Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
My Lore Warden Fighter with a reach weapon who trips a lot always carries three potions of enlarge person into a scenario. 20-foot reach makes him a significant battlefield controller.
Where you getting 20-ft reach from? Pathfinder Enlarge Person does not seem to be written the same as 3.5 Enlarge Person.
More on topic, I have 3 characters that use Enlarge Person regularly. One is a barbarian who just likes to hit hard. One is a monk who likes to be able to control/ threaten everything in the area of a Fireball blast. Both of those use potions. And I have a ifrit who has it as a spell-like ability and he uses it to enhance front liners, especially if grappling is involved.
|
My Lore Warden Fighter with a reach weapon who trips a lot always carries three potions of enlarge person into a scenario. 20-foot reach makes him a significant battlefield controller.Where you getting 20-ft reach from? Pathfinder Enlarge Person does not seem to be written the same as 3.5 Enlarge Person.
Reach weapons double your natural reach. Enlarge Person explicitly gives you a natural reach of 10'.
Edit: Also, Pathfinder's Enlarge Person is written almost identically to 3.5's version.
From the 'Big and Little Creatures in Combat' section of the Combat chapter in the PRD:
Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can't strike at their natural reach or less.
Thus, with the 10-foot natural reach from enlarge person, and the enlarged reach weapon, I can hit foes 15-20 feet away with it. With Improved Unarmed Strike from monk levels, I hit the closer targets.
|
Things to note about Enlarge Person:
1)Alchemists can use there extracts as a standard action
2)with Infusion you can let the fighters buff themselves
3)Summoners can use it on there Eidolon.I have it on a few of my characters and have not had a problem yet,(other then needing the full round to cast with my summoner)
A summoner cannot cast Enlarge Person on their eidolon because Enlarge Person is not a spell with target "you" it is a targeted spell.
Share Spells only covers personal spells, such as Shield - I have seen this abused a lot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Let's pick it apart:
1. 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.2. A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon's type (outsider).
3. Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list.
4. This ability does not allow the eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.
This means that enlarge person can be cast on the eidolon if it is on the summoner spell list, which it happens to be.
|
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.
Enlarge Person works on an eidolon.
ETA: Darn ninjas!
|
|
Enlarge Person
School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S, M (powdered iron)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one humanoid creature
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
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.Let's pick it apart:
1. 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.
2. A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon's type (outsider).
3. Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list.
4. This ability does not allow the eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.This means that enlarge person can be cast on the eidolon if it is on the summoner spell list, which it happens to be.
Indeed, let us pick it apart.
Enlarge does not have a Range of Touch, nor does it target "you" or Personal. Summoner therefore can not use Enlarge Person on their Eidolon, even if they can cast it on themselves, and in their particular case the target is "them", it's not a valid spell for Share Spell.
That's my understanding. Any Spell that is Personal/You (Shield) (or possibly has a Range of Touch (Mage Armor), but even RAW this is not allowed).
School abjuration [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal
Target you <<<---
Duration 1 min./level (D)
The fact that it would otherwise ignore Creature Type or is on the Summoner Spell List is irrelevant, (as are any periods between them) :P
Enlarge Person itself isn't a spell that works with Share Spell for the Eidolon.
:)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
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.Let's pick it apart:
1. 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.
2. A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon's type (outsider).
3. Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list.
4. This ability does not allow the eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.This means that enlarge person can be cast on the eidolon if it is on the summoner spell list, which it happens to be.
Enlarge does not have a Range of Touch, nor does it target "you" or Personal. Summoner therefore can not use Enlarge Person on their Eidolon, even if they can cast it on themselves, and in their particular case the target is "them", it's not a valid spell for Share Spell.
Sure it is. Section #2 there, that you struck out, is not at all dependent on section #1. As Nefreet said, there's a period between those two sentences.
#1 permits one kind of spell that would not normally be able to be cast on the eidolon, and #2 permits another kind.
|
|
No, it doesn't. It further qualifies based on number 1.
#1 states what types of spells can be used.
#2 modifies how those spells apply (as the Eidolon is an Outsider)
#3 sates they must be Summoner Spell List spells, not any spell a Summoner might be able to cast. (building upon)
#4 states in only applies to Summoner Spell List Spells, not any other ability a Summoner might also be able to use. (again building up the above).
|
|
Why would you not be able to cast a spell with with a target of one creature on the eidolon? Sure, you can cast spells with personal range and you as a target. That's what #1 allows.
However, you can also cast spells that have a target of 'one creature' or 'one or more creatures' as well. This feature does -not- limit that. And, because summoners (and others with companions and the Share Spells ability) are so awesome, they can cast spells on their companions even if their Type doesn't match the spell.
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.
Edit: Personal/You spells don't target a Type.
|
|
An Eidolon can be the Target of Enlarge Person, as they could drink a Potion of Enlarge Person. However, because they are not Humanoid, it doesn't affect them jut like it wouldn't affect an Aasimar (normally).
Because Enlarge Peron, the spell, does not qualify for the Summoner's Share Spell ability, the part (#2) about it being able to apply even to Outsider likewise does not work here. If that was the intent, not sure. As written though, it doesn't work.
Alter Self is a good example of one that does work and hits on all 4 of the rules for Share Spell.
Other good examples are Glide, Expeditious Retreat, Dimension Door, and Levitate (as the Eidolon being in control of the movement).
|
|
None of those spells have a 'Type' in the targeting, as they all are Personal/You spells. However, Levitate also can target a willing creature or object, so it would work on the eidolon, anyways.
As I amended my last post, Personal/You spells do not take a 'Type' in the targeting. Because of this, if #2 only applied to Personal/You spells, it would have no use at all.
|
Looks like we have an argument going on about whether the "Share spells" text is additive or not.
If it is additive, then GM Beckett is correct.
ie., using Damata's labels... 1 + 2 + 3 + 4
If we read the periods as separations of non-additive statements, then, we have 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 (with non-exclusive 'or's)
So basically, is it a logical 'and' or a logical 'or' that the periods represent. I personally agree with Damata (and others), that the period means that logical 'or'. Otherwise, I think it would have been written more properly with commas.
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, and may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal).
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 only included the first two sentences, since they are the portion that is in doubt. If you read my alteration, you can see that it reads quite differently than the rule as printed. This is why I believe that there is not an implied "and". However, I will abide by a GMs ruling, should it come up.
Unfortunately there are no FAQs on this subject. However, I can see why you might read it either way, and the fact that there are no target: personal spells that limited by type should not, in and of itself, be used as a reason for an interpretation. English and logic should be used as the reasons...
|
|
The thing is, if it's "or", as you said, than basically only #3 matters, as it can be any spell, even if it normally wouldn't work on an Outsider, as long as it's on the general Summoner Spell List. Nothing else really matters, as long as it's a Summoner Spell List spell, and thus also an actual Spell.
|
|
Looks like we have an argument going on about whether the "Share spells" text is additive or not.
If it is additive, then GM Beckett is correct.
ie., using Damata's labels... 1 + 2 + 3 + 4If we read the periods as separations of non-additive statements, then, we have 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 (with non-exclusive 'or's)
So basically, is it a logical 'and' or a logical 'or' that the periods represent. I personally agree with Damata (and others), that the period means that logical 'or'. Otherwise, I think it would have been written more properly with commas.
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, and may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal).
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 only included the first two sentences, since they are the portion that is in doubt. If you read my alteration, you can see that it reads quite differently than the rule as printed. This is why I believe that there is not an implied "and". However, I will abide by a GMs ruling, should it come up.
Unfortunately there are no FAQs on this subject. However, I can see why you might read it either way, and the fact that there are no target: personal spells that limited by type should not, in and of itself, be used as a reason for an interpretation. English and logic should be used as the reasons...
First, in English, additive is the default: "and" is the default conjunction. There is no difference in meaning between the two versions you posted:
Statement 1. Statement 2.
is identical in meaning to
Statement 1, and statement 2.
In both cases, these are two independent statements of equal importance. There is no conjunction or transitional adverb to indicate that statement 2 is intended as a sub-set of statement 1, either a cause/effect relationship or an "example of" relationship.
Second, "or" doesn't not give you that "sub-set" sense you're looking for. The sense that you are looking for would be conveyed by something like these:
Statement 1. For example, statement 2.
Statement 1, which means that statement 2.
Statement 1, therefore, statement 2.
Statement 1, so statement 2.
Statement 1: statement 2.
It would be a stretch, but I'd also give more credence to your reading if these were connected by a semicolon:
Statement 1; statement 2.
As written, however, the second statement is not dependent on the first statement in any way. In fact, you can even invert those two sentences without changing the grammatical meaning:
A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal). 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.
|
|
Dorothy is correct. Enlarge person cast from the summoner herself will affect an eidolon. It's not abuse, it's the correct interpretation of the Share Spell ability.
Relevant text:
"A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider)."
There are no qualifiers to this text at all. It is, therefore, universally true.
|
|
I don't know, took me rereading a few times to see the possibility, but I'm still not thinking it's correct. (#1 is unrelated to #2, while #3 and #4 do)
In a home game, I'd probably allow it, but at the same time, I'm not sure. In other cases sure, but the thing about the Summoner is they already have a mechanic for building their Eidolon as they want. Being that that mechanic is one of the more contentious things in the entire game, I'd also be very tempted to not allow it just for Summoners/Eidolons as well.
|
|
"but the thing about the Summoner is they already have a mechanic for building their Eidolon as they want."
That's not really a justification for ruling it different for them. I will note, however, that I have enlarge person on my summoner, but I only use it very specific circumstances. Nothing more annoying than fat pet in tight situations.
|
|
"but the thing about the Summoner is they already have a mechanic for building their Eidolon as they want."
That's not really a justification for ruling it different for them. I will note, however, that I have enlarge person on my summoner, but I only use it very specific circumstances. Nothing more annoying than fat pet in tight situations.
It's not ruling it different for them. Unless there are their classes that can affect Outsiders with ______ Person spells? Last I heard an Aasimar/Tiefling couldn't even affect themselves with some of their own Class Features do to that. What I was saying is, if it where up to me (in a home game, for example), I might allow it, but on the other hand, as it's essentially an easy way to bypass paying for higher Evolution Point costs for a class whose deal is being able to "build however you want", I might not in this case, too. Unsure.
But not sold on the idea that that's the way it's supposed to work either.
|
|
I was considering putting up a flag to move this to the rules forum or make a seperate thread in the rules forum, but it appears that this discussion has popped up a few times over the years, which resulted in people saying that Enlarge Person would work on an eidolon, because the share spells ability is no different from the familiar share spells ability and no-one ever questioned having enlarge/reduce person cast on an improved familiar with the outsider type.
The threads I found:
Share Spell
2 Summoner Questions
Enlarge Person on my Eidolon
Eidolons and Enlarge Person
Summoner spell question
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Damanta, perhaps one of the reasons the question has popped up in regard to summoners over the last few years is that the rulings from the Development Team have changed.
After the Synthecist was published, many people felt that archetype was too powerful, and the Development Team sought to reign it in. One way was to announce that the Share Spells ability was restricted to spells with a target of "you". Shortly afterwards, when players noted that this new restriction should apply to all summoners, not just synthecists, that ruling was reversed.
|
|
"but the thing about the Summoner is they already have a mechanic for building their Eidolon as they want."
That's not really a justification for ruling it different for them. I will note, however, that I have enlarge person on my summoner, but I only use it very specific circumstances. Nothing more annoying than fat pet in tight situations.
It's not ruling it different for them. Unless there are their classes that can affect Outsiders with ______ Person spells? Last I heard an Aasimar/Tiefling couldn't even affect themselves with some of their own Class Features do to that. What I was saying is, if it where up to me (in a home game, for example), I might allow it, but on the other hand, as it's essentially an easy way to bypass paying for higher Evolution Point costs for a class whose deal is being able to "build however you want", I might not in this case, too. Unsure.
But not sold on the idea that that's the way it's supposed to work either.
Summoners can affect them because share spell ability explicitly says they can. The problem with this is that the summoner is stuck casting a one round spell for the privilege. No potions here.
|
|
Why would you prevent you from whirlwinding? Is it a DEX issue?
This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8. This increase changes the creature's size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a –1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size.
Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die. Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.
...(snip)...
Dexterity: Damage to your Dexterity score causes you to take penalties on Dexterity-based skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Reflex saving throws. The penalty also applies to your Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and to your Combat Maneuver Defense. A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).
If Enlarge Person caused Ability Drain, you would be in trouble, but the DEX Penalty is treated like Ability Damage. So, enlarged whirlwind away!
|
|
Dorothy is correct. Enlarge person cast from the summoner herself will affect an eidolon. It's not abuse, it's the correct interpretation of the Share Spell ability.
Relevant text:
"A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider)."
There are no qualifiers to this text at all. It is, therefore, universally true.
It appears it is your position that each sentence in the paragraph is unrelated to each other and can be taken without relation to the other sentences in that paragraph. IMO sentences are grouped to show relation.
Damanta, perhaps one of the reasons the question has popped up in regard to summoners over the last few years is that the rulings from the Development Team have changed.
After the Synthecist was published, many people felt that archetype was too powerful, and the Development Team sought to reign it in. One way was to announce that the Share Spells ability was restricted to spells with a target of "you". Shortly afterwards, when players noted that this new restriction should apply to all summoners, not just synthecists, that ruling was reversed.
Do you have quotes for these rulings? It would certainly settle the argument.
-j
|
I believe Chris Mortika is referring to this thread, and specifically this comment from Sean K Reynolds.
In that thread Sean clarifies that only personal spells work with Share Spells, and the example he uses is Enlarge Person not working on the Summoner's Eidolon.
I cannot, however, find the quote where he reverses that position. His last comment in that thread is basically "I'll talk to Jason about it".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've talked to Jason and updated the FAQ about share spells. To sum up: yes, a regular summoner is able to cast humanoid-only spells on his eidolon (duh); yes, a synthesist can too because it doesn't alter share spells.
There is a bit of weirdness about the synthesist and enlarge person that Jason wants to think about for a bit because of the "eidolon must be at least the same size as the synthesist" rule. Basically, if you're Medium and the eidolon is Medium, should it be assumed that the spell affects you "both," or is it a weird case where the summoner "outgrows" the Medium eidolon. Likewise, if you're Medium and the eidolon is Large, you already have the Large benefits, so turning into a Large summoner inside a Large eidolon-shell shouldn't have any effect. Anyway, he's going to let that "roll around in the old rock tumbler," as he puts it.
(Emphasis mine)
|
|
From the Ask Mark Seifter Thread
I see what they're saying, but I've personally always considered those two sentences to be independent.Can a summoner cast Enlarge Person on his Eidolon?
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.There seems to be confusion about whether the second sentence labors underneath the first sentence's restriction (the spell must have a target of 'you').
|
Venture-Agent, Florida–Altamonte Springs
|
What gets me is I've had, in the past, a druid who took a 1 level dip into sorcerer and try to say that they could cast Enlarge Person on their animal companion because of share spells
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.
Nothing in either share spells says that the druid or the summoner has to cast a druid or summoner spells for it to work. It just says they have to cast it. So it seems that a druid can, at second level (drd1/sor1), have a large version of their medium animal companion and by 5th (drd4/sorc1) have a huge version...It seems wrong since there is already a druid spell that does this, and I guess I was wrong in disallowing it.
|
|
There is the Growth Domain, but that reopens the Cleric discussion on if Domain Spells are or are not part of the individual Cleric's Spell List.
I wasn't aware that was still a debate.
This post is several years old, but Sean K Reynolds didn't see any reason to "split hairs" over it.
Edit: or, actually, here's a better quote:
Yes, you should consider those spells as part of the character's class spell list.
|
Venture-Agent, Florida–Altamonte Springs
|
Ok I missed the "Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion." portion. I'm glad I didn't mess up by disallowing it. How could a druid get an animal companion and growth domain though? No...no don't answer that I don't want to add fuel to the fire.
|
|
Ok I missed the "Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion." portion. I'm glad I didn't mess up by disallowing it. How could a druid get an animal companion and growth domain though? No...no don't answer that I don't want to add fuel to the fire.
Cleric with growth/animal domain (go separatist if you have to)
Druid with the animal domain. ?