Spell Synergy + Improved Spell Sharing


Rules Questions

Dark Archive

Let's say I'm a 6th level wizard and have a familiar with the valet archetype, which possess all the teamwork feats that I do. I have the Spell Synergy and Improved Spell Sharing feats.

Spell Synergy wrote:

Source Legacy of the First World pg. 19

You and an ally can amplify the effects of beneficial spells.

Prerequisites: Spellcraft 5 ranks.

Benefit: Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat and both of you are affected by the same spell or spell-like ability, you may amplify the spell’s effect on yourself. As an immediate action as the spell affects you and your ally, you can increase the effective caster level of the spell by 3. This increase in caster level doesn’t affect the spell’s duration or the effects for any target of the spell other than yourself. The increase doesn’t stack with any other effects that might increase the spell’s caster level.

Improved Spell Sharing wrote:

Source Advanced Class Guide pg. 150

Your link with your companion creature allows you to share your magic with it.

Prerequisites: Ability to acquire an animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount.

Benefit: When you are adjacent to or sharing a square with your companion creature and that companion creature has this feat, you can cast a spell on yourself and divide the duration evenly between yourself and the companion creature. You can use this feat only on spells with a duration of at least 2 rounds. For example, you could cast bull’s strength on yourself, and instead of the spell lasting 1 minute per level on yourself, it lasts 5 rounds per level on yourself and 5 rounds per level on your companion.

Once the spell is cast, you and the companion creature can move farther apart without ending the effect.

Now, with my familiar on my shoulder, I cast Mage Armor. Because of the Improved Spell Sharing feat, I can affect both me and my familiar and split the duration so we both get 3 hours of mage armor. However, since we are being both affected by the same spell, I could use an immediate action (in case equivalent to a swift action, since it is my turn) to increase the caster level by 3 for me, and my familiar could also spend an immediate action of his to do the same. Now, both of us have Mage Armor up for 6 hours, 3 hours originally from the split duration +3 hours for the increased caster level of Spell Synergy.

Is that correct? Seems pretty nice.


Benefit: Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat and both of you are affected by the same spell or spell-like ability, you may amplify the spell’s effect on yourself. As an immediate action as the spell affects you and your ally, you can increase the effective caster level of the spell by 3. This increase in caster level doesn’t affect the spell’s duration or the effects for any target of the spell other than yourself. The increase doesn’t stack with any other effects that might increase the spell’s caster level.

Benefit: When you are adjacent to or sharing a square with your companion creature and that companion creature has this feat, you can cast a spell on yourself and divide the duration evenly between yourself and the companion creature. You can use this feat only on spells with a duration of at least 2 rounds. For example, you could cast bull’s strength on yourself, and instead of the spell lasting 1 minute per level on yourself, it lasts 5 rounds per level on yourself and 5 rounds per level on your companion.

Spell Synergy clearly states that the increase caster level does not affect the spells duration for any target expect yourself. Improved spell sharing states you have to divide the duration equally. Since the extra caster level does not count towards the duration on your familiar you cannot use it when splitting the duration of the spell.

Dark Archive

You sure about that?

From what I understood, first I'm casting the regular spell. CL 6th so 6 hours divided equally by 2, so 3 hours each. Done. Improved Spell Sharing already did its thing.

Now, since it is affecting both of us, I believe I can use Spell Synergy on myself by spending the immediate action, no?

The Spell Synergy indeed clearly states that this will only affect myself. If mage armor was 3 CL higher on myself, this would mean +3 hours for myself, no? The familiar gains nothing as it is clearly stated.

Then, since the familiar also has immediate actions and also has the feat and meets all the conditions, he can also do the same for himself, increasing the CL for himself and not for me.


it works for both.

the wording in spell synergy are intended to make sure you don't double dip. if it would have said it increase for everyone, since as a teamwork feat the others have it as well one might say -ok i add 3 for myself and ,y allies, then HE add 3 for himself and us allies, and keep going for every ally who has it. this way each increase for himself with his own feat.

otherwise it's a race who increase his spell effect caster level while the rest don't get it (and such things are kept for the Betrayal team work feats.)

Dark Archive

This is my thinking. Improved Spell Sharing works when you are still casting the spell, just making it work like many other spells that split the duration, like Water Breathing (duration divided equally for all creatures touched). Once it is cast, it is done. Making it work as higher caster level later won't make you go back and split it again. It was already cast.

Then, Spell Synergy is done individually. If you qualify and have the action to spend, you increase the caster level for yourself only, even if all involved in the teamwork have the option to do it.


Ah, but one critical thing.
it won't work like you want it to, at least not give you 6 hours of mage armor.

the synergy say:
".. This increase in caster level doesn’t affect the spell’s duration or the effects for any target of the spell other than yourself...".

So a barkskin spell would work at cl+3 but last the same as the original spell (or halved if used along with improved spell sharing), but a mage armor spell's duration will not increase.

Dark Archive

Honestly I feel this interpretation is just possible if you ignore the rest of the phrase.

This part about duration and effects are both regarding other targets of the spell.

This: ".. This increase in caster level (doesn’t affect the spell’s duration or the effects) for any target of the spell other than yourself...".


No, if it was, there would be no reason to mention both of them. It would just say it only effect you and no one else. It specifically separated the duration to not let it be effected.
Probably to stop someone from taking advantage of spells that divide duration such as mass spells.

Also it's plain English:
This increase doesn't effect X (duration) or Y(effect of spell on others). You can't add them together the 'or' clearly separate them into two groups, especially since the 2nd one already include the first for the others. A duration of the spell is also an effect it have on others.

Saying 'the caster level doesn't increase for others' include in it how the caster level effect the duration on others.

Dark Archive

So the sentence:

"Kicking a rock very hard doesn't harm the foot or leg of someone else."

Means your foot is safe?

This seems absurd to me honestly.


you are using an arbitrary sentence you made which is hardly similar to the first case to try and poke holes in it's logic?
your example is of something that shouldn't effect anyone else, why would you kicking a stone effect someone else?
the case here is about something that already effect both you and the other person. and the line explain what isn't effected.

to use your example it should be more like:
'getting out together in the hail wouldn't make your hatless face safe or any other reviled part of your friend's body.'

The called out duration is part of effects and if they mean it only relate to others there was no reason to point it out, all they needed to say was:
"This increase in caster level doesn’t affect any target of the spell other than yourself"

what you tried to do before was to effectively take the formula '2x2+2=' and change it into '2x(2+2)=' to get the result you want it to show.

But what you missed is that it's not a calculus line rather a list of exemptions and it would be redundant to list the same thing twice. its:
'Not A or other's everything (A,B,C and D)'.
Trying to get that 'A' into the 'others' list is redundant.


Sir Longears wrote:

... a 6th level wizard and have a familiar with the valet archetype ...

Spell Synergy]Source Legacy of the First World pg. 19
...

Improved Spell Sharing]Source Advanced Class Guide pg. 150
...

Now, with my familiar on my shoulder, I cast Mage Armor. Because of the Improved Spell Sharing feat, I can affect both me and my familiar and split the duration so we both get 3 hours of mage armor. However, since we are being both affected by the same spell, I could use an immediate action (in case equivalent to a swift action, since it is my turn) to increase the caster level by 3 for me, and my familiar could also spend an immediate action of his to do the same. Now, both of us have Mage Armor up for 6 hours, 3 hours originally from the split duration +3 hours for the increased caster level of Spell Synergy.

Is that correct? Seems pretty nice.

according to how the teamwork feats are written, they increase the spell levels for both (or more) spell recipients.

PFS banned Spell Synergy feat (PPC product) which denotes it has a problem and you've highlighted it. In its preamble Spell Synergy says, "You and an ally can amplify the effects of beneficial spells.", so there's no pretending that it is just 3 CLs for one target. Just another reason to pay attention to what PFS has done even if you don't run under their format.

Note that Valet familiar loses the ability to share spells, so your example is terminally flawed. All of the creatures listed have Share Spells normally thus Improved Spell Sharing feat presumes its existence. The other is prima facie as you cannot improve what does not exist.

Dark Archive

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:

Or is a conjunction that connects two or more possibilities or alternatives. It connects words, phrases and clauses which are the same grammatical type:

Which do you prefer? Leather or suede?

You can have some freshly baked scones or some chocolate cake or both.

>>>We use or after the negative form of a verb, instead of and<<<.

Compare
I like tea and coffee. > I like both tea and coffee.

I don’t like tea or coffee. > I don’t like tea and I don’t like coffee.

LINK

I believe you are mistaken. They tried to make it extra clear by pointing out both the duration and effects. When you use a negative form of a verb, you need to use "or" instead of "and" when connecting words.

Using your math example, the text is (2+2)x2 and you are reading it as 2+2x2.

Here is another example of a phrase that puts both in the same situation:

"You are talking with a ghost in some old ruins. The ceiling collapses on top of you two. This accident doesn't harm or bother the ghost."

Does it harm you? Yes, because you are not the ghost. After the negative "doesn't harm" you need to use "or" instead of "and". Both "harm" and "bother" are connected to the ghost.

So, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, the sentence:

"This increase in caster level doesn’t affect the spell’s duration or the effects for any target of the spell other than yourself"

is equivalent to

"This increase in caster level doesn’t affect the spell’s duration for any target of the spell other than yourself and the effects for any target of the spell other than yourself"


and you don't see that as redundant?

saying "it doesn't bother the ghost" would have been enough.
this is a rule book. not a story telling one where repeating to emphasize the concept is used.
the duration IS an effect. calling it out is not something to do unless you ADD something that you didn't knew without it.
in your case it add NOTHING new and thus shouldn't even be mentioned.

what work for 'Cambridge Dictionary' in stories doesn't fit logically in a rule text that should not be complicated for no good reason.

if rules were written like that, it wouldn't have stopped at duration it should have gone on for, 'duration and range and number of targets and...' on and on for a full list.

what you fail to answer is WHY is duration mentioned specifically and not anything else?
-why is it called out?
if it's just to mention something that doesn't work for others it's already mentioned.
with your logic it would have been fine to also write
" duration or range or... or effects for any target of the spell other than yourself"

No. Duration is called it so say:
"Duration (to anyone) or effects to others are not affected."

in your example the repeat is logical for the story to emphasize. not only is the ghost not hurt, it's not even bothered.
What you end up here say:
'not only is the duration of others isn't effected so is everything else'.
which is a long winded way to say: 'everything for others isn't effected.'
It's NOT how you write simple rules, it's how you needlessly complicate them!

side note. in your example I believe it would have been more accurate to say 'it doesn't harm NOR bother the ghost' but that is beside the point. again. if this was a story that uses emphasizes.

Dark Archive

Azothath wrote:
Note that Valet familiar loses the ability to share spells, so your example is terminally flawed.

Why do you believe this? I've re-read the Improved Spell Sharing feat and nowhere it mentions the "share spells" ability. The prerequisites only call for having a "pet" and the rules only care for both having the feat and sharing or being adjacent to the "pet".

@zza ni: Sir, have a good day. I give up. Discussing how a rule should have been better written is not the point of my post here. People discuss RAW and RAI all the time and it is already complicated when folks do not ignore how grammar works.


Azothath wrote:
Sir Longears wrote:

... a 6th level wizard and have a familiar with the valet archetype ...

Spell Synergy]Source Legacy of the First World pg. 19
...

Improved Spell Sharing]Source Advanced Class Guide pg. 150
...

Now, with my familiar on my shoulder, I cast Mage Armor. Because of the Improved Spell Sharing feat, I can affect both me and my familiar and split the duration so we both get 3 hours of mage armor. However, since we are being both affected by the same spell, I could use an immediate action (in case equivalent to a swift action, since it is my turn) to increase the caster level by 3 for me, and my familiar could also spend an immediate action of his to do the same. Now, both of us have Mage Armor up for 6 hours, 3 hours originally from the split duration +3 hours for the increased caster level of Spell Synergy.

Also talking about grammer as if I'm using it wrong... that's rich!
I am reading the phrase A or B of c. As two groups A and B of C. To try and read it as A and B of C without adding in () like you first tried is a lot less accurate with grammer. So claming the grammer high road is just a shame here.

Is that correct? Seems pretty nice.

according to how the teamwork feats are written, they increase the spell levels for both (or more) spell recipients.

PFS banned Spell Synergy feat (PPC product) which denotes it has a problem and you've highlighted it. In its preamble Spell Synergy says, "You and an ally can amplify the effects of beneficial spells.", so there's no pretending that it is just 3 CLs for one target. Just another reason to pay attention to what PFS has done even if you don't run under their format.

Note that Valet familiar loses the ability to share spells, so your example is terminally flawed.

actually the feat improved spell sharing does not require nor use the share spell ability. so a valet familiar is fine. And as familiars normally do not gain feats it mean that a valet familiar is one of the few familiars who can actually be used like this, as the feat require BOTH to have it.('and that companion creature has this feat').

@Sir Longears: there is rai and raw and then there is making a part of text meaningless just to twist and read it the way you want it to be.

you never answered one question.
the way you read the rule, why is the duration even mentioned?

now bear with me since the next part is crucial.
let's talk outcome.
you and your ally both use the immediate action to gain the feat's benefit. what is the end result?
my way of reading, both of you gain the spell effect at cl+3 except for it's duration.
the way you read it. both of you gain the spell's effect at +3 caster level without anything being excluded.

then why is duration even mentioned?
if someone didn't use the feat he gain nothing at +3. not duration nor any other effect. if he did he gain it all.
ether way there is no need to call out duration.
why is duration even mentioned?!?

Also claming that the grammer is by your side?
I'm reading 'A or B of x' as group A or group B of x. Which is perfectly right grammer. It's you who have to stand on his head and add psido () to make it into (A or B) of x. Real rich claming your grammer superior..


Sir Longears wrote:
Azothath wrote:
Note that Valet familiar loses the ability to share spells, so your example is terminally flawed.
Why do you believe this? I've re-read the Improved Spell Sharing feat and nowhere it mentions the "share spells" ability. The prerequisites only call for having a "pet" and the rules only care for both having the feat and sharing or being adjacent to the "pet".

(I updated my post).

Your statement is not quite correct ("pet" is a broad term). Note that Improved Spell Sharing does not apply to mounts(which are pets), (purchased) pets, hirelings, cohorts, followers, etc. The candidates all normally have Spell Sharing so it is clearly a presumed ability (as the broad class of pets do not qualify as a broad term, so it is just creative writing at work). Taking the Valet archetype means that ability is traded away and you experience combining archetype issues.
The other point is obvious (prima facie) and just enforces the previous premise that Share Spells is presumed.

A lot of limited scope pedantic arguments rely on not going further than the presented words and that's an issue in a complicated inconsistent Game written in descriptive creative english. The debate arguments are more social in practice rather than formal logic as they are both informally logical(applied to a Work of Art that is not technical writing) and practical(what is considered reasonable by your GM).

Dark Archive

But Improved Spell Sharing does apply to mounts, no?

Prerequisites: Ability to acquire an animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount.


Sir Longears wrote:

But Improved Spell Sharing does apply to mounts, no?

Prerequisites: Ability to acquire an animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount.

no... a "special mount" is a member of/subset of animal companion. Think Paladin's special mount, it's not just a horse he bought for 300gp.

In PFS lingo a mount is a member of/subset of pet. Familiars and animal companions also are associated with or fall under pets so it is a broad term.

the writer may have been familiar with those technical uses but glossed general in the description once the requirements defined who it applied to. I'm purposefully avoiding the crunch vs fluff terminology.

Dark Archive

I agree that it might have been RAI to only allow this feat to companions that do have the share spell feature and just to be clear, for me that is enough since I do play by RAI instead of RAW.

On the other hand, I don't agree it is the RAW interpretation though, because it isn't written anywhere. For that to be the case, the prerequisite should have been worded as "Prerequisites: Ability to acquire an animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount with the share spell ability."

Take the following feat as an example, which does do just that.

Group Deliver Touch Spells (Teamwork) wrote:


Source Familiar Folio pg. 18
You and your teammates can deliver touch spells through each other’s familiars.

Prerequisites: Group Shared Spells, must have a familiar with the share spells and deliver touch spells abilities.

Benefit: You and any allies with this feat can cast spells through one another’s familiars as though each ally had the share spells ability with each other familiar. This feat otherwise functions as the share spells ability.


commentary

Sir Longears wrote:

...

On the other hand, I don't agree it is the RAW interpretation though, because it isn't written anywhere. For that to be the case, the prerequisite should have been worded as "Prerequisites: Ability to acquire an animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount with the share spell ability."

Take the following feat as an example, which does do just that.

Group Deliver Touch Spells (Teamwork) wrote:


Source Familiar Folio pg. 18
You and your teammates can deliver touch spells through each other’s familiars.

Prerequisites: Group Shared Spells, must have a familiar with the share spells and deliver touch spells abilities.

Benefit: You and any allies with this feat can cast spells through one another’s familiars as though each ally had the share spells ability with each other familiar. This feat otherwise functions as the share spells ability.

*sigh* we all wish they had used more words for better clarity with a touch of technical writing. It is what it is. That's why it is creative and not technical writing. It is a big reason the creative staff wanted to move onto PF2 as the interactions were burdensome and business-wise expertise costs more money.

Luckily in this case with Improved Spell Sharing you can backtrack logically to divine some clarity. That's not always the case. IMO RAI is just a facade and cannot be determined.


How are you taking improved share spell at 8th level when it has a prerequisite of 10 ranks in spell craft? You cannot have more ranks in a skill than you have levels. At 6th level you can only have 6 ranks in a skill.

You are right about improved share spell not requiring share spell. It also does not require the spell to be from a class that grants the animal companion. This would allow a multiclassed cleric cavalier to use a cleric spell on his mount.

The argument against spell synergy is still valid.

Dark Archive

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
How are you taking improved share spell at 8th level when it has a prerequisite of 10 ranks in spell craft? You cannot have more ranks in a skill than you have levels. At 6th level you can only have 6 ranks in a skill.

You are making a confusing between the feats "Improved Spell Sharing" and "Improved Shared Spell". The former is a teamwork feat that only requires you having a companion, while the later does indeed requires 10 ranks in spellcraft.

The effects (aside from the name) are very similar. Neither require share spells RAW. Improved Spell Sharing is more powerful as it allows the companion to move freely after the spell is cast. However, since it requires both the master and the companion to have the feat, it is very tricky to make it work. Honestly, doesn't seem a very well thought feat.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:

How are you taking improved share spell at 8th level when it has a prerequisite of 10 ranks in spell craft? You cannot have more ranks in a skill than you have levels. At 6th level you can only have 6 ranks in a skill.

You are right about improved share spell not requiring share spell. It also does not require the spell to be from a class that grants the animal companion. This would allow a multiclassed cleric cavalier to use a cleric spell on his mount.

The argument against spell synergy is still valid.

Not Improved Share Spells from APG, but Improved Spell Sharing from ACG. How could anyone confuse these? /s

This slight difference could also be taken in for part of the debate on having the class feature feature of "share spells". Does the first one imply requirement of "share spells," but the second one doesn't because there is no "spell sharing" feature?
Obviously there is clear power creep here!

However, I don't think the share spells is required, but that not having it limits the spells eligible for these feats. Improved spell sharing (the feat in question) uses bull's strength as an example, and Sir Longears used mage armor, both of which are valid spells on creatures in question. Spells with a range of "you" would not be valid on valet familiars.

As for the grammar debate, it probably should have been "... the duration nor the effects..." Unfortunately, "nor" is so commonly ignored outside of the "neither... nor" construction that it is practically reaching obsolescence.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spell Synergy + Improved Spell Sharing All Messageboards

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