Mayren's page

Squirrelloid wrote:

Well ultimately I want size changes to be reversible - that is, if you polymorph twice (Ogre -> rabbit -> Ogre), you end up back where you started before factoring in any 'bonus' stat pumps. (ie, changes from size are perfectly reversible by more changes in size). Otherwise you end up with a difference engine where you either gain power by polymorphing into something else and then back into yourself, or you lose power by doing so - neither of which should occur.

It so happens the SRD/MM defines this as a non-linear function, and this is what the game uses elsewhere. Unless we're going to change that everywhere, we should use it. Basically, all size changing should use the same table because that defines how scaling works in D+D. We can change the table, but then we need to change it for all scaling.

Frankly, the table should probably be included with the spell description for ease of reference. And players should record stats for common forms they assume anyway so they don't have to do math on the fly too often.

It is reversible. When the polymorph effect ends, you do not calculate back to tour original form, you just drop the temporary scores (poof!) and use your original ones. If you want to polymorph from one new form to a third form, you don't shift to the third based on the second one, only the original.

I'll try to clarify. All polymorphed forms are based off of your original form, never each other. "That way really would lie madness."

A medium that turns into a large figures for one size up, +8 str. Then turning into a tiny, he figures for two sizes down, -8 str (based off of medium), NOT three -12 str (based off of large).

It doesn't slide up and down, it resets from the original.

-Jack

I can see and agree that all polymorphed forms are definately based
off the original form. To me there is nothing else it could be
based on. However I think the numeric values are a little askew.

Medium to Large = +8 str and it is only one size mod up
medium to tiny = -8 str and it is 2 size mods down

I think the numerics need better values to represent the mods.
But that is simple to do as I see fit for my game.

-Mayren

Mayren wrote:

Why is this chart being referenced all over the place for the size mods of a PC's size mod?

Here's the wording for the Polymorph subschool:

"If a polymorph spell is cast by a creature that is smaller
than Small or larger than Medium, first adjust its ability
scores to one of these two sizes before applying the bonuses
granted by the polymorph spell."

That's pretty vague, but the only way of adjusting ability scores for size that I can think of is table 12-8. I'm open to other interpretations, though.

Ahhh now this table 12-8 referrals make more sense.

I too would like the mods to be interchangeable and reverseable.
such that if a small went to a large it would have the same bonuses
as if a large went down to small but in the negative.
If small to large were (for example only) +4 to str then in my mind
going from Large to small should be -4 to str.
At least that's how I'm going to work out a table for my group
a'la houserules. I like simplicity i guess.

If you'd like it, I can e-mail it. Just to warn you, there are some tweaks that may be necessary after some playtesting, but it is mostly solid. It includes the standard races and most of the MM races... If you can provide your e-mail I'll send it right over.

Sorry to bug but i'd love a copy too.

Mayren13@gmail.com

Thanks a bunch *hifive for the awesome sharing*

I seem to be missing something on a grand scale.

Everyone seems to be referencing to chart 12-8 on page
125 in Alpha release 3 as being Pathfinder's new size chart.

However it looks like everyone is taking the chart completely
out of context. Chart 12-8 is specifically for creating
new monsters. It is not for use of any polymorph or wildshape
use. Each ability specifically refers to the proper spell
to use which gives the exact size mods.
I grant you that some stat increases seem strange but
specifically using this chart of 12-8 and arguing about it
seems silly. I mean what am I missing?
Why is this chart being referenced all over the place for the size mods of a PC's size mod?

It seems reasonable to allow someone to enchant their staff, regardless of the feat prerequisites. After all, they are assumed to have the feats already.

As well, that means that choosing an Arcane Bond is useless until 3rd level, minimum, which is ridiculous. And those who choose staves have to wait until 8th? Seems unfair.

However, my main concern is the unlimited ability of a wizard to enchant something. So let's take a 3rd level wizard, right? He's probably got 1,000 gp squirreled away of his estimated 2,700 gp. That means he can enchant an item for 1,000 gp in materials to get something of 4,000 gp in value -- a little high for 3rd level, don't you think? I'm still a strong advocate for putting a gp cap on bonded items ... I'd recommend 2,000 gp.

Otherwise, a 10th level wizard (who is already pretty powerful) who should have 49,000 gp could take 10,000 gp of that wealth, and give themselves a 40,000 gp item, for a total wealth of 89,000 gp. That's a bit much for a class that already excels at higher levels.

Firstly - I have to agree that the feat prereqs are neither here nor there. The Arcane bond specifically states that the Wizard can enchant the bonded object as if they had the needed feat.

Your main concern about the unlimited ability of a wizard to enchant something seems to be missing something important.

The whole value of the thing that you are hung up on is sort of moot.
I mean an arcane bonded item is completely useless to anyone but the wizard who created it. That is why the item cannot be sold as an enchanted item.
PLUS the limit is that the Wizard still has to be able to CAST the
spell that is being used to enchant the bonded item.
I mean - honestly if you are a GM- don't you have the ability to
limit what Spellbooks or scrolls or whatever that the Wizard comes
across in the game?? Even if the spell being used to enchant is a free type "school power" there are still limits to what the Wizard has access to.

I think alot of people are getting way off course on the arcane bond.
I mean it's not like it's all powerful. Very Cool but not as omnipotent as everyone seems to be making it out to be. The DM just needs to have
a small amount of control over their world and how it works.

Here's a question.
I'm about to finally start my own Pathfinder quest and
my player who will be a wizard thinks arcane bond is broken.

My question...
At first level does a Wizard start with a masterwork object
automatically for free since the arcane bond demands that only
masterwork items can be bonded?

Sure for roleplaying sake the player can write in that an object
of masterworked quality was given or inheirited but it's still
up to the DM to approve.

How can I approve a free masterworked object (be it amulet or
sword) for a Wizard who could not usually afford it at 1st level,
yet the other players are struggling with regular basic weapons or items?

I can't find anything on the forums to say if the first bonded item is sortof given for free or not.

-----------
Also - If you have enchanted a bonded object over the levels
and say you are now a 10th level wizard and poof your object
is lost or destroyed.... Does that mean that when you now
spend 200gp per level to recreate a bonded object it now
does NOT have the same enchantments the old one used to have?

I say this because my player seems to think that the bonded
item should be created exactly as the old one was...
I think the outline of the bonded object implies that
the Wizard can recreate the bonded object but then will
have to spend the extra gp etc to re-enchant the item
again if they so wish it.
Otherwise you'd never be able to swap out the enchantments
or types of objects that are bonded if you wanted to.

Right?
Help here?