The Carry Companion Spell from Knights of the Inner Sea, a clarification

[lastblacknight]

The Target is one willing creature touched,; the spell description does go into greater focus/detail re: animals and magical beast.

Is this an RAW vs. RAI issue?

What is to stop casting things on a PC? (as a willing creature touched?)

Some examples of spell targets.
Calm Animals: Targets: animals with 30ft of each other
Animal Messenger: Target: one tiny animal

[CRobledo]

Except the very first line of the spell says:

Knights of the Inner Sea wrote:

You touch an animal or magical beast that has a helpful attitude toward you, instantly transforming the creature into a miniature figurine of stone, small enough to fit into the palm of your hand. Creatures with an attitude of less than helpful will not tolerate this spell, and it automatically fails to work on them.

[lastblacknight]

CRobledo wrote:

Except the very first line of the spell says:

Knights of the Inner Sea wrote:

You touch an animal or magical beast that has a helpful attitude toward you, instantly transforming the creature into a miniature figurine of stone, small enough to fit into the palm of your hand. Creatures with an attitude of less than helpful will not tolerate this spell, and it automatically fails to work on them.

It does indeed, but the Target (RAW) of the spell is one willing creature touched.

Note: the other spells I have referenced have specific wording on appropriate targets.

I agree it's RAI (by the description) the spell only effects Animals and Magical beasts).

Why not specifically say' Target: one willing Animal or Magical beast? the difference just opens the door for questions... hence mine.

[CRobledo]

Ok so you successfully target the spell on a player, but although the spell was successful, the spell does nothing since the target is not an animal or magical beast. Congratulations.

I don't think there is anything ambiguous here. My guess is "Target: one animal or magical beast" was left out/noone though about it.

RAI, obviously it doesnt work.
RAW, it targets hour humanoid buddy, and per description of the spell, does nothing.

I'd suggest that if you still disagree you post this under the rules forum instead of PFS forum, as it's not a PFS only question. I have a hunch you will get the same answer though.

[lastblacknight]

It's cool. (I am happy to move it to the rules thread)

The reason for the question is that (and I am struggling to find another example whilst at work) - Previous GM's have called on the difference between; Target and Descriptions before. The consensus being that everything above the line was canon and the description was a combination of flavour and somewhat open to interpretation.

The issue arises when we use words like; Companion and Creature as both descriptions and classes.

I think clarification is useful, it's not really down to if I disagree or not I don't have anything invested in the outcome.

Thanks for your posts!

[Jason Wu]

Is this one of those things where an entire party gets smuggled into the keep in the halfling rogue's pants?

-j

[Tony Lindman]

I don't think there is any ambiguity here. Any GMs who claim that the description is open to interpretation are (for the most part) in error. The description of the spell is every bit as important as the block stats.

[Jiggy]

lastblacknight wrote:

Previous GM's have called on the difference between; Target and Descriptions before. The consensus being that everything above the line was canon and the description was a combination of flavour and somewhat open to interpretation.

So the consensus is that fireball dealing 1d6/level of damage, hold person causing paralysis, and really any spell doing anything at all, is just flavor text?

[Thod]

Jiggy wrote:

lastblacknight wrote:

Previous GM's have called on the difference between; Target and Descriptions before. The consensus being that everything above the line was canon and the description was a combination of flavour and somewhat open to interpretation.

So the consensus is that fireball dealing 1d6/level of damage, hold person causing paralysis, and really any spell doing anything at all, is just flavor text?

Jiggy

Thanks for pointing this out. Bad GM, Bad GM, I wasn't following RAW by allowing the fluff to do damage ...

Joking aside - I think it is these extreme examples of someone taking parts of the rules out of context and claiming this is RAW what lets some GMs to react negatively to the term.

There is also another very important word in the description - 'helpful'. It means you can't charm monster and then follow up with carry companion. Charm in only making a target friendly - not helpful.

I guess it would make it a willing target - but the spell would still fail.

Now the new wording needs to say:

Target: One willing and helpful animal or magical beast

It starts to get cumbersome ...

[Patrick Renie]

The text in the Target line is an error. It should instead read as follows: "Target: One willing animal or magical beast touched". This is then further clarified in the description text of the spell as meaning an animal or magical beast that has an attitude of helpful toward you.

[Suliemann aziz Ammar]

Patrick Renie wrote:

The text in the Target line is an error. It should instead read as follows: "Target: One willing animal or magical beast touched". This is then further clarified in the description text of the spell as meaning an animal or magical beast that has an attitude of helpful toward you.

Oh great, take this away from us who invested in an improved familiar.

[cartmanbeck]

Suliemann aziz Ammar wrote:

Patrick Renie wrote:

The text in the Target line is an error. It should instead read as follows: "Target: One willing animal or magical beast touched". This is then further clarified in the description text of the spell as meaning an animal or magical beast that has an attitude of helpful toward you.

Oh great, take this away from us who invested in an improved familiar.

Improved familiars have enough benefits, I don't think it's super important that you be able to cast this specific spell on them.

[Patrick Renie]

Suliemann aziz Ammar wrote:

Patrick Renie wrote:

The text in the Target line is an error. It should instead read as follows: "Target: One willing animal or magical beast touched". This is then further clarified in the description text of the spell as meaning an animal or magical beast that has an attitude of helpful toward you.

Oh great, take this away from us who invested in an improved familiar.

Thankfully, this spell will still work on some improved familiars, such as stirges. :]