Infuse Robot = Dominate Robot?


Rules Questions


Yes, with the side affect that it loses vulnerability to electricity and critical hits.


It's vastly superior to Dominate Person because it lacks that spell's restrictions (ignores obviously self-destructive orders and gets a new save if ordered to do something against its nature). Frankly, it's more like the spell Control Undead which is also 7th level.


For giggles, cast it on your animal companion or familiar to give them construct traits.


Melkiador wrote:
For giggles, cast it on your animal companion or familiar to give them construct traits.

Target: one robot


Share Spells wrote:
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 am sure if this was FAQ'd they would tighten up the wording to avoid having it work on Animal Companions.


I'm already pretty shocked that the half-blood extraction weirdness slipped by the Advanced Race Guide errata.


Avoron wrote:
I'm already pretty shocked that the half-blood extraction weirdness slipped by the Advanced Race Guide errata.

What is that? Is it for a certain race?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Half-Blood Extraction wrote:

School transmutation; Level alchemist 5, cleric 5, druid 5, sorcerer/wizard 5, witch 5

Casting Time 1 hour
Components V, S, M/DF (oils and poisons worth 3,000 gp)
Range touch
Target willing half-orc touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You transform the target half-orc into a full-blooded orc. The target loses all of its half-orc racial traits and gains the orc racial traits.

With share spells and half-blood extraction, transforming your animal companion or familiar into an orc has never been easier. Really, there needs to be wording limiting it to creatures that actually possess half-orc racial traits, because Racial Heritage can create similar peculiarities.

Scarab Sages

Half-Blood Extraction doesn't work with Share spells, no errata required.

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.

Half-Blood Extraction doesn't have a target of "you".

Grand Lodge

Imbicatus wrote:

Half-Blood Extraction doesn't work with Share spells, no errata required.

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.
Half-Blood Extraction doesn't have a target of "you".

You forgot the next sentence.

Share Spells wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Imbicatus, that's a common misconception about share spells, but it definitely doesn't work like that. Share spells states two individual things it allows, and neither is dependent on the other.

Share Spells wrote:
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.

This is one thing a druid can do. They can cast spells with a target of "you," such as true strike, on their animal companions. Whether or not the spell is restricted in the type of its target is irrelevant to this ability granted by share spells.

Share Spells wrote:
A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal).

This is another thing a druid can do. They can cast spells that normally don't affect animals, such as enlarge person, on their animal companions. Whether or not the spell has a target of "you" is irrelevant to this ability granted by share spells.

Sovereign Court

@Avoron/claudekennikol: I think it's very dubious to take two sentences in a paragraph following each other, and decide they have nothing to do with each other. The whole point of paragraphs is to put sentences together that treat a common topic. So that you don't need to repeat the same provisions every sentence.


Ascalaphus wrote:
@Avoron/claudekennikol: I think it's very dubious to take two sentences in a paragraph following each other, and decide they have nothing to do with each other. The whole point of paragraphs is to put sentences together that treat a common topic. So that you don't need to repeat the same provisions every sentence.

They are correct. Those are two seperate statements.

Spells with a target of "you" do not call out creature types. As an example mirror image could be cast on a familiar since their share spell ability is just like the druid's. Spell that call out creature types such as "reduce person" are not "You" targeted spells.

They are two separate sentences because it is two ways spells target someone or something that are very restrictive. Share Spells is removing those specific restrictions.


For clarity's sake, they should have added, "Also," in front of the second sentence. That would have removed any ability to doubt they were two separate and independent things.


I agree. The first time I read it I didn't understand it either.


Ascalaphus wrote:
@Avoron/claudekennikol: I think it's very dubious to take two sentences in a paragraph following each other, and decide they have nothing to do with each other. The whole point of paragraphs is to put sentences together that treat a common topic. So that you don't need to repeat the same provisions every sentence.

It's not that they have nothing to do with each other - they both deal with the same topic, how casting spells on your familiar is special and different. They just deal with two different ways that casting spells on your familiar is special and different.


wraithstrike wrote:
I agree. The first time I read it I didn't understand it either.

I admit that I conflated the two clauses when I first read it, myself.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Infuse Robot = Dominate Robot? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions