Share Spells (Ex): The summoner may cast a spell
with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with
a range of touch) instead of on himself. A summoner
may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells
normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type
(outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the
summoner spell list. This ability does not allow the
eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if
they function like spells.Meaning Enlarge person now works on this creature, increasing it's size by 1 catagory. So you can increase a large to huge and a huge to gargantuan. Now let me introduce you to Fluffy, he's a level 8 Summoner's Eidolon.
Fluffy - The Lost Four Armed Sasquatch
** spoiler omitted **
As you can see, fluffy uses a Falchion, by level 8, he can increase to the huge size and be doing 3d6 + 9 damage, that's without other buffs, such as Bull's Str or magical weapons adding to the damage done. Throw in haste, fire shield and stone skin...and well, fluffy might take things the wrong way if you say anything bad about him. He'd have a 15 foot reach. With his Awesome blow, he'll be making other people fall on their back before him. His AC is already 30 at level 8, and he hasn't even gotten a magical shield or magical armor.
Things will get even...
Fluffy is however stopped by a 5ft wide passageway, and cannot fight in any sanely sized room.
But besides that, enlarge person doesnt fall under this rule. The target of enlarge person is not you, its one humanoid creature. There are spells that have target 'you' but enlarge person is not one of them.
|
Share Spells (Ex): The summoner may cast a spell
with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with
a range of touch) instead of on himself. A summoner
may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells
normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type
(outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the
summoner spell list. This ability does not allow the
eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if
they function like spells.Meaning Enlarge person now works on this creature, increasing it's size by 1 catagory. So you can increase a large to huge and a huge to gargantuan. Now let me introduce you to Fluffy, he's a level 8 Summoner's Eidolon.
Fluffy - The Lost Four Armed Sasquatch
** spoiler omitted **
As you can see, fluffy uses a Falchion, by level 8, he can increase to the huge size and be doing 3d6 + 9 damage, that's without other buffs, such as Bull's Str or magical weapons adding to the damage done. Throw in haste, fire shield and stone skin...and well, fluffy might take things the wrong way if you say anything bad about him. He'd have a 15 foot reach. With his Awesome blow, he'll be making other people fall on their back before him. His AC is already 30 at level 8, and he hasn't even gotten a magical shield or magical armor.
Things will get even...
Fluffy is however stopped by a 5ft wide passageway, and cannot fight in any sanely sized room.
But besides that, enlarge person doesnt fall under this rule. The target of enlarge person is not you, its one humanoid creature. There are spells that have target 'you' but enlarge person is not one of them.
The two sentences are not necessarily related.
The summoner may cast a spell
with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with
a range of touch) instead of on himself.
A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells
normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type
(outsider).
It is unclear whether the second sentence is specifically related to the first or if it is unrelated and simply stating a new ability.
The two sentences are not necessarily related.
The summoner may cast a spell
with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with
a range of touch) instead of on himself.A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells
normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type
(outsider).It is unclear whether the second sentence is specifically related to the first or if it is unrelated and simply stating a new ability.
Interesting, I hadn't read it that way. I would rule the way I originally read it but I am less certain at the moment, this is definately worth clarifying.
Reread it, the sentence that applies to this, isNotice that it isn't dependent on the previous sentence at all and is in of itself a whole and complete sentence.A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells
normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type
(outsider).
Agreed that Enlarge Person can be shared, which makes me question why Summoner even has share spell. What can a summoner cast with share spell that they couldn't cast normally?
Shield, they have enough AC
Expetious Retreat, good spell, haste will come later, but good spell
Reduce/Enlarge Person, asks to be abused
Alter Self, *sigh*
Fire Shield, good spell, wouldn't mind seeing this as an evolution ability
Dimension Door, Teleport, Greater Teleport, send away eidolon and stay where you are, not really necessary
Ethereal Jaunt, annoying
Spell Turning, good spell
Just think it'd be nice to get Eidolon away from the typical familiar stereo-typed abilities. He's not a familiar, he's not a part of you, and a class that's spell list is a large majority buffs for others, the ability to cast a few self only buff spells on the eidolon is unnecessary.
I could be wrong, but I always thought that the whole point of "Share Spells" is just and only to allow spells that can only be cast by the caster on himself to be castable on his companion/familiar/etc.
"Ignore normal rules for valid targets" seems like it would be a separate class feature, given that you don't need "Share Spells" to cast those spells on a given target.
|
Although this is a neat idea, alas it is not legal. As it is stated in the share spells description-
Share Spells (Ex): The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself.
And Enlarge Person has a target of "one humanoid creature" so even though you are a humanoid, it is not "you"; so it is not shareable.
Although this is a neat idea, alas it is not legal. As it is stated in the share spells description-
Share Spells (Ex): The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself.
And Enlarge Person has a target of "one humanoid creature" so even though you are a humanoid, it is not "you"; so it is not shareable.
See above I saw the same thing, but if you look its not clear that the two sentances are linked.
|
|
See above I saw the same thing, but if you look its not clear that the two sentances are linked.
They are linked.
How do I know that the two sentences are related? Simple, they follow one another under the heading of "share spells". The second sentence is not under a new ability, so it is referencing the spellcasting brought up in the previous sentence. If you read it as a separate entity, you are simply taking it out of context.Okay, let me explain another way.
The second sentence is there to allow shared spells that would normally not affect the eidolon based on his type (outsider). So, if Enlarge Person was a "target: you" spell, it could affect the eidolon even though it is an outsider. BUT since it is not a "target: you" spell, it is not eligible for shared spell status in the first place.
See above I saw the same thing, but if you look its not clear that the two sentances are linked.
They are linked.
How do I know that the two sentences are related? Simple, they follow one another under the heading of "share spells". The second sentence is not under a new ability, so it is referencing the spellcasting brought up in the previous sentence. If you read it as a separate entity, you are simply taking it out of context.Okay, let me explain another way.
The second sentence is there to allow shared spells that would normally not affect the eidolon based on his type (outsider). So, if Enlarge Person was a "target: you" spell, it could affect the eidolon even though it is an outsider. BUT since it is not a "target: you" spell, it is not eligible for shared spell status in the first place.
That is my interpretation too, but given others disagree even after i pointed that out, its is unclear in the way that it is said. Multiple interpretations is the definition of vague, this is a vague description.
Multiple interpretations is the definition of vague, this is a vague description.
Almost anything written or spoken can have more than one interpretation, especially when you're dealing with items that exist solely in the mind of the reader. The rule as you interpreted it the first time should be the proper interpretation, intentional misinterpretation, either by exclusion or by simple pigheadedness, causes plenty of rules disparities with any game.
The more I think about it, the more I agree that "the two sentences are separate" is the grammatically correct interpretation. I'm still unsure as to the intent, because allowing spells to ignore target restrictions is a huge benefit.
I could be wrong, but I always thought that the whole point of "Share Spells" is just and only to allow spells that can only be cast by the caster on himself to be castable on his companion/familiar/etc.
"Ignore normal rules for valid targets" seems like it would be a separate class feature, given that you don't need "Share Spells" to cast those spells on a given target.
Are there any spells with a target of "You" which are also restricted by type? I can't think of any.
In 3.5, I always interpreted this as meaning that a wizard could cast Enlarge Person on his familiar (say).
Share Spells (Ex): The summoner may cast a spell
with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with
a range of touch) instead of on himself. A summoner
may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells
normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type
(outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the
summoner spell list. This ability does not allow the
eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if
they function like spells.
The question i find myself asking on this, are there ANY spells that have a target of "YOU" that are dependent on your creature type? I can't find any which leads me to believe it gives you two different abilities in one. the ability to cast self only spells on it, and the ability to cast spells on it which could not normally effect an outsider. If it is not meant to be such, the second sentence would be superfluous as there are no spells which have a target of "YOU" which require you to be of a specific creature type.
The question i find myself asking on this, are there ANY spells that have a target of "YOU" that are dependent on your creature type? I can't find any which leads me to believe it gives you two different abilities in one. the ability to cast self only spells on it, and the ability to cast spells on it which could not normally effect an outsider. If it is not meant to be such, the second sentence would be superfluous as there are no spells which have a target of "YOU" which require you to be of a specific creature type.Share Spells (Ex): The summoner may cast a spell
with a target of “You” on his eidolon (as a spell with
a range of touch) instead of on himself. A summoner
may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells
normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type
(outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the
summoner spell list. This ability does not allow the
eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if
they function like spells.
The only thing i can think of in this case is the possibility of some being added in the APG i dont think there are any that feature both criteria.
The more I think about it, the more I agree that "the two sentences are separate" is the grammatically correct interpretation. I'm still unsure as to the intent, because allowing spells to ignore target restrictions is a huge benefit.This is exactly the same as the wording on Share Spells for familiars and animal companions.
Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal).
I think the simple answer is that if the spell works on familiars and animal companions, it should work on an eidolon.
I have always assumed that Share Spell ability applied solely to spells with 'you' as the target. But if anyone can find a different answer for familiars and animal companions, I would consider that a reasonably definitive answer for eidolons as well.
It is useful to see where this came from.
Share Spells
At the master’s option, he may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) he casts on himself also affect his familiar. The familiar must be within 5 feet at the time of casting to receive the benefit.
If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the familiar if it moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the familiar again even if it returns to the master before the duration expires. Additionally, the master may cast a spell with a target of "You" on his familiar (as a touch range spell) instead of on himself.
A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast).
we see that the Share Spells definition had two pieces. The first said that spells could be shared, then when the wizard cast the spell on himself, it could also apply to his familiar. It also said that spells with a target of 'You' could be cast on your familiar instead of the wizard (i.e. not shared). It then added the clarification that in either of these cases the spells could be used even if they would not normally apply to a target of that type. So in that world, if the Wizard cast Enlarge Person on himself, he could choose to Enlarge his familiar as well. Or he could cast a spell on his familiar with target 'you' even if that normally required the target to be a humanoid. But only spells with target 'you' could be cast on his familiar through the Share Spells ability.
Pathfinder removed the first aspect of Share Spells, leaving only the second one. I think given this historical context, the sentence in question makes more sense if it applies only to spells with target 'you'.
|
I personally dont like the changes to shared spells in Pathfinder but I can see the reasons behind it with killer animal companion builds.
Having said that the wording as its presented in the core rules is ambiguous simply because its just a cut down version of the old.
However, what people are trying to do is read the sentences individually as if they were a list of abilities instead of reading them as one single ability. The sentences should be linked as they fall within the same abilities paragraph.
Shared Spells in Pathfinder is intended to allow the caster to apply personal (target "You") spells to his companion/familiar instead of himself and ignore the type requirements of those spells in the process. The split wording makes no sense in the context of the Share Spells ability.
Another issue is the change from any spell (in 3.5) to target "You" spells in pathfinder. I always liked the idea that the pet class could buff himself and his companion in the same round and with the same spell. given the limited spell lists it seemed balanced to me. What made it unbalanced was that it could be ANY spell. This is an issue where I think Pathfinder went too far on the nerfing (or accidentally over-nerfed the ability through poor wording). I can see no problem (balance wise) with limiting a Shield spell to share spells but having it affect both the caster and his companion at the same time.
However, what people are trying to do is read the sentences individually as if they were a list of abilities instead of reading them as one single ability. The sentences should be linked as they fall within the same abilities paragraph.
For what it is worth, I agree with you.
However, that requires that the writer(s)/editor(s) of the passage used the same rules/guidelines when the passage was written and edited.And since writing isn't a science (and many things I learned about writing no longer hold true) we can't make that assumption to rule for everyone.