildshape description about the Druid maintaining "type" is in the description of them assuming Elemental form. It specifically states that the Druid maintains its normal "type" when in Elemental form. Nothing else being said about "type" we must look to the spell Polymorph for help.

In the 3.5 decription of Polymorph it specifically says

"The subject's creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form (see the Monster Manual for more information)." 3.5 PHB, page 263

From this I propose that if the Druid were to Wildshape into a Dire Bear or other animal form that Animal Growth would indeed work upon them. They would have the physical stats of the Dire Bear and the mental stats of the Druid himself {see the Polymorph spell once more} before casting and any stat gains would indeed stack.

 

[Nail]

And why bold me out like that?

No special emphasis intended. I try to bold anyone's screen name I use.

BTW, don't think I didn't notice that subtle little part where you say I've had excellent points and arguments in other threads... (I guess this isn't one of them...)

Shoot. I thought I was being sneaky...... I happen to disagree with you in this thread; that's not true in others.

Some other posters, OTOH, I almost always disagree with. I do my best to disagree with them without "going off" on them. I'm not always successful.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Zaruthustran: If you'd bother to go back and read my posts, you'd see I was the one that brought up the fact that original size is not factored into a druid's Wildshape options. Where are you going with this? Are you trying to reiterate what I already said or something?

Where am I going with this? As you say, "read my posts." I demonstrate how the rules say that Wildshape at 8th level can turn a character into an animal (size large). Animal Growth increases the size of any animal. If you cast animal growth on a Large animal it becomes a Huge animal.

That's all there is to it.

You claim it's not broken. I beg to differ. Did you actually look at the numbers, or are you just interested in proving me wrong so you can continue to play a broken druid?

Beg all you want; your vocabulary is still incorrect.

Broken = "doesn't work". In the context of a games discussion, broken = "makes the rules not work".

An animal increasing in size as a result of the Animal Growth spell is not broken. The rules work: when you cast Animal Growth, target animal's size = target animal's size +1. Not broken.

Balance is a whole other issue and largely subjective. "The numbers" don't matter; only the mechanics matter.

And I don't play a Druid.

Take a 9th level druid and Wildshape him into a Dire Ape and animal growth him into Huge with DR 10/magic and the save bonuses. Tell me that isn't inappropriately sick...

Don't just say it can't be that bad. Actually look at it.

"Sick"? Who cares? If your beef is with balance issues please go away and suggest fixes in the house rules forum. This is the rules forum. If you "actually look at it" you'll find that it's perfectly legal according to the rules.

I'm sorry folks if this seems like I'm getting a little defensive. But you people all come rushing in here effectively after the discussion has wound down and start ganging up and making undefendable claims. What's that about? Especially when some of it is patently BS or guess work. Really, I don’t mind other opinions. But don’t jump in here claiming you “know” the answer to a fuzzy question. Even Souljourner admits it isn’t completely clear. What do you know that we don’t?

You are getting defensive, inappropriately so. You came with a rules interpretation, we showed you that your rules interpretation was incorrect, and you got upset.

We claim that we "know" the answer because we do. The claims aren't "undefendable", they're cited in the SRD and PHB and FAQ and Sage Advice.

If you want to continue arguing that animal growth doesn't "stack" with wildshape then please cite rules--what you need is a rule that says that animal growth is specifically size-increasing magic. If you want to complain that it's overpowered or unbalanced then please go to the houserules forum and suggest a "fix."

-z

 

[Zaruthustran]

double post

 

[FrankTrollman]

Hmmm, I'm missing you here. The first part of that post was a rules statement about the size of the weapon growing with the character. This is indeed true.

Yes, this is the part which made it look like it wasn't a joke.

Weapons don't grow with your form change in 3.5. They either get molded into your form or just sit there as their normal selves.

This is a major departure from 3e, and having a joke where it looked like you were getting that rule wrong made it look like you were just wrong and not sarcastic.

And then the second part, since you seemed to already be mixing 3eisms into the discussion into the first part appeared to be sarcastic - but referencing a 3e rule that does not exist in 3.5. In short, the sarcasm appeared to be that you were saying that Druids can't use Greatswords because they don't grow on trees - rather than whatever it was that you actually meant.

For the record: Wildshaping does not change the size of your weapons. And Druids can use any weapon - suffering any non-proficiency penalties if and only if they lack the proper weapon proficiency in that weapon.

The first part seemed to directly contradict the first rule, the second part implied that you were contradicting the second rule. Your record on rules for this thread isn't great - so naturally people jumped on you for ignorance. Stop being defensive about it - people attacking you is a perfectly normal reaction to the tone and content of your post.

-Frank

 

[Corwin]

Weapons don't grow with your form change in 3.5. They either get molded into your form or just sit there as their normal selves.

Odd. I thought you were talking 3.5 here.

From the 3.5 SRD on animal growth:
"All equipment worn or carried by an animal is similarly enlarged by the spell, though this change has no effect on the magical properties of any such equipment.
Any enlarged item that leaves the enlarged creature’s possession instantly returns to its normal size."

This is a major departure from 3e, and having a joke where it looked like you were getting that rule wrong made it look like you were just wrong and not sarcastic.

In light of the above, I guess not, huh?

Oh, and I didn't bother to reply to the rest of your post since it is without merit in light of the facts.

 

[Corwin]

Beg all you want; your vocabulary is still incorrect.

Broken = "doesn't work". In the context of a games discussion, broken = "makes the rules not work".

Hehe, you use a very different dictionary from most of us here then. I have yet to see this definition hold as the standard. Every proper use I've seen (and used myself) is that "broken" means overpowered to the point of not being playable.

Broken = overpowered
Nerfed = weakened

You may want to update your thesaurus.

"Sick"? Who cares? If your beef is with balance issues please go away and suggest fixes in the house rules forum. This is the rules forum.

Wow. I had no idea. Quick, call in a magistrate to move my posts to the "correct" forum.

We are discussing the rules.

If you "actually look at it" you'll find that it's perfectly legal according to the rules.

Says you. I see it differently. And the difference between you and I seems to be that I'm not so arrogant as to assume my interpretation is flawless and perfect (in the face of opposing arguments by others). I admit to the rule in question being unclear and choose to rule on the side of caution. I interpret the rule on the side of balance since it seems to be questionable.

If I find, from official sources, that they intend it to work, so be it. But until then, I assure you, I don't hold your words as "official".

If you want to continue arguing that animal growth doesn't "stack" with wildshape then please cite rules--what you need is a rule that says that animal growth is specifically size-increasing magic. If you want to complain that it's overpowered or unbalanced then please go to the houserules forum and suggest a "fix."

Wow. Again? You sure like to dismiss people and shoo them away when they don't agree, don't you?

Don't police me. This is a legitimate debate on the rules.

So, let me ask you: If, by chance, the Sage comes along and states that polymorph (and its kin) does count as increasing size, what then?

I hope you will not be a hypocrit. You should come here and delete all your posts that state that they do stack. After all, they will be based on a "house rule" at that point, right?