BalthCat's page

I posted in 2012 to a thread (two threads back) because all I wanted to know is if this would pulp your witch's familiar's brainmeats.

Things

Things

I understand the confusion, as my response was a little ambiguous. My larger post above shows that I believe it would be unreasonable for the Witch to have to have Scribe Scroll to teach it to her familiar, and that teaching the spell to the familiar is analogous to learning from another familiar.

The spell that you cannot share (as in "Share Spells") is Blood Transcription.

The person to whom I was replying was the one to refer to "skip writing it down" which is not actually a requirement for witches at any point. That step arises from misinterpreting this spell as requiring a witch also have Scribe Scroll, so the spell cannot then solve its own misinterpretation...

My response was to show that it does not skip the transcription/teaching part (for Wizard or Witch) though I bolded the part more appropriate for a wizard, because of the confusion.

(Edited)

You can't share the spell with the familiar (to my knowledge), as it's not a Target: You. The target is the corpse.

You can't skip the BS of writing it down, as the text specifically says: "During this time, you may write it down (or teach it to your familiar, if you are a witch) using the normal rules for copying a spell from another source.

Whoops, I'd always read the spell as putting the caster into the transcription process after full comprehension. I see now it's pretty clear that it still considers the knowledge given to be "another source" from your personalized sources (book, familiar).

I think the best interpretation is that for both wizards and witches, the "other source" is the caster's knowledge, and it is copied as if from another "personalized source". A wizard "reads" the knowledge like another spellbook, whereas the witch's familiar communes with the witch to access the knowledge.

Why? (Includes critiques of your suggestion in no particular order.)

* I see no reason for the process to be more complicated for a witch. Generally, the requirements to "learn" a spell are similar for a witch and a wizard, with the cost of transcription being the major difference that I see. (And it being always present, it is presumably factored in elsewhere?)
* If the scroll method was the required method for a witch, it would not be necessary to teach the familiar within the 24 hours as the wording implies. As the ONLY option would be to scribe a scroll, after which teaching your familiar is completely at your leisure, the text would not benefit from mentioning the familiar except in this context.
* The witch and familiar already share a psychic bond. I cannot think of a reason that this psychic bond could not be analogous or even superior to familiar-to-familiar communion.
* Familiar text wording frequently refers to "adding" spells to a witch's familiar. While wording also frequently refers to "teaching" or a familiar "learning", I believe that in truth a familiar is (at least when it comes to spells) functionally intended to be a vessel, like a spellbook, rather than a sentient entity which understands and safeguards comprehension for you. It stores the spells but you understand them. I believe therein lies indication that a familiar simply learning the spell once would be insufficient.
* The range of the spell is touch. In order to share a touch spell with a familiar, you must have touched yourself, whereas this spell's target is the corpse (or the blood).
* Even If the spell is shared with the familiar it would, if nothing else, need to commune with itself to store the spell. Otherwise the balance would be against wizards, and the extra complication of transcription would only be upon them.

Has anyone come across a definitive answer to this question?

I have always interpreted the spell as being indescriminate, though I see the switch from Area to Target mentioned above, and so I wonder if the developers intended to make it more useful. Unfortunately, I still see it as being indescriminate, but I hope that Pathfinder was intending to change that.

I was actually googling today to see if it would kill a Witch's familiar. Which would be a little dumb, but maybe it wasn't considered.

I'll flag this for FAQ too.

Edit: Changing my excessive use of the word change @_@

I have no idea what I was thinking at the time.

Edit: That's the downside to my habit of poking at my characters at 4am.

In case someone finds this thread, which seems unanswered... there's this thread: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz38dd?Bestiary-2-Silvanshee

Short version: It's intended to be a CR 2 on par with the Imp.