# Wildshape + Animal Growth =/= huge size



## Power_Munchkin (Oct 2, 2003)

Check my reasoning here.

Wildshape into a large animal. Cast animal growth on self (druids gain become whatever type the wildshape into, check).

Druid gains benefits of the spell, but does NOT become a huge-sized animal. Why? Because magical effects increasing size do not stack.

Animal growth spell and wildshape are magical effects. Why? Because spell and supernatural effects go away in antimagic field.

Does that sound about right?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 2, 2003)

Maybe you get a large (not huge) creature with a +8 enlargement bonus to Strength, +4 enlargement bonus to Constitution...


----------



## The Souljourner (Oct 2, 2003)

No no no no no.

Wildshape changes your *form* not your *size*.  Any size change is a side effect of the new form, and not a direct result of the spell.  If wildshape said "you change into an animal, and grow one size category" then yes, they wouldn't stack.  However, it doesn't say that, it just says "You change into the form of an animal".

Divine Might increases your size one category, because it explicitly says it does.

Enlarge person increases your size one category, because it explicitly says it does.

Thus, the size changes from Divine Might and Enlarge Person do not stack.

-The Souljourner


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 2, 2003)

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.


----------



## Corwin (Oct 2, 2003)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> No no no no no.




Yes yes yes yes yes. 



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Wildshape changes your *form* not your *size*.




Actually, it does *both*.



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Any size change is a side effect of the new form, and not a direct result of the spell.




It's not a "side effect". It's an explicit part of the spell. Accidently burning down a house killing baddies with a fire-based spell is a "side effect". Getting to be a Large creature by _polymorph_ing is not.



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> If wildshape said "you change into an animal, and grow one size category" then yes, they wouldn't stack.  However, it doesn't say that, it just says "You change into the form of an animal".




You need an extremely sharp knife to split that hair. Especially since you left out the entirety of the sentance you're quoting... _"In addition, she gains the ability to take the shape of a Large animal at 8th level..."_

I see the ability explicitly stating that a Medium-size druid can increase their size to Large using this ability.

If the Medium-size druid were to transform into a Medium-size (or smaller) animal, then yes, the _animal growth_ spell would indeed increase their size, IMO. Becuase they didn't increase their size already. 



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Divine Might increases your size one category, because it explicitly says it does.
> 
> Enlarge person increases your size one category, because it explicitly says it does.




Just like the ability (as I just quoted above).



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Thus, the size changes from Divine Might and Enlarge Person do not stack.




Any spell that increases size doesn't stack. Nowhere does it restrict the restriction () to only a very specific phrase that must be written into the text.

The text for _animal growth_ states... 

_"Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack."_ 

Note that it does not say anything about specific phrases. _Polymorph_ing into a Large creature made you bigger. Simple, IMO. How can that be overlooked or tossed aside by tenuous rationalizations just to get a double bump in size?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 2, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> 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.




According to 3.5 SRD on Polymorph:

"This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level. You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can you cause a subject to assume an incorporeal or gaseous form. _The subject’s creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form._" [emphasis added]

Since Wildshape is essentially like Polymorph, then, yes, a druid can become Large and grow bigger with Animal Growth.


----------



## Corwin (Oct 2, 2003)

Just so we can see what we are talking about in crunchy numbers...

A 9th-level Druid can become a Huge Dire Lion, Huge Polar Bear, Huge Dire Ape or Huge (Giant) Octopus.

A 9th-level Druid (12 HD+) can be a Huge Dire Bear.

A 15th-level Druid (16 HD+) can be a Gargantuan Triceratops.

A 15th-level Druid (18 HD+) can become a Gargantuan Tyranosaurus Rex.

Keep in mind that Animal growth also gives him DR 10/magic, +4 saves, and the stat bumps. Plus, all size and Strength related abililties of the animal go up with the size (check out those dinos, frex  ).


----------



## Camarath (Oct 2, 2003)

Wouldn't a Druid need a Silenced and Still Animal Growth spell too be able to cast that spell on hiself while Wildshaped?


----------



## Benben (Oct 2, 2003)

The Natural Spell feat allows casting while wildshaped.


----------



## The Souljourner (Oct 2, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> You need an extremely sharp knife to split that hair. Especially since you left out the entirety of the sentance you're quoting... _"In addition, she gains the ability to take the shape of a Large animal at 8th level..."_




Can you become a large housecat then?  That's a large animal.

Answer: no, you can't.



			
				Corwin said:
			
		

> Just like the ability (as I just quoted above).




No, the ability you quoted above does not say "you grow larger".

What the ability says is, you may take the shape of animals that are naturally size large.  It's a lessening of the restriction on the ability.

The ability is "polymorph into animals".  Period.  Polymorph says see alter self, alter self says you take the form, including natural attacks and natural size.

Spells that increase size are those that say "you increase size".  Wildshape does not, therefor it is not a size increasing spell.  Period.

It's just not.  There's the real world definition of increasing size and the spell effect definition of increasing size.  Polymorph fits the former but not the latter.

-The Souljourner


----------



## Power_Munchkin (Oct 2, 2003)

*hm*

So what you're saying is that wildshape is NOT a "magical effect that increase size"?

In other words, a polymorphed cleric casting righteous might on him/herself becomes huge?

Wildshape is a magical effect - check. It could increase size - check.

"The new form must be within one size category of your normal size".

"This alteration changes each animal’s size category to the next largest..."

What's the difference?


----------



## Corwin (Oct 2, 2003)

There ya go. Power_Munchkin gets it. 

For the record, I've sent the obligatory email in to the Sage on this one. No telling how long 'til I recieve a reply (if ever). I've been hit-and-miss on replies in the past from him. He's a busy guy after all.

If I get something, I'll post it here, whether I agree with it or not.


----------



## The Souljourner (Oct 2, 2003)

It doesn't increase your size if you're already that size.  It can reduce your size, if you're bigger than the creature.  

Is polymorph then a spell that increases your strength?  It could be, but it might not be.

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.

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?

It doesn't make any sense your way.  A spell that "increases your size" increase it regardless of your starting size, a la Righteous Might or Enlarge Person.  Polymorph changes your form, which sets your size to the size of the form (whether that's the same, smaller, or larger).

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.  

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.

-The Souljourner


----------



## melkoriii (Oct 2, 2003)

The Souljourner, you got it.

Poly changes form.  If the new form has a 24 Str and your normal one has a 10 Str does your Belt of Ogre Str still work?


Yes because the Str is part of the new form not a magical effect.

Same with the Size change.

The Magical effect is takeing the new form, not the size change or the Stat change.


----------



## Corwin (Oct 2, 2003)

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.


----------



## Corwin (Oct 2, 2003)

melkoriii said:
			
		

> Poly changes form.  If the new form has a 24 Str and your normal one has a 10 Str does your Belt of Ogre Str still work?
> 
> Yes because the Str is part of the new form not a magical effect.




I briefly went over this in reply to Souljounrner while you were posting this. I'll rehash.

Of course the belt still works, it's an enancement bonus. The strength you get from the new form is not. They stack. This is a non-issue in regards to this debate, IMO. We aren't talking about stats. We are talking size change. Nothing more.



			
				melkoriii said:
			
		

> Same with the Size change.




Not even. As I said, two different things with two completely different rules mechanics.



			
				melkoriii said:
			
		

> The Magical effect is takeing the new form, not the size change or the Stat change.




Yet size is changing. Is this not obvious? You can't avoid the fact that your size indeed went up, right? Thus size changes. You got bigger _and_ different.


----------



## melkoriii (Oct 2, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> I briefly went over this in reply to Souljounrner while you were posting this. I'll rehash.
> 
> Of course the belt still works, it's an enancement bonus. The strength you get from the new form is not. They stack. This is a non-issue in regards to this debate, IMO. We aren't talking about stats. We are talking size change. Nothing more.
> 
> ...





So by your ruleing anyone that has the spell "Reincarnation" cast on them and the result changes their size makes them not afftected by any size change (other than teh one step) spells/effects.  Even Polymorph or Wildshape.

Nope 

I stand by Souljourner on this.


----------



## Corwin (Oct 2, 2003)

melkoriii said:
			
		

> So by your ruleing anyone that has the spell "Reincarnation" cast on them and the result changes their size makes them not afftected by any size change (other than teh one step) spells/effects.  Even Polymorph or Wildshape.




Oh come now, you can't be for real on this one? Can you? You're comparing _reincarnate_ to _polymorph_ now?

It's difficult to take you seriously on this, but here' goes...

_Reincarnate_ does not "alter" you. It is an instantaneous spell that brings you back to life in a new (natural, real -and in every way- non-magical) body. This is nothing like _polymorph_. Surely you see that?


----------



## melkoriii (Oct 2, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> Oh come now, you can't be for real on this one? Can you? You're comparing _reincarnate_ to _polymorph_ now?
> 
> It's difficult to take you seriously on this, but here' goes...
> 
> _Reincarnate_ does not "alter" you. It is an instantaneous spell that brings you back to life in a new (natural, real -and in every way- non-magical) body. This is nothing like _polymorph_. Surely you see that?




Is it a Magical Spell?  Yes
Does it change your Size?  Yes

Same examples you gave.


----------



## The Souljourner (Oct 2, 2003)

I think we're at the agree to disagree phase here.  In my opinion, altering shape and altering size are different.  In your mind they're not.  I think we can both see where the other one is coming from, even if we think he's completely crazy 

I'll admit it's not clear, and I'll also admit that it's perfectly possible that I'm wrong (but I doubt it ).

-The Souljourner


----------



## melkoriii (Oct 2, 2003)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> I think we're at the agree to disagree phase here.  In my opinion, altering shape and altering size are different.  In your mind they're not.  I think we can both see where the other one is coming from, even if we think he's completely crazy
> 
> I'll admit it's not clear, and I'll also admit that it's perfectly possible that I'm wrong (but I doubt it ).
> 
> -The Souljourner




Hey!

I just tying to make a point using his logic.


----------



## Corwin (Oct 3, 2003)

melkoriii said:
			
		

> Hey!
> 
> I just tying to make a point using his logic.




Actually, what you are doing is more akin to muddying the waters with straw men.

Seriously though, I don't think your example holds. Again, one is an instantaneous restoration of life. This is, in all ways, permanent and unchangeable and "non-magical" once done. Wildshape (and Poly) is a dispellable, temporary, magical alteration to your normal form. They are unrelated in every way.

Souljourner: I don't disagree that we should agree to be at the agree to disagree stage. 

As for who is "right" and who is "wrong": Even after the Sage makes a call, it is ultimately up to each individual group to decide how to play it in their game. I wouldn't hold either interpretation against them...

Though my way is _*obviously*_ better...


----------



## Corwin (Oct 3, 2003)

Having said that...

In the meantime, maybe we can tackle the issue of, assuming for a moment that the two spells stack, some of the imballance issues it creates?

How bad is the following scenario (thi is from my previous post):

A 9th-level Druid can become a Huge Dire Lion, Huge Polar Bear, Huge Dire Ape or Huge (Giant) Octopus.

Is this as broken as is seem on the surface? I'm inclined to think so.


----------



## Xavim (Oct 3, 2003)

According to the 3.5 SRD wildshape is a super natural ability, not a magical effect (and therefore not subject to anti-magic and cannot be dispelled).  And since two different sources giving the same benefit stack, the Druid is free to alter their size through their new spell.  
eg. inherent bonus + enhancement bonus.

I think the error in your reasoning is that you're still considering the Druids previous form.  When a Druid changes shape he assumes a new form, thus ceasing to be what he used to.  Thus, for all intensive purposes, he ceases to be a human Druid, and instead is a Dire Bear(or whatever) Druid.  Nothing is stopping you from animal growthing a bear right, well since the Driud BECOMES a bear and is now an animal, just as if he were born one.

I think I can safely say that this closes the deal.  Supernatural and magical stack.  End of story.

As for it being broken, the ANIMAL GROWTH can be dispelled and is negated by anti-magic.  What's the big deal?  No one's complaining about the untouchable prismatic sphere wizard defence.  Lets see any class other than an arcanist get through that.


----------



## melkoriii (Oct 3, 2003)

Wildshape is not dispellable from I can see in the SRD.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 3, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> Just so we can see what we are talking about in crunchy numbers...
> 
> A 9th-level Druid can become a Huge Dire Lion, Huge Polar Bear, Huge Dire Ape or Huge (Giant) Octopus.
> 
> ...




First of all you should be a little more careful with level/HD limits in your examples.

More importantly, I do not see, say, a Huge Dire Bear at 12th level to be all that impressive.  You should note that an 11th level Druid can summon a Dire Bear and Animal Growth it legitimately through more standard means.

Balancewise, I do not see why a _major class-defining ability_ cannot be as powerful as a high level spell for that character level.  If it involves the PC risking his HPs and wading into melee, that counts as a big downside more often than it would be an advantage.

Recall that a Dire Bear is CR 7.  An Animal Growthed Dire Bear is a weak CR 9 (to be generous).  The Druid becomes as dangerous as a CR 9 creature by buffing with a 5th level spell.  So what?


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 3, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> Having said that...
> 
> In the meantime, maybe we can tackle the issue of, assuming for a moment that the two spells stack, some of the imballance issues it creates?
> 
> ...




It's not broken at all. Imbalanced, maybe, but not broken.

By the way, "double-stacking" wildshape and animal growth isn't broken. Here's why:



			
				srd said:
			
		

> A druid can use this ability more times per day at 6th, 7th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level, as noted on Table: The Druid. In addition, she gains the ability to take the shape of a Large animal at 8th level




Note that the wildshape description does not take the druid's original shape or type into account.

An ogre (size Large) can, at 8th level, assume the shape of a Large animal. If this ogre druid has the Natural Spell feat he can then cast Animal Growth on himself, becoming a Huge animal.

In the same way: a halfling druid (size Medium) can, at 8th level, assume the shape of a Large animal. If this ogre druid has the Natural Spell feat he can then cast Animal Growth on himself, becoming a Huge animal.

Put another way: a druid shapechanged into an animal (size Large) is an animal (size large). "Large" is the size. If you grow this animal, it can grow to "Huge". If you try to grow it again then the magic fails because, as you say, growth magic can only be used once. 

Put yet another way: a Medium druid who shapechanges into a lion becomes a Lion. His type changes to animal and everything. He's a lion. Looking up "lion" in the monster manual, we see that it is a Large animal. Animal Growth increases an animal's size by one step. One step bigger than Large is Huge, so a lion with Animal Growth becomes Huge.

Put the last way: you see two creatures before you. One is a lion, the other is also a lion. Both have a type of Animal. Question: What happens if you cast Animal Growth on one, or the other, or both?  Answer: the animal grows. Irrelevant trivia: one of the lions is an 8th level Druid who has taken the Wild Shape of a Lion. Other irrelevant trivia: this Druid was originally a titan. 

Point is: Wild Shape is not size-increasing magic. It is a shape-changing ability. Big difference.

-z


----------



## Camarath (Oct 3, 2003)

Xavim said:
			
		

> According to the 3.5 SRD wildshape is a super natural ability, not a magical effect (and therefore not subject to anti-magic and cannot be dispelled).



 I believe Wildshape is subject to Antimagic.


			
				SRD Antimagic Field said:
			
		

> The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and *supernatural abilities*.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 3, 2003)

The Souljourner is correct here. Form changing and Size Increasing are not the same - and can "stack" all they want.

Wildshape does go away in an antimagic field - in 3rd edition it could be dispelled, in 3.5 it can't be. But it's still magical.

-Frank


----------



## Corwin (Oct 3, 2003)

Wow, it's amazing how this _was_ a pretty civilized discussion that wrapped up for the most part. Now a bunch of condescending (and some, wrong) people show up and try to "show me". Jeez. Lame.

I already stated I could very well be wrong but this is the way I read it. I still do. Others as well. How are you people changing that? Nothing you've added is new to the discussion that Souljourner hasn't already said. Post count inflation? 

Xavim: To claim SU effects aren't magical is laughable. And, yes, they are subject to antimagic. If your going to come in to a discussion to school someone, I advise you to first learn the curriculum. Especially when you toss around flagrant arrogance using statements like, "I think I can safely say that this closes the deal." Gaul.

Besides that, my point about dispellability was in relation to melkoriii's comparison of _reincarnate_ to _polymorph_. Last time I checked, those were both spells. 

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?

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? 

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.

---

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?


----------



## Dwarmaj (Oct 3, 2003)

Hmm, a druid can wildshape and become large, then cast Animal Growth to become huge and get +8 str, +4 con, 10/magic DR, and +4 to saves. And you think this is broken?

Take a look at a similar level cleric (12th level) who casts Divine Favor, Divine Power, and Righteous Might. He'll have the BAB of a fighter, +4luck bonus on attacks/damage, DR 10 evil or good, +14 Str, +4Con, +4 Natural Armor, and +12hp. With Persistent Spell feat, these buffs can be made to last all day long, something a druid can't do.


----------



## Corwin (Oct 3, 2003)

Dwarmaj said:
			
		

> Hmm, a druid can wildshape and become large, then cast Animal Growth to become huge and get +8 str, +4 con, 10/magic DR, and +4 to saves. And you think this is broken?
> 
> Take a look at a similar level cleric (12th level) who casts Divine Favor, Divine Power, and Righteous Might. He'll have the BAB of a fighter, +4luck bonus on attacks/damage, DR 10 evil or good, +14 Str, +4Con, +4 Natural Armor, and +12hp. With Persistent Spell feat, these buffs can be made to last all day long, something a druid can't do.




You are comparing a 9th level druid to a 12th level cleric? Ah. Hmmm. 

Seriously though, the druid can persistant his _animal growth_ too. And when his wildshape wears off, what happens?

According to current concensus around here, that means he retains the large size.

Also, you are misleading in your comparison. The druid is likely picking up far more than the cleric (ability score wise). Don't forget the druid is picking up the new form's substantial scores. I'm betting, for nearly every druid PC, that's way more than +14 Strength the cleric gets. Tons of Natural Armor, Con, etc. Plus, as a Huge creature, those trip and grapple check bonuses are seriously harsh. And the natural weapons of that form are increased do to the size increase, don't forget.

So that druid (who, don't forget, is 3 levels behind your uber-cleric) is getting far more than you present. Exceeding the cleric in many ways.


----------



## mikebr99 (Oct 3, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> The Souljourner is correct here. Form changing and Size Increasing are not the same - and can "stack" all they want.
> -Frank



I'll have to second this... 
You are wildshaping into an animal, it's size is specific to that animal you choose. You aren't aloud to change into a large sized Megaraptor at 8th. 

YMMV

Mike


----------



## Nail (Oct 3, 2003)

I, too, am persuaded by the SRD 3.5e that Wild Shape and _Animal Growth_ stack.  One is a change in form (and type!), and one is a change in a form's size.

However, I've not seen this in play yet.  The druid IMC is not quite capable of turning into a Huge Dire Ape.

Has anyone actually played this combo?  I don't mean: "My friend said when his friend's druid did it...."

EDIT: Incidentaly, this very same subject came up last week.  Looks like this will be a perennial question....


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 3, 2003)

> Has anyone actually played this combo?




Well... I'll start by saying that combat druids _are_ over-powered - but not because of Animal Growth. With the squeazing rules in effect - Huge Size seems to be a disadvantage as often as not, even outside.

Druids can do some horrible things with tripping/grappling/rending - and the current state of the form changing rules (and FAQ), where they can take unarmed strikes at their normal number of attacks and do as much damage as any natural weapon they aren't taking natural weapon attacks with and still take all of their remaining natural weapon attacks - Druids with Improved Unarmed Strike and Greater Magic Fang have more strength than barbarians, more attacks than Monks, and penetrate DR as well as Fighters.

It's pretty much all crazy. Animal Growth rarely enters into it - as Huge Size is usually not desirable (and takes an all-important combat round where you could be eating like three people) - but the combat Druid _is_ pretty over the top using the current mishmash of Form Changing/Unarmed Strike rules and rulings.

-Frank


----------



## The Souljourner (Oct 3, 2003)

8th level druid turning into a dire ape and animal growthing himself: Huge size, 15' reach, 30 Strength.

Two claws at +16 to hit, doing 1d8+10, and a bite at +11 to hit, doing 2d6+5.

Not ridiculous.  What is ridiculous is when this guy wields a huge Greatsword +2 and gets two attacks doing 4d6+15 at +18/+13

But as a DM, you have the option to not allow this, since huge greatswords aren't exactly going to be growing on trees.

Edit - this guy's grapple check would be +24, however, which is damnably high.

12th level Druid, turning into a dire bear and animal growthing himself: Huge size, 10' reach, 39 Strength.

Claw (x2) at +23 doing 2d6+14, Bite at +18 doing 4d6+7.

So... it really doesn't look that bad to me.

Edit - grapple check of +31.  Yeouch.  Throw in improved grapple and you're at +35.  Wow.

-The Souljourner


----------



## Corwin (Oct 3, 2003)

Yeah. Those numbers seem way too high to me.

BTW...



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> What is ridiculous is when this guy wields a huge Greatsword +2 and gets two attacks doing 4d6+15 at +18/+13




Keep in mind that he can be holding a normal sized greatsword before being _animal growth_ed and it will increase in size to accomodate. So, it is horrifyingly nasty. 



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> But as a DM, you have the option to not allow this, since huge greatswords aren't exactly going to be growing on trees.




As a druid, considering their need to use non-metal weapons, I'd imagine that their greatswords _*do*_ grow on trees.


----------



## DM2 (Oct 3, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> As a druid, considering their need to use non-metal weapons, I'd imagine that their greatswords _*do*_ grow on trees.




Not in 3.5, unless they do so for flavor reasons.  Druids can use any weapons, even metal greatswords (though they'd need a multiclass or a feat to avoid a -4 penalty)

DM2


----------



## Impeesa (Oct 3, 2003)

Wildshape doesn't give a 'bonus' to size (like Animal Growth does) any more than it gives a bonus to ability scores, or speed, or hairiness. The animal's ability scores replace your base ones, its form replaces your base one, etc. Your base size while wildshaped is that of the animal form, which can then be enhanced just like any other animal.

Of course, I see the balance issues here too - I'd be inclined to disallow it on an entirely different rationale, though: a druid (hopefully) has too high an intelligence to qualify as an animal, and instead becomes a magical beast. If you allow them to be animal type, then you open it up to them walking around with Nature's Favor and Nature's Avatar up. In Huge Legendary Bear form. 

--Impeesa--


----------



## Corwin (Oct 3, 2003)

DM2 said:
			
		

> Not in 3.5, unless they do so for flavor reasons.  Druids can use any weapons, even metal greatswords (though they'd need a multiclass or a feat to avoid a -4 penalty)




OMG! It was a joke. Jeez. Where are people's sense of humor?!


----------



## Corwin (Oct 3, 2003)

Impeesa:

I'm at a loss.

So, IYO it is technically legal, by the rules. But then, in the same post, you state you'd likely nerf it for balance reasons and pull an obviously non-rules based reason to do so?

Odd.


----------



## mikebr99 (Oct 3, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> OMG! It was a joke. Jeez. Where are people's sense of humor?!



Didn't you notice all your detractors wildshaping into Ruleslawyers to be able to use the improved resistance to sarcasm supernatural ability?


Mike


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 3, 2003)

> OMG! It was a joke. Jeez. Where are people's sense of humor?!




You've spent most of the thread articulating a rules position that is directly in conflict with the rules as written and the obvious intentions of the rules. So when you say something which is obviously at odds with the rules in this discussion peoples' natural assumption is not that you are attempting to be funny, but that you are again wrong.

-Frank


----------



## DM2 (Oct 3, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> OMG! It was a joke. Jeez. Where are people's sense of humor?!




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

DM2


----------



## two (Oct 3, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> You've spent most of the thread articulating a rules position that is directly in conflict with the rules as written and the obvious intentions of the rules. So when you say something which is obviously at odds with the rules in this discussion peoples' natural assumption is not that you are attempting to be funny, but that you are again wrong.
> 
> -Frank




Must you always be such a snippy little ass?


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 3, 2003)

> Must you always be such a snippy little ass?




As long as there are morons like you around - yes.

-Frank


----------



## two (Oct 3, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> As long as there are morons like you around - yes.
> 
> -Frank




Oh yeah?  oh YEAH?  OH YEAH?  

Well -- er... your... your MOMMA!!

[sticks out tongue]

neener neener neener.

Now I'm going back to my moronic studies.  Not meaning moron in the pejorative, mind you... there are plenty of upstanding morons in power positions.


----------



## Impeesa (Oct 3, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> Impeesa:
> 
> I'm at a loss.
> 
> ...




I'll be contradictory if I want to.  But really, I'm not... all I said was that your interpretation was (as far as I can see) incorrect, it is legal, but I share your opinion that it is quite unbalanced. I then proposed a fix that makes a bit more sense, and prevents druids from abusing all kinds of animal-only buffs, rather than just Animal Growth.

--Impeesa--


----------



## youspoonybard (Oct 3, 2003)

While the Splats and the like *CAN* be used in a 3.5 game, moderation is called for.

It's pretty apparent to me that the 3.5 Animal Growth was *meant* to be able to be cast on the Druid.  It's also pretty obvious that Nature's Avatar and Nature's Favor and the like were not supposed to be cast on the Druid, unless they are shapechanged.

Hmmm...Shapechange.  That kinda messes with my argument, doesn't it?

Realizing this, the developers of the spells in 3.0 must have realized that the spells could be cast on the Druid in question using Shapechange.  I have no problems with Nature's Avatar, as the Druid would get that the same level that she would normally get Shapechange.  Nature's Favor, however, can be gotten a lot sooner, and I am hesitant to grant that ability at a low level.

If I were DM, and my players told me that he was planning on using these spells (I don't allow stuff in other books unless the players run them by me first), I would actually allow Nature's Avatar, but not Nature's Favor.


----------



## Corwin (Oct 3, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> You've spent most of the thread articulating a rules position that is directly in conflict with the rules as written and the obvious intentions of the rules.




That's an arrogant statement. You don't know the "intent". I read it differently and am quite fluent in the rules, thankyouverymuch.

The only "direct conflict" seems to be stemming from your abrasive language.



			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> So when you say something which is obviously at odds with the rules in this discussion peoples' natural assumption is not that you are attempting to be funny, but that you are again wrong.




Ah, so a "winky" at the end of it meant nothing? I can't believe you missed the humor in that statement. Or did you just overlook the obvious nature of the humorous comment because you saw an opportunity to act like I'm unaware of the rules, giving you the chance to "educate" me, oh mighty one? Yeah, I need that. If it weren't for your presence, I'd have trouble figguring out which end of the book to open.    (P.S.> Yes, that was sarcasm, BTW...)


----------



## Nail (Oct 3, 2003)

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 (Oct 3, 2003)

DM2 said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 3, 2003)

Nail said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 3, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 3, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> And why *bold* me out like that?



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



			
				Corwin said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 3, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 3, 2003)

double post


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 3, 2003)

> 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 (Oct 3, 2003)

FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> 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."_




			
				FrankTrollman said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 3, 2003)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> "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.



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> 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".



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 3, 2003)

Corwin,

Putting asides the rules issues for the moment, on what basis do you believe that a 12th level Druid becoming a Huge Dire Bear is overpowered?

A normal Dire Bear does an average of 44 points damage if all attacks land.  An Animal Growthed Dire Bear does 56 points of damage. Plus there is Improved Grab.  Is that too powerful?  Looks okay to me.

IMHO, a DM could reasonably throw 3 or 4 such beasts at once as a warm up encounter of CR 12.


----------



## DM2 (Oct 4, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> 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...




Absolutely, and it was funny whether you thought they needed non-metal weapons, or were saying it for the joke.

So I picked up what I thought was a rules oversight in the first half of a joke...so sue me.

No harm meant, and joke enjoyed regardless.

DM2


----------



## Corwin (Oct 4, 2003)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Putting asides the rules issues for the moment, on what basis do you believe that a 12th level Druid becoming a Huge Dire Bear is overpowered?




Fair enough. 

Aside from the increased damage potential you cite (the least offensive bump, I agree), I think there are a great deal of other advantages. Trip, grapple, bull rushes, etc. are all extremely out of whack to me.

And don't forget, the druid himself is benefiting from the DR and save bonuses that, IMO, were intended for other animals (including his companion).




			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> IMHO, a DM could reasonably throw 3 or 4 such beasts at once as a warm up encounter of CR 12.




Ah, but CR does not an LA/ECL make. 

I could probably take the time to track down and/or calc it out if need be, but I'm betting the ECL of playing a Huge Dire Bear is *extremely* high.

Now, before certain people jump at my statement and claim I'm equating Wildshape/_animal growth_ to playing the creature full-time...

No, I'm not saying that. I'm responding to RC's comparison of playing one vs. fighting against one (or more). That is why I brought it up. Because a PC getting to be one is far different than pitting one against a group of PCs as an encounter.


----------



## Corwin (Oct 4, 2003)

DM2 said:
			
		

> No harm meant, and joke enjoyed regardless.




No sweat. Sometimes the written format leaves much to be desired when translating humor or emotion. 

Thanks for the compliment on the joke.


----------



## The Souljourner (Oct 4, 2003)

Looks like a 12th level druid in huge dire bear form does 63 per round if everything hits (2d6+14 x 2 + 4d6+7 = 3 attacks that do 21 damage each).  These are with +23/+23/+18 to hit with no other bonuses (magic fang etc).  

A 12th level fighter wielding a +3 greatsword with 22 strength (16 +2 increases +4 item) and greater weapon specialization will be doing 2d6 +16 three times for a total of 69 damage at +23/+18/+13.

That's actually fairly close, damage and to-hit wise, but the fighter loses out somewhat, since one of his attacks is at -10 to hit from the bear's equivalent attack.

Now.. this is using a spell which only lasts a minute a level, so it's not like this is something the druid just slaps on in the morning.  It's a 5th level buff spell, which means it should be pretty kick-ass.

So... take that as you will.

-The Souljourner


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 4, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> Aside from the increased damage potential you cite (the least offensive bump, I agree), I think there are a great deal of other advantages. Trip, grapple, bull rushes, etc. are all extremely out of whack to me.
> 
> And don't forget, the druid himself is benefiting from the DR and save bonuses that, IMO, were intended for other animals (including his companion).




Grapple looks pretty potent but I am skeptical that alone is sufficient to make it overpowered.  The damage, Bull Rush, and Trips are yawners IMHO.

The DR is very useful if the Druid is fighting mooks.  Real  threats will "always" have a way of of bypassing that DR.



> Ah, but CR does not an LA/ECL make.




I won't pounce on you.  I believe we both recognize that there are huge differences between fighting a monster and building a PC out of that race.

I mentioned the CRs because it is evidence of the scale of power at 12th level.  We should expect that a 12th level PC or a CR 12 threat will be able to eat an Animal Growthed Dire Bear for breakfast (while acknowledging the fact that _some_ PC builds or monsters would be hosed because of the rock-scissors-paper nature of the game).

As I see it, the druid AGDB himself is not likely to have many other abilities with strong synergies with his enhanced form.  Maybe I am wrong.  

He can cast some spells.  He might have a feat or two for combat.  Keep in mind that the druid's AC is probably lowered, and he is in the Power Attack danger zone.  So letting him buff up with a few spells seems okay.

The only worrisome detail is the extreme Grappling.  But the "merely" Large wildshaped druid is already a vastly superior grappler to any medium-sized opponent he is likely to meet at ~12th level.  Is being Huge such an amazing benefit that it should be disallowed?  

Is the DR such a big deal?

I am honestly not seeing the 'great deal of other advantages', as you put it.  Advantages, yes.  Great deal?  I do not think so.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 4, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> 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
> ...




If you don't want to bother to use correct terminology that's your choice. The fact that other people use improper terminology doesn't make that terminology correct.

Overpowered = overpowered
Broken = broken
Nerfed = weakened.

If you can comprehend the difference between "unbalanced" and "broken" then you should be able to comprehend the importance of making a distinction between the two.



> We are discussing the rules.




No... I've seen a lot of emotionally-charged opinions from you but precious few rules quotes. And I haven't seen you refute the rules quotes that have been presented to you, other than your exclamations of "Oh yeah? Well... despite these rules, I'm correct and you're a big meanie for disagreeing with me!!!1!!1 <smiley> <wink> <rolleyes>."

You're not discussing rules. Right now all you're doing is fussing.



> 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".




No, the difference between you and I is that I'm letting the SRD and published rules do the talking for me. My words aren't official, but the words from the SRD sure are.



> 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.




Just trying to help. I honestly think you'll get a warmer reception in house rules. If you want to legitimately debate rules then please quote some 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?




I don't make the rules; I just try to help folks understand them. If the Sage disagrees with me then I'll point that out. If the FAQ or errata disagrees then I'll stop arguing the point. I won't delete anything because what's said is said. 

I don't understand why you're getting so emotional and defensive. Please quit with the sarcasm and cite some rules. Or go to the houserules forum and argue balance issues.

-z


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 4, 2003)

frank said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				Corwin said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...




Frank told you that "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." 

You replied with a quoted rule about Animal Growth. Er... Animal Growth isn't a form change. 

Wipe that smug smile off your face Corwin. Your quote is not relevant.

-z


----------



## Corwin (Oct 4, 2003)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> If you don't want to bother to use correct terminology that's your choice. The fact that other people use improper terminology doesn't make that terminology correct.




Hehe. I'm sure you could start a poll on the meanings if they are so near and dear to your heart. Perhaps you'd even learn something. Unless being wrong would destroy that impressive ego of yours...



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> No... I've seen a lot of emotionally-charged opinions from you but precious few rules quotes. And I haven't seen you refute the rules quotes that have been presented to you, other than your exclamations of "Oh yeah? Well... despite these rules, I'm correct and you're a big meanie for disagreeing with me!!!1!!1 <smiley> <wink> <rolleyes>."




Hey pot... this is kettle...

I find it interesting that you are seeing "emotionally charged" in my posts. You seem to know a lot about my state of mind.  (Uh, oh, there's another emoticon - there I go getting all emotionally charged again...)

Despite your repeated claims, I've cites plenty of rules to support my possition. As have several others. But don't let that stop you. It's not like you'd want to bother going back to the first page and checking them out or anything. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you are too lazy to do it yourself.



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> You're not discussing rules. Right now all you're doing is fussing.




Ah. And what is it you're doing right now, exactly?



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> No, the difference between you and I is that I'm letting the SRD and published rules do the talking for me. My words aren't official, but the words from the SRD sure are.




I assume you are talking about the same SRD I've been quoting...



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Just trying to help.




Yeah. Trying to help. I'm _sure_ that's your motivation for all the emotionally charged statements you're making.



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> If you want to legitimately debate rules then please quote some rules.




Done it. It's a few pages back. I'm sure you can find the right buttons on your browser to get there. I've posted all the rules I need to support my statements.



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I don't understand why you're getting so emotional and defensive. Please quit with the sarcasm and cite some rules. Or go to the houserules forum and argue balance issues.




And I would ask you to actually contribute something to this debate or move on. You've added nothing to it since your arrival. You just parrot other peoples' opinions sprinkled with passive-aggresive comments designed to rile my feathers. I'm sure your all giddy at the thought of them working.



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Frank told you that "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."
> 
> You replied with a quoted rule about Animal Growth. Er... Animal Growth isn't a form change.




Then why did Frank post a correction in the first place? Huh? Obviously it was irrelevant to my comments then.

I specifically said that if a druid (who wildshaped into a dire ape and is weilding a greatsword) is animal growthed, themn the sword increases in size.

He proceeded to correct me (as if I were wrong). I responded, citing rules (darn, there I go quoting those rules again...) 



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Wipe that smug smile off your face Corwin. Your quote is not relevant.




I'm sorry, but _who's_ being irrelevant again?  

Oh, and "smug"? That's irronic, since I was just using that very same word to describe you to a friend of mine.


----------



## Caliban (Oct 4, 2003)

Power_Munchkin said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that wildshape is NOT a "magical effect that increase size"?
> 
> In other words, a polymorphed cleric casting righteous might on him/herself becomes huge?
> 
> ...



One gives you an "Enlargement bonus" to size, the other does not.

Wildshape effectively gives you an "unnamed" bonus to size, which would stack with anything, even the size increase from Animal growth.

Wildshape would count as a size increasing magic if it specifically stated that it increased your size.  It does not, it merely tells you what your new size will be, regardless of your old size. 

If you counted it as size increasing/decreasing magic, you would get inconsistent applications,  such as a Medium druid wildshaping into a Medium animal and being a legal target for Reduce Animal (because his size hasn't changed),  while a Large druid who wildshapes into a Medium animal isn't legal target for Reduce animal, because he has already decreased his size category.   Likewise, as Small druid who wildshapes into a Medium animal would not be able to use Animal Growth, while a Medium Druid could.


----------



## Xavim (Oct 5, 2003)

Corwin said:
			
		

> Wow, it's amazing how this _was_ a pretty civilized discussion that wrapped up for the most part. Now a bunch of condescending (and some, wrong) people show up and try to "show me". Jeez. Lame.
> 
> I already stated I could very well be wrong but this is the way I read it. I still do. Others as well. How are you people changing that? Nothing you've added is new to the discussion that Souljourner hasn't already said. Post count inflation?
> 
> ...




Learn the curriculum?  I read the spell before I posted and I strongly suggest you go take a look at the SRD.  Nowhere in the spell ANTI-Magic field does it ever say that it negates supernatural abilities.  It says spells and magical effects, whereas in 3.0 it was explicitly clear that anti-magic cancels supernatural effects.  I took this to heart that we were discussing 3.5 here, but if we aren't, then you are right that supernatural abilities are negated.  Otherwise you are ignoring the rules that were written up to allow this sort of thing.

Supernatural abilities are not magical because they cannot be dispelled nor are they effect by anti-magic and thus, stack with magic.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 5, 2003)

Xavim - that's wrong.

While the spell Anti-magic field is unclear on this point - the general description for Supernatural Abilities is not.

This is all part of 3.5's attempt to make you look things up in a bunch of places every time you want any piece of information.

If you look at the description of the three ability types, you will notice the following:



> Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and _dispel magic_. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an _antimagic field_).




It's clear - it's just not where you would normally be expected to look for such information.

-Frank


----------



## Xavim (Oct 6, 2003)

Well boy is my face red!  

Guess I'm just used to the whole if a spell doesn't say it does something then it doesn't thing.  Thanks for the heads up.

But then to attack this from another angle.  
You are saying that the magical effect of the Wildshape counts as increasing the character's size.  Thus Animal Growth doesn't work.  Following this logic, the wildshaped Druid would thereby become immune to any magical effect that alters his size.  Thus he is immune to further polymorphing, say by an enemy wizard unless that polymorphing makes him smaller.  Thus a wizard trying to save himself from being devoured would find that he is unable to turn this large bear into say a huge shark to leave him floundering on the ground suffocating and being crushed by his own weight.  Since 2 magical effects that change size do not stack.  The same would go for his animal growthed companions.

Or even better, a fighter with enlarge person cast on him becomes immune to polymorph in the same way since no magic that changes his size can effect him.  If we allow the polymorphs to work, then Animal Growth must aswell.


----------



## Camarath (Oct 6, 2003)

Xavim said:
			
		

> Learn the curriculum?  I read the spell before I posted and I strongly suggest you go take a look at the SRD.  Nowhere in the spell ANTI-Magic field does it ever say that it negates supernatural abilities.  It says spells and magical effects, whereas in 3.0 it was explicitly clear that anti-magic cancels supernatural effects.  I took this to heart that we were discussing 3.5 here, but if we aren't, then you are right that supernatural abilities are negated.  Otherwise you are ignoring the rules that were written up to allow this sort of thing.





			
				First Paragraph Second Sentence under Antimagic Field 3.5 PHB Page 200 (and in SRD) said:
			
		

> The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and *supernatural abilities*.



 This sentence seemed rather clear to me.


----------



## Xavim (Oct 6, 2003)

Camarath said:
			
		

> This sentence seemed rather clear to me.




Holy crap what the hell was I on!!  I owe you an apology.  Sorry about that!   happens I guess.  I still feel that they should stack due to the often mentioned form altering point though.

and here I thought I'd worked it out... sigh...


----------



## Dreeble (Oct 6, 2003)

Heya:

 Possibly irrelevant: If one believes that wildshaping to a larger form and animal growth don't stack, then how about wildshaping to a larger form and then doing so again?  Would that "stack"?  For example, a halfling druid wildshapes to a medium-sized form.  A few rounds later he wants to wildshape to a large-sized form.  Can he?

 [Note: My vote is obviously yes.  Just trying to add a potentially clarifying point.]

Take care,
Dreeble


----------



## Oni (Oct 6, 2003)

Xavim said:
			
		

> According to the 3.5 SRD wildshape is a super natural ability, not a magical effect (and therefore not subject to anti-magic and cannot be dispelled).  And since two different sources giving the same benefit stack, the Druid is free to alter their size through their new spell.
> eg. inherent bonus + enhancement bonus.





Just want to point out while dispel magic cannot affect a supernatural ability, Anti-magic field specifically list that it stops supernatural abilities from working.


----------



## Xavim (Oct 7, 2003)

Oni said:
			
		

> Just want to point out while dispel magic cannot affect a supernatural ability, Anti-magic field specifically list that it stops supernatural abilities from working.




Umm yeah, I was corrected a few posts ago.  Little slow on the draw there Oni.


----------



## Power_Munchkin (Oct 7, 2003)

*hm*

Wow, this thread is still around.

I'm unclear on this whole "sets your size, abilities, whatever" argument.

Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack. Let's examine that statement.

1. Magical.

Wildshape is magical because it doesn't work where magic doesn't function.

2. Increase size.

What does that mean? Is your current form bigger than your previous form? If yes, then your size has increased. How is this not an increase in size?

So we now have a "magical increase" in size.

3. For something to "stack" both effects have to be present at the same time. Otherwise you have nothing to stack.

The argument is whether or not animal growth makes a druid wildshaped into a large animal even bigger. Both effects must be working at the same time for this to become an issue.

The reincarnation argument doesn't hold. While the reincarnate spell certainly could increase the size of the creature though magical means, the end effect is NOT magical (the new body functions in the antimagic field just fine). Does that mean that animal-growthed dead druids can not be reincarnated into a larger form? No, because a dead creature reverts to it's normal shape, as per the polymorph spell.

The druid does not get an enlargement bonus to size, but to his abilities.

As far as huge druids being broken, well, the grappling bonuses ARE hideous. The reason I started the thread was because I was min-maxing two super grappler concepts, one a cleric and the other a druid.

The 12th level cleric comes out (barely) on top against a whildeshaped druid, all things being equal, only if he's got 7 hospitailer levels and gloves of fearsome grip (imp. grapple, str 14 or 16, belt +6, and righteous might vs imp. grapple, animal growth, bull's str., and wildshape) If the druid is huge, he beats the cleric without any overpowered splat material.

A 12th level druid with improved grapple, wildshaped into a dire bear, and animal growthed to huge size would have a grapple bonus of +35. That's enough to outwrestle a pit fiend 50% of the time.

Grapple. Pin. Ready an action to beat the snot out of your victim if you suspect he/she/it could cast spells. The rest of the party can deal with little guys, or just pounce on whatever it is you're pinning.


----------



## Caliban (Oct 7, 2003)

Power_Munchkin said:
			
		

> Wow, this thread is still around.
> 
> I'm unclear on this whole "sets your size, abilities, whatever" argument.
> 
> Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack. Let's examine that statement.



[/b]

You mean "Let's restate my original arguement all over again and ignore everything everyone else has said."

Sure, go ahead. 

*



			1. Magical.

Wildshape is magical because it doesn't work where magic doesn't function.
		
Click to expand...


*I don't think anyone is argueing this. 

*



			2. Increase size.

What does that mean? Is your current form bigger than your previous form? If yes, then your size has increased. How is this not an increase in size?

So we now have a "magical increase" in size.
		
Click to expand...


*Bzzz... Wrong. 

You can have two different spells give a similar effect without being identical. 

Wildshape is a shape altering magic, not size altering magic.  The change in size is a side effect, not the purpose of the spell. 


*



			3. For something to "stack" both effects have to be present at the same time. Otherwise you have nothing to stack.
		
Click to expand...


*And they have to be different types  of bonuses to stack. 

Wildshape and Animal Growth can achieve the same general effect, but they do it through different ways.  Thus, they would stack. 

Just like the strength bonus from Bull Strength stacks with the strength bonus from Enlarge Person, and the strength bonus from Divine Power stacks with the strength bonus from Righteous Might.   

Wildshape is not a "Size Altering Effect".   It changes you into a creature that happens to be a certain size.   If you kept the same shape but increased in size, then it would be size altering magic. 

But since you obviously aren't going to listen to anything anyone here says, please e-mail the Sage or Andy Collins, or whatever official source that you will listen to (except WOTC Customer service, they don't count).


----------



## mikebr99 (Oct 7, 2003)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Wildshape is a shape altering magic, not size altering magic.  The change in size is a side effect, not the purpose of the spell.
> <snip>
> Wildshape and Animal Growth can achieve the same general effect, but they do it through different ways.  Thus, they would stack.
> 
> ...



ok... I'll recant, and just say - again - that I agree with this interpretation, as stated differently other times within this thread.

Mike


----------



## melkoriii (Oct 7, 2003)

Well to me this just proves that they do stack.

I mean just look at the thread.  5-8 ppl saying the same thing over and over and the thread keeps getting bigger


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 7, 2003)

Let's keep the snarkiness out of the thread.  Thanks.


----------



## mikebr99 (Oct 7, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Let's keep the snarkiness out of the thread.  Thanks.



noted... and removed. 


Mike


----------



## Power_Munchkin (Oct 8, 2003)

*hm*



> Bzzz... Wrong.
> 
> You can have two different spells give a similar effect without being identical.



And what does this have to do with this discussion? I'm not arguing that wildshape and animal growth are identical. They're clearly not.

That said, animal growth has a "size increases through magic do not stack" clause that in my opinion prohibits increasing druid's size further.


> Wildshape is a shape altering magic, not size altering magic. The change in size is a side effect, not the purpose of the spell.



How does this matter?

It's a very simple binary question - is it magical - yes. Does it increase size - yes. Then the two won't stack.

The "purpose" of the spell is whatever the user wants it to do. One wizard could use fireball to blow up creatures, while another one could use it to burn dry leaves cluttering his yard.

The "effect" of animal growth is to increase size. The "effect" of wildshape is to change into an animal. When the animal is size large, it conflicts with animal growth "no stacking" clause and the animal stays large.

Nothing prevents a medium-sized druid from wildshaping into a medium-sized dog and then animal growing himself to a large-sized dog.


> Wildshape and Animal Growth can achieve the same general effect, but they do it through different ways. Thus, they would stack.



If a spell says that the target is imbued with strength of a bull while another spell says target is consumed with strength-boosting rage, the two spells won't stack if they provide the same bonuses, even though they achieve said bonuses in completely different ways (one is transmutation while the other is mind-affecting for example).

Wildshape does not provide a named bonus to size. Animal growth does not provide a bonus to size. In fact, they don't mention any bonuses to size at all. Does sprited charge stack with a critical hit? There is nothing to stack - the two multiply things, they don't provide bonuses.


> Just like the strength bonus from Bull Strength stacks with the strength bonus from Enlarge Person, and the strength bonus from Divine Power stacks with the strength bonus from Righteous Might.



Again - what does this have to do with anything? Neither wildshape, nor animal growth provide bonuses to size of any kind.


> Wildshape is not a "Size Altering Effect".



Has your sized chaged? If yes, then it's is a size altering effect. It doesn't get any more basic than this.

You argue that this is a "side effect" of becoming a different-sized creature. So what? It could be a side, top, or down effect, but your size has *increased magically* and that's what matters. In my opinion size change is the primary effect because it helps grappling which is what I intend to use it for.


> It changes you into a creature that happens to be a certain size. If you kept the same shape but increased in size, then it would be size altering magic.



Why does shape matter?

I'm not talking about size altering magic in terms of flavor. I'm talking about size altering magic in terms of rules. If a creature is one size and then through the use of a continuous magic effect becomes another (whether it grows while retaining the same shape, changing into another creature, or simply inhaling a whole lot of air and bouncing around like a beach ball), it chages size.

That said, I hope you're right. Hey, if designers think that huge druids with improved grab and +35 grappling modifiers at 12th level are balanced, I won't complain. I intend to play one.


----------



## FrankTrollman (Oct 8, 2003)

OK, a size *increasing* magic makes you bigger. That's all of you - your hair is bigger, your hands are bigger - and most importantly _your equipment is bigger_.

Shape altering magic doesn't do that.

So when you turn into a bear - your equipment doesn't resize or reshape to bear proportions. It either sits on you or melds into your new form. When you magically grow - your sword gets bigger along with you.

You can turn into whatever you want with transformation spells - repeatedly if need be. But you can only have your whole self with clothes and all grow _once_.

That's the difference. So when you _magically_ go into a new form with Reincarnation you can follow that up with a Wildshape or an Enlarge Person - or whatever. But you can't follow up Giant Size with Enlarge Person.

It's not any more complicated than that.

-Frank


----------



## Camarath (Oct 8, 2003)

Power_Munchkin said:
			
		

> Has your sized chaged? If yes, then it's is a size altering effect. It doesn't get any more basic than this.



 Actualy I view this issue the same as the question "what kind of stat bonus does polymorph give?". To which I believe the answer is that it does not give a bonus it replaces your base ability scores for the duration of the spell. This applied to size alteration means that when polymorphed your base size is the size of the creature you polymorphed into. This makes your orginal size before being polymorphed irrelevant for the duration of the polymorph spell.


----------



## The Souljourner (Oct 8, 2003)

Power_Munchkin, you're just wrong, I'm sorry.  Frank gave a good example of the difference between size altering magic and shape altering magic as it pertains to your equipment.

The rule about size altering magics not stacking was intended to prevent things like righteous might and enlarge person from making you and your equipment huge.  This seems clear to everyone but you.

I am done with this thread.  There are only two very basic arguments in here, and they have been repeated ad nauseum.

-The Souljourner


----------

