Is there ANY way to stack size increase in Pathfinder?

[BlueWitch]

Are there any?

I want to use it with Form of the Dragon III just to be clear.

It's really more for show, but still.

[CactusAir]

Are there any?

I want to use it with Form of the Dragon III just to be clear.

It's really more for show, but still.

I wasn't aware that there was a general rule against size increases stacking in PF?

As long as the effect doesn't specify non-stacking it should stack.

If psionics is allowed, Expansion?

[Dummy]

I think enlarge person works.

The concensus (A DM is free to rule otherwise) is that a creature type doesn't change once polymorphed unless said otherwise.

So if you use Dragon Form III to become a Huge dragon then you could be made Gargantuan with an Enlarge Person spell, since you are still a humanoid. (If you are a Native Outsider, a Fairy or a Plant... Sorry...)

Note however that Dragon Form turns you into a Dragon of an specific size, regardless of your original size, so using Enlarge Person on yourself and then using Form of Dragon doesn't work.

[Biggus]

I wasn't aware that there was a general rule against size increases stacking in PF?

As long as the effect doesn't specify non-stacking it should stack.

If psionics is allowed, Expansion?

Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.

https://pathfinder.d20srd.org/coreRu...enlarge-person

It does say magical, so if you can find a non-magical means that might work.

[Kurald Galain]

I wasn't aware that there was a general rule against size increases stacking in PF?

There is. The PF rule is that you can have one "real" size increase (such as Polymorph or Enlarge Person) and one "virtual" size increase (such as the Shillelagh spell or an Impact weapon).

[Darg]

There is. The PF rule is that you can have one "real" size increase (such as Polymorph or Enlarge Person) and one "virtual" size increase (such as the Shillelagh spell or an Impact weapon).

It's only a rule insomuch as players use the online FAQ errata. It's not really directly mentioned in the core rules outside of enlarge person, or other specific sources, and enlarge person is not a general rule itself.

[Arutema]

It's only a rule insomuch as players use the online FAQ errata. It's not really directly mentioned in the core rules outside of enlarge person, or other specific sources, and enlarge person is not a general rule itself.

Pathfinder FAQs should be treated the same as errata if you ask Paizo staff, so no sane Pathfinder GM will let you stack size increases in a way inconsistent with the FAQ.

[Biggus]

enlarge person is not a general rule itself

It doesn't say "you can't stack this spell with other size increases" though, it says "multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack". That's a general rule. It might be a funny place to put it, but that's something PF inherited from 3.5: there are rules in all sorts of places you wouldn't think to look for them.

[Darg]

It doesn't say "you can't stack this spell with other size increases" though, it says "multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack". That's a general rule. It might be a funny place to put it, but that's something PF inherited from 3.5: there are rules in all sorts of places you wouldn't think to look for them.

A spell description is not a general rule. The not stacking magical size increases rule is a case of specific exclusion. In core, it's made a common rule by providing the stacking exclusion in every source of magical size increasing effect that that doesn't run afoul of the One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant rule. In practice it is a general rule, but would not be one if there existed spells without the exclusion. For example, the psionic power Expansion doesn't all of a sudden make non-magical sources of size increases such as the goliath barbarian substitution level ability Mountain Rage not work with Enlarge Person.

Pathfinder FAQs should be treated the same as errata if you ask Paizo staff, so no sane Pathfinder GM will let you stack size increases in a way inconsistent with the FAQ.

So ignorance is equivalent to insanity. What is intended is not always the outcome.