Ok, say I'm a halfling witch with a fox familiar. I use shared spell to enlarge person the fox making it small. I then reduce person myself making me tiny. Is the fox rideable? If not, is there a way to MAKE the fox rideable?
This is more a fun idea role-play wise than anything core to my build. The witch rides a ram, but if the ram dies, she can hop on her fox for a few minutes to... do... whatever...
|
A fox isn't a person. The spell fails. Read 'Enlarge Person' again.
You want Animal Growth but it is not on your spell list. Perhaps a druid might be a better pick for a fox-riding halfling.
A fox isn't a person. The spell fails. Read 'Enlarge Person' again.
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).
|
A fox isn't a person. The spell fails. Read 'Enlarge Person' again.
You want Animal Growth but it is not on your spell list. Perhaps a druid might be a better pick for a fox-riding halfling.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).
However, Enlarge Person does not have a target of "You", it has the target of "one humanoid creature". Therefore it does not apply. Now if the spell were Aspect of the Falcon or a spell with the specified target of "You", then it would work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure those are two separate sentences, a wizard can both, cast spells that cannot normally be cast on another creature on their familiar, and cast spells that they could normally cast on something else on their familiar and have them work even though they would not normally work on a magical beast. It does not say that the later clause only applies to spells with a target of "you". That is certainly how I have always seen the rule interpreted.
Two separate effects of the same ability was how I interpreted share spells as well.
Is there any way to determine which interpretation is the RAW one in PFS or will I just be hoping the GM agrees with me? (worst case scenario I'll just go with a goat or a donkey rat instead. Small sized)
Also, original question still stands; I wanna ride that fox, darnit!
The devs would have to issue an FAQ on it. Unless the rules come from PFS (prestige, vanities chronicle loot items) PFS tries not to make official rulings on things parallel to the main design team. Having DM's with funny interpretations is kind of unavoidable in organized play.
For my 2 cents I'd say you can enlarge your fox. I don't think there's a single spell with a target of "you" that specifies a non animal target , meaning the second sentence is either for enlarge person spells or a complete waste of space.
@BokaliMali its possible, but it seems rather cost prohibitive and the spell durations mean it will not last very long, probably something I'd save for a home campaign where the DM would be willing to houserule, but if you are prepared to take the hit more power to you. If you have a GM who does not agree I would suggest asking them if they mind you googling some of the relevant threads on here and take a minute to look at them - they are all pretty one sided.
I would say the RAW is pretty clear, based on how the english language works. They are two separate clauses, I really don't think it requires a FAQ. Everyone of the many threads on the subject reaches the same conclusion, yes it works. Mostly the question is asked in regards to eidolons, who have the same relevant wording as familiars.
Were that the case, I'd think it would say "A wizard may ALSO cast...".
Or it would say "A wizard who cast spells in this way may also" or something in a similar vein.
|
|
The devs would have to issue an FAQ on it. Unless the rules come from PFS (prestige, vanities chronicle loot items) PFS tries not to make official rulings on things parallel to the main design team. Having DM's with funny interpretations is kind of unavoidable in organized play.
For my 2 cents I'd say you can enlarge your fox. I don't think there's a single spell with a target of "you" that specifies a non animal target , meaning the second sentence is either for enlarge person spells or a complete waste of space.
One instance I found is Blend, which is an elf only spell. With Share Spells, you'd be able to cast it on your familiar, who's not an elf, even though it's a magical beast. I'm sure there are others, but the point is they exist.
Thanks Mr. Prince.
Part of my question is about the rules for riding things in general. So it's possible to ride it even though it's not trained to be ridden? I assumed there's a DC increase of some sort.
I guess I just don't really understand the rules on animal training very well. Does my familiar start knowing tricks? Can I choose which tricks he knows? What tricks are essential for riding? Also, can I ride without a saddle?
Why? Its clearly two separate clauses, they do not need to clarify it because its clear unless you choose to ignore the full stop.
"I can buy donuts with sprinkles for my monkey. My monkey has learned to digest donuts without getting sick," is clear, you don't need to add to it.
You can argue that the intent was to say a monkey could only digest donuts with sprinkles, but you cannot correctly say that that is what the wording means - at least without rewriting the rules of the english language.
I believe the RAW and RAI are clearly aligned here, and every search I've done seems to confirm that. I think enlarge person being on the Summoner Spell list is a strong indication that the intent was for it to work on eidolons.
One instance I found is Blend, which is an elf only spell. With Share Spells, you'd be able to cast it on your familiar, who's not an elf, even though it's a magical beast. I'm sure there are others, but the point is they exist.
That's a splatbook spell written long after the ability in question, and thus hardly valid IMO. If there are core spells that fit that would fit there would be an argument.
|
|
Thanks Mr. Prince.
Part of my question is about the rules for riding things in general. So it's possible to ride it even though it's not trained to be ridden? I assumed there's a DC increase of some sort.
I guess I just don't really understand the rules on animal training very well. Does my familiar start knowing tricks? Can I choose which tricks he knows? What tricks are essential for riding? Also, can I ride without a saddle?
It would count as an exotic mount. The DC's are in the Ride section. I can't remember them off the top of my head. Riding without a saddle does increase the DC for riding.
As far as tricks go, they start with as many tricks as they can know. If they are replaced, they know only the bonus tricks. See this FAQ for that and this for training tricks.
Why would it count as an exotic mount? It has similar bone structure to a dog, and halflings ride those without an exotic saddle. It's not like it has 5 legs or quills or a carapace - it's a fox. It's bad enough the guy has to expend two spells just to ride the thing for a few minutes a day - enough to cross town but not enough to ride back.
|
|
I would have thought a smaller frame would cause that. An assumption on my part. I typically think anything not a horse, pony, or riding dog would be exotic. Then there's things not generally mountable such as dire rats, pterodactyls, axe beaks, and bears. Is there a table or something with what's exotic and what's not?
(Also, a miniature schnauzer is not really as mountable as a great dane, even for a halfling, even though both are dogs with "similar bone structure". Size matters. At least that's what my wife says...)
There is technically no rule requiring a creature you ride to be larger than you. (creatures used for mount class features in pfs mus be, but not mounts in general)
Dwarves are specifically called out as being able to ride ponies.
I don't believe tigers, etc., are counted as exotic mounts for those purposes, and I think the iconics demonstrate that - though that does not necessarily mean its a rule its a pretty good indicator. If - and I haven't gone and checked - a tiger is not then I don't think a fox ought to be.
I think this quote might be useful, its not entirely relevant, but I think it implies that familiars would be exempt from the trick rules because they are magical beasts.
an I improve my companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats?
No. An Intelligence of 3 does not grant animals sentience, the ability to use weapons or tools, speak a language (though they may understand one with a rank in Linguistics; this does not grant literacy), or activate magic devices. Also note that raising an animal companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher does not eliminate the need to make Handle Animal checks to direct its actions; even semi-intelligent animals still act like animals unless trained not to. An animal with Intelligence of 3 or higher remains a creature of the animal type unless its type is specifically changed by another ability. An animal may learn 3 additional tricks per point of Intelligence above 2.
I would say purchase a saddle sized for your familiar, it will enlarge with the spell and you will be fine. You should not need to make handle animal checks, or many ride checks - only those related to your abilities as opposed to controlling the mount IMO. But the rules are shaky so expect table variance, I'd say explain your plan to DMs before hand, etc.
True, but I've seen how many arguments that claim creates. It's not really something I plan on doing on a regular basis, I just thought it would be a fun trick to be able to pull off.
EDIT: That was to the wolf, not the prince.
|
|
There is technically no rule requiring a creature you ride to be larger than you. (creatures used for mount class features in pfs mus be, but not mounts in general)
Dwarves are specifically called out as being able to ride ponies.
Well, yeah. I mean, dwarves, haha. Glad to hear there's not an official ruling as to what's exotic or not. Though truthfully I think the only difference is the price of the saddle.
There's a -5 ride penalty for ill-suited mounts. Assuming they're talking about like snakes or cacodaemons, not embiggened foxes.
EDIT: Oh man, riding a cacodaemon. Could you imagine?
|
|
Now I want a t-shirt with a dwarf riding a beholder waving a cowboy hat in the air.
Prince, you are right about tricks. Keep forgetting that Familiars start at 6 Int, which I think we can all agree makes them intelligent. At least more so than your average bear. And since they don't have starting tricks, that's just another nail in the coffin there.
One instance I found is Blend, which is an elf only spell. With Share Spells, you'd be able to cast it on your familiar, who's not an elf, even though it's a magical beast. I'm sure there are others, but the point is they exist.
1) Which was written how long after the share spell rules were in place?
2) I don't see anything in the mechanics for it only being able to be cast on an elf.
Looking around the rules forums i think the stricter interpretation on share spells is pretty rare. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
|
|
1) Which was written how long after the share spell rules were in place?
My guess? It's a holdover from 3.5 when it switched/broke off, which has the same wording in that regard. The spells came later as it expanded like D&D did.
2) I don't see anything in the mechanics for it only being able to be cast on an elf.Can only be cast by an elf.
Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race.
It is an elven spell, under the Elf section of the ARG.
On the forums it may seem rare, but in practice I've always seen it turned down.
Expect table variation.
(Also, a miniature schnauzer is not really as mountable as a great dane, even for a halfling, even though both are dogs with "similar bone structure". Size matters. At least that's what my wife says...)
Other dogs would beg to differ. :-)
About Blend, note this text:
The final section of each race entry provides new rules options for the race other than archetypes. The new racial rules are split up into four sections, each described below.
The spells in this section are common to spellcasting members of the race. Sometimes they only target members of the race, but often they are just the race’s well guarded secrets; members of other races can learn to cast them with GM permission.
The following options are available to elves. At the GM’s discretion, other appropriate races may also make use of some of these.
Most know of elven magic for its power, but those who delve deeper discover its elegance and ties to the natural world. The following spells are just a few that the elves are known for.
BLEND
...
Range personal
Target you
...
You draw upon your elven link to the wilderness...
An argument can be made that it only works on an elf, but there is nothing that prevents you from casting it if you are not an elf.
/cevah
|
Ok, say I'm a halfling witch with a fox familiar. I use shared spell to enlarge person the fox making it small. I then reduce person myself making me tiny. Is the fox rideable? If not, is there a way to MAKE the fox rideable?
I don't believe the rules state that you must be one size smaller than the mount to ride it - it is an assumption by many by the mount offerings of various classes - but dwarves can ride ponies (medium on medium). If the rules do state somewhere that one has to be one size smaller than the mount I would sure like to know the page.