I have a 15th-level summoner whose eidolon has focused a great deal on its tail attack. Due to its huge size, Improved Natural Attack feat, and Improved Damage evolution, it's tail attack normally deals 4d6 base damage.
However, when trying to determine what the damage would become when I cast Enlarge Person on the eidolon, I am suddenly at a loss, as the natural weapon damage table (or even the manufactured weapon table) doesn't go that high.
So, what does 4d6 damage become at the next step?
I have a 15th-level summoner whose eidolon has focused a great deal on its tail attack. Due to its huge size, Improved Natural Attack feat, and Improved Damage evolution, it's tail attack normally deals 4d6 base damage.
However, when trying to determine what the damage would become when I cast Enlarge Person on the eidolon, I am suddenly at a loss, as the natural weapon damage table (or even the manufactured weapon table) doesn't go that high.
So, what does 4d6 damage become at the next step?
I think 4d6 is max. It makes sense to have a cap so things dont get out of hand. I have not seen it(yet), but I am sure there is a way to keep stacking the size increases so that if you dont stop at 4d6 it gets ridiculous.
I have a 15th-level summoner whose eidolon has focused a great deal on its tail attack. Due to its huge size, Improved Natural Attack feat, and Improved Damage evolution, it's tail attack normally deals 4d6 base damage.
However, when trying to determine what the damage would become when I cast Enlarge Person on the eidolon, I am suddenly at a loss, as the natural weapon damage table (or even the manufactured weapon table) doesn't go that high.
So, what does 4d6 damage become at the next step?
Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe that the eidolon can be targeted by Enlarge Person, as it has a target of one humanoid and the eidolon is an outsider I believe.
Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe that the eidolon can be targeted by Enlarge Person, as it has a target of one humanoid and the eidolon is an outsider I believe.I have a 15th-level summoner whose eidolon has focused a great deal on its tail attack. Due to its huge size, Improved Natural Attack feat, and Improved Damage evolution, it's tail attack normally deals 4d6 base damage.
However, when trying to determine what the damage would become when I cast Enlarge Person on the eidolon, I am suddenly at a loss, as the natural weapon damage table (or even the manufactured weapon table) doesn't go that high.
So, what does 4d6 damage become at the next step?
The share spell ability allows the eidolon to be affected if the spell is cast by the summoner.
The share spell ability allows the eidolon to be affected if the spell is cast by the summoner.Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe that the eidolon can be targeted by Enlarge Person, as it has a target of one humanoid and the eidolon is an outsider I believe.I have a 15th-level summoner whose eidolon has focused a great deal on its tail attack. Due to its huge size, Improved Natural Attack feat, and Improved Damage evolution, it's tail attack normally deals 4d6 base damage.
However, when trying to determine what the damage would become when I cast Enlarge Person on the eidolon, I am suddenly at a loss, as the natural weapon damage table (or even the manufactured weapon table) doesn't go that high.
So, what does 4d6 damage become at the next step?
Woop, completely overlooked that...
Here, this might help: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/improved-natural-attack
Here, this might help: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/improved-natural-attack
So according to Improved Natural Attack, the damage would become 6d6. That means 18d6 base damage with his Improved Vital Strike feat. Youch!
Now, what about reach? Enlarge Person says the target's reach increases from 5 to 10 feet for becoming large, but my eidolon already has a 10-foot reach (15 with lunge or with tail slap, or 20 with both). Does that mean his reach should double to 20 feet (25 with lunge or tail, 30 with both)?
The increase in reach is 5', no matter which size categories are involved (as long as they begin at medium or larger).
The increase in reach is 5', no matter which size categories are involved (as long as they begin at medium or larger).
Are you referring to lunge or enlarge person?
If it is the latter, than I don't see anything that supports that interpretation.
Here, this might help: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/improved-natural-attackSo according to Improved Natural Attack, the damage would become 6d6. That means 18d6 base damage with his Improved Vital Strike feat. Youch!
Now, what about reach? Enlarge Person says the target's reach increases from 5 to 10 feet for becoming large, but my eidolon already has a 10-foot reach (15 with lunge or with tail slap, or 20 with both). Does that mean his reach should double to 20 feet (25 with lunge or tail, 30 with both)?
If the Eidolon is huge the reach should be 15 feat depending on the attack.
Is it Huge(tall)=15 foot reach or Huge(long)=10 foot reach?
Tall normally refers to bipals like giants. Long refers to quadrapeds that are shaped like lions or bears.
Enlarge person would make it one size category larger which I think is gargantuan. Long=15 Tall=20 <--these numbers refer to reach.
If the Eidolon is huge the reach should be 15 feat depending on the attack.
Is it Huge(tall)=15 foot reach or Huge(long)=10 foot reach?
Tall normally refers to bipals like giants. Long refers to quadrapeds that are shaped like lions or bears.Enlarge person would make it one size category larger which I think is gargantuan. Long=15 Tall=20 <--these numbers refer to reach.
That's what I thought too. Due its serpentine nature, my eidolon would have 10 foot base reach prior to being enlarged then.
The version of the APG play test we have doesn't list Share Spells as an ability the Summoner gets. If that's the case then this isn't an issue. 6d6 does sound like the correct answer though.
|
The version of the APG play test we have doesn't list Share Spells as an ability the Summoner gets. If that's the case then this isn't an issue. 6d6 does sound like the correct answer though.
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.
its not under the summoners abilities , its under the eidolon's abilities
I am also making a gargantuan build eidolon(ridden by a reduced person gnome).
What stats do you change when you up your eidolon from huge to gargantuan? Are you adding a more significant Str increase/Dex decrease?
|
How do you handle summoning your eidolon in hallways and smaller areas when you have made him huge? Are you just taking the squeeze penalties, or is there a way around those? Just curious. I was thinking about this build but it seems to be limited by the size of the area you are playing in at the time.
What stats do you change when you up your eidolon from huge to gargantuan? Are you adding a more significant Str increase/Dex decrease?
Huge -> Gargantuan: +8 Str, same Dex, +4 Con, +4 Natural Armor
also, Table: Size Bonuses and Penalties:
Huge -> Gargantuan: -2 AC/Attack, +2 CMB/CMD, -2 Fly, -4 Stealth
2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 6d6 -> 8d6 -> 12d6
if you cast enlarge person on your eidolon you get exactly what the spell gives you it doesnt matter what size change is happening. so +2 str etc.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
The version of the APG play test we have doesn't list Share Spells as an ability the Summoner gets. If that's the case then this isn't an issue. 6d6 does sound like the correct answer though.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.
its not under the summoners abilities , its under the eidolon's abilities
Hate to bring this up, and feel free to point me to the correction if I am wrong, but shared spell cannot be used with Enlarge Person. Enlarge person has a target of "Target one humanoid creature" and not "Target you" like something like shield. This breaks the first line of "Share Spells".
Hate to bring this up, and feel free to point me to the correction if I am wrong, but shared spell cannot be used with Enlarge Person. Enlarge person has a target of "Target one humanoid creature" and not "Target you" like something like shield. This breaks the first line of "Share Spells".
Note that these are different paragraphs. Share Spell has two effects:
- Spells with a target of "you" can be cast on the eidolon.- The eidolon can be affected by spells that don't allow it's creature type.
Hate to bring this up, and feel free to point me to the correction if I am wrong, but shared spell cannot be used with Enlarge Person. Enlarge person has a target of "Target one humanoid creature" and not "Target you" like something like shield. This breaks the first line of "Share Spells".
Note that these are different paragraphs. Share Spell has two effects:
- Spells with a target of "you" can be cast on the eidolon.
- The eidolon can be affected by spells that don't allow it's creature type.
Actually it is the same paragraph, just another sentence, by the letter it seems to me that Happler has got it right and enlarge person can't be cast on the Eidolon.
|
|
Hate to bring this up, and feel free to point me to the correction if I am wrong, but shared spell cannot be used with Enlarge Person. Enlarge person has a target of "Target one humanoid creature" and not "Target you" like something like shield. This breaks the first line of "Share Spells".
Note that these are different paragraphs. Share Spell has two effects:
- Spells with a target of "you" can be cast on the eidolon.
- The eidolon can be affected by spells that don't allow it's creature type.
but they are not different paragraphs.:
From the PRD for Summoners:
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.
From the PRD for Druids:
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). Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion. This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.
It does not break them down to separate bonuses from the Shares spells, but as a description to the 1 bonus that you get from shared spells. Do you allow Druids and Wizards to also cast spells without a target of "you" on their pets when they would normally not effect pets of that type (animal and magical beast respectively)?
Hate to bring this up, and feel free to point me to the correction if I am wrong, but shared spell cannot be used with Enlarge Person. Enlarge person has a target of "Target one humanoid creature" and not "Target you" like something like shield. This breaks the first line of "Share Spells".
Shared spells appears to be two abilities.
-The (class) can cast spells from the (class) spell list on the (pet) even when the target is "you"
-The (class) can cast spells from the (class) spell list on the (pet) even when the (pet) is the wrong type for the spell.
|
|
I have a 15th-level summoner whose eidolon has focused a great deal on its tail attack. Due to its huge size, Improved Natural Attack feat, and Improved Damage evolution, it's tail attack normally deals 4d6 base damage.
However, when trying to determine what the damage would become when I cast Enlarge Person on the eidolon, I am suddenly at a loss, as the natural weapon damage table (or even the manufactured weapon table) doesn't go that high.
So, what does 4d6 damage become at the next step?
I very well could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Improved Natural Attack and the Improved Damage evolution do not stack.
Actually it is the same paragraph, just another sentence, by the letter it seems to me that Happler has got it right and enlarge person can't be cast on the Eidolon.
Hate to bring this up, and feel free to point me to the correction if I am wrong, but shared spell cannot be used with Enlarge Person. Enlarge person has a target of "Target one humanoid creature" and not "Target you" like something like shield. This breaks the first line of "Share Spells".
Note that these are different paragraphs. Share Spell has two effects:
- Spells with a target of "you" can be cast on the eidolon.
- The eidolon can be affected by spells that don't allow it's creature type.
Sorry, English isn't my main language and I blame the fever. Sentence is the word I meant. They aren't dependent on each other, anyways. There's been a fair amount of discussion about this and while I don't know if a dev has chimed in, the general consensus is that RAW they work. The number of spells that doesn't affect outsiders but have a target of "you" are simply so small that the ability wouldn't make sense otherwise. Right of the bat I can't think of a single one.
Sorry, English isn't my main language and I blame the fever. Sentence is the word I meant. They aren't dependent on each other, anyways. There's been a fair amount of discussion about this and while I don't know if a dev has chimed in, the general consensus is that RAW they work. The number of spells that doesn't affect outsiders but have a target of "you" are simply so small that the ability wouldn't make sense otherwise. Right of the bat I can't think of a single one.Actually it is the same paragraph, just another sentence, by the letter it seems to me that Happler has got it right and enlarge person can't be cast on the Eidolon.
Hate to bring this up, and feel free to point me to the correction if I am wrong, but shared spell cannot be used with Enlarge Person. Enlarge person has a target of "Target one humanoid creature" and not "Target you" like something like shield. This breaks the first line of "Share Spells".
Note that these are different paragraphs. Share Spell has two effects:
- Spells with a target of "you" can be cast on the eidolon.
- The eidolon can be affected by spells that don't allow it's creature type.
I can't either, though I admit I didn't look either, it is likely that it was intended to work for the eidolon either way thus it got included in the spell list. The ability description should be rewritten with a fresh view rather than stitching together bits and pieces of the 3.5 description.
As per my reading I'd say it isn't possible, but I think in the spirit of the game it was intended to work.
Since you can cast Enlarge Person on others it doesn't qualify as a target of 'You', therefore it does not qualify as a spell that can be cast on the Eidolon through the Share Spells ability.
By itself the spell can't be cast on the Eidolon either since it is of the Outsider type.
As a note, if your character was a non-humanoid race you also couldn't cast this spell on yourself.
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
The thing is, as the ability is written, if taken literally, DOES allow enlarge person. They are different sentences and does not require each other gramatically.
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.
Note that it isn't written like this:
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; when doing so, the 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.
Or in any other way that's unambigous.
I can see a strong case for not allowing it because they are in the same ability and abilities USUALLY have only one effect or clearly state that they have several, but if taken literally, the sentences aren't dependent on each other.
So, I could go either way on this, if it wasn't for the case that by your interpretations, the last sentence would be superflous, as there are no such spells AFAIK. You don't put in a sentence that doesn't do anything. Yes, it is theoretically possible that they've written the ability if there should ever be such a spell, but that would be a unique case. You don't write abilities that doesn't do anything.
Stringburka's in the right on this one.
|
|
The thing is, as the ability is written, if taken literally, DOES allow enlarge person. They are different sentences and does not require each other gramatically.
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.Note that it isn't written like this:
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; when doing so, the 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.Or in any other way that's unambigous.
I can see a strong case for not allowing it because they are in the same ability and abilities USUALLY have only one effect or clearly state that they have several, but if taken literally, the sentences aren't dependent on each other.
So, I could go either way on this, if it wasn't for the case that by your interpretations, the last sentence would be superflous, as there are no such spells AFAIK. You don't put in a sentence that doesn't do anything. Yes, it is theoretically possible that they've written the ability if there should ever be such a spell, but that would be a unique case. You don't write abilities that doesn't do anything.
The last sentence is because it was pulled directly from the druid's share spell animal companion ability. This just keeps the druid from using "Share spells" to allow his animal companion to change shape with him when he uses wild shape (a supernatural ability that works just like the spell beast shape or elemental shape). Since they did pull it straight from the druid, do you allow it to work the same for the druid also?
Personally, the only time that I can see this as an issue with the summoner is the enlarge person spell, and stuff like the above melee damage. I don't see it as too much of a balance issue, but to me it strikes as not in the intention of the ability (RAI).
The thing is, as the ability is written, if taken literally, DOES allow enlarge person. They are different sentences and does not require each other gramatically.
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.Note that it isn't written like this:
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; when doing so, the 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.Or in any other way that's unambigous.
I can see a strong case for not allowing it because they are in the same ability and abilities USUALLY have only one effect or clearly state that they have several, but if taken literally, the sentences aren't dependent on each other.
So, I could go either way on this, if it wasn't for the case that by your interpretations, the last sentence would be superflous, as there are no such spells AFAIK. You don't put in a sentence that doesn't do anything. Yes, it is theoretically possible that they've written the ability if there should ever be such a spell, but that would be a unique case. You don't write abilities that doesn't do anything.
Actually that last line is to prevent sharing of SLA's. If the summoner took minor spell expertise (shield) then the summoner would not be to cast shield on the eidolon using that ability.
You shouldn't stare too long at the exact ability description since it is a copied and pasted, slighlty adjusted Share Spell ability as used by multiple classes, infact there might not be a spell (yet) that uses every aspect of the ability.
As a side note even the developers get confused at times, and it is hard to tell wether how the Share Spell ability is meant to be used is the same way as it was expected to be used by the summoner.
In other words the enlarge person ability might be meant to be used on the eidolon and the share spell ability might not have been meant to be used like that.
It seems to me the paragraph is describing a single ability, to which all the mentioned abilities and restrictions apply.
At the very least I can call the ability described vaguely enough to hit the FAQ button...
If any part of the paragraph is false, the spell cannot take place. This is always the best way to test abilities that have exceptions.
Enlarge Person
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.
False
A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider).
True
Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list.
True
This ability does not allow the eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.
True
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
If any part of the paragraph is false, the spell cannot take place. This is always the best way to test abilities that have exceptions.
I disagree with you statement of the general rule.
That rule would be true if the ability was a list wherein each element was required...but that is clearly not the case.
The use of the permissive "may" does not usually signify a list of mutual requirements, but usually a list of options...i.e. you may go to the store or you may stay home. If anything lists of may are usually exclusive of each other rather than requiring each other.
"May" is used in the first two abilities. By comparison "must" and "does not allow" look like absolute requirements.
Usually rules are construed such that differences in word choice imply a difference in meaning.
Additionally, given the rarity (I haven't seen one) of spells that are target You and only affect a certain type, it would be odd to read it that way.
|
|
If any part of the paragraph is false, the spell cannot take place. This is always the best way to test abilities that have exceptions.
I disagree with you statement of the general rule.
That rule would be true if the ability was a list wherein each element was required...but that is clearly not the case.
The use of the permissive "may" does not usually signify a list of mutual requirements, but usually a list of options...i.e. you may go to the store or you may stay home. If anything lists of may are usually exclusive of each other rather than requiring each other.
"May" is used in the first two abilities. By comparison "must" and "does not allow" look like absolute requirements.
Usually rules are construed such that differences in word choice imply a difference in meaning.
Additionally, given the rarity (I haven't seen one) of spells that are target You and only affect a certain type, it would be odd to read it that way.
"May", may also mean that the summoner is not forced to share all spells with his eidolon. If you change it to something else, it changes everything:
Must:
The summoner must cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself.
Great, now the summoner cannot cast any spell with the target of "you" on himself.
should:
The summoner should cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself.
So, now they are suggesting how you should play your class
can:
The summoner can cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself.
works out pretty the same was as may.
Original:
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.
instead, you have the option of casting these spells on your eidolon.
Reading it your way also makes this Barbarian rage power different:
Roused Anger (Ex): The barbarian may enter a rage even if fatigued. While raging after using this ability, the barbarian is immune to the fatigued condition. Once this rage ends, the barbarian is exhausted for 10 minutes per round spent raging.
So, would a barbarian ever not use this? It keeps ray of exhaustion and touch of fatigue from turning off rage, especially since he does not need to be fatigued before they activate this kind of rage.
I agree that it can be read in that way. I find it bad form to list a series of options and a series of conditions in the same paragraph. But I'm good either way. Eventually they'll stop writing in paragraphs and use bullet lists which are much easier for rule descriptions.
|
So, would a barbarian ever not use this? It keeps ray of exhaustion and touch of fatigue from turning off rage, especially since he does not need to be fatigued before they activate this kind of rage.
Because being exhausted SUCKS.
What is wrong with the barbarian being able to gain a class ability that prevents a cantrip or a third level spell (that trashes him on a successful save) from totally nerfing a major class ability of the barbarian?
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.
False
Ta-ta-ta. The summoner may cast enlarge person targeting himself (because you may touch yourself).
The ability does not say: "The summoner may cast a spell with a range of personal on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself." Therefore any spell that the summoner casts from his spell list can target himself may be cast upon the eidolon with a range of touch (probably why summoner can't cast AMF).
If any part of the paragraph is false, the spell cannot take place. This is always the best way to test abilities that have exceptions.
-... no, its not. Its a completely nonsensical standard. Different sentences are different for a reason.
A well formed description separates the ability's functions from the ability's exceptions into two separate paragraphs. Combining them both into one paragraph is poor design not a reflection of testing an ability's functionality. Which is why I advocated for a bullet system, since designers continually cram both functions into single paragraphs creating mixed messages.
But that's not an important item of this thread's discussion. I apologize for distracting the discussion of the tread.
Continue onward