|
Since there are also adjustments made for changing into forms the same size as the caster (if we're assuming a medium size caster, Beast Shape I adjusts the strength modifier), each spell could just be reworded to reflect how the caster's size changes. I'm not sure how that would affect the "game balance" for gnome or halfling casters, but an example could be:
(excerpted from Alpha, with modifications)
Beast Shape I
Description
When you cast this spell you can assume the form of
any creature of the animal type of similar size or one size category smaller. If the form you assume has any of the following abilities you gain the listed ability: climb 30 feet, fly 30 feet (average maneuverability), swim 30 feet, darkvision 60 feet, lowlight vision, and scent.
Smaller animal: If the form you take is of an animal one size category smaller, you gain a +2 enhancement bonus to your Dexterity and a +1 natural armor bonus.
Same-size animal: If the form you take is that of an animal of the same size, you gain a +2 enhancement bonus to your Strength and a +2 natural armor bonus.
This would prevent weird-logic problems like the red wyrm example, or for that matter a Tiny fey increasing to Small size and receiving Dex modifications.
I'm not seeing the problem. I think that the spells are representing the intrinsic qualities of the animals rather than the size of them, but perhaps that is just me.
And under the current rules scheme a Great Wyrm Red Dragon who casts Beast Shape 2 could become a Tiny animal, like a Rat, and still have 43 strength.
"The door cracks from the impact, and other blow shatters it revealing the horror that has been pursuing for the last then minutes... a tiny little white mouse."
The Shape spells are a very different take on polymorphing. They are more like enhancements spell, bull strength etc., that grant flat increases.
"The door cracks from the impact, and other blow shatters it revealing the horror that has been pursuing for the last then minutes... a tiny little white rabbit."
Fixed that for you
I know no one listens to me on the issue anymore, but I've said it over and over. I think this system just makes a different "set" of problematic issues in flavor/power/loopholes rather than fixing all the old polymorph sub-school problems.
I've tried to read each forum that relates to these issues from the spell threads to druid threads and I can't think of one post from Jason or anyone about this, which makes me think they're sticking with it as a lesser of two evils sort of thing. This system may not be "better" all around but it's rules are easier to navigate overall. So it looks like we're stuck with it. (Not that it's not super-easy to GM fiat 3.x polymorph into a campaign, so I'm not worried about this anymore. I like everything else so much that I can just ignore what I don't personally like...and that's how it should be.)
I'm still hesitant to desire many of these polymorph spells, because straight casters are largely incapable of being of a threat in a fight using them, relegating them to subterfuge/utility. This was why I want the monomorph spells included (such as trollshape) alongside spells similar to beast shape but with even less book diving (just pick off a list and turn into whatever you damn want).
I'm still hesitant to desire many of these polymorph spells, because straight casters are largely incapable of being of a threat in a fight using them, relegating them to subterfuge/utility. This was why I want the monomorph spells included (such as trollshape) alongside spells similar to beast shape but with even less book diving (just pick off a list and turn into whatever you damn want).
I would tend to agree with you here. I mean, just make a list for levels of polymorph that all sort of balance each other for each level of spell. No one seems to complain that every monster isn't on the summon monster/nature's ally lists...and when they do, all you need is to run it by your DM with enough time for them to consider your addition/replacement.