Action economy of the Special delivery teamwork feat

[Conde]

Hello,

From what I understand of the feat, the spellcaster casts the spell. (Which is what a spellcaster does)
Then when it is the "toucher" turn, they can deliver the spell as a standard action.
Right?

Or does the "toucher" gets to use it as a free action? (As long as it is done in the same turn)

Deliver Touch Spells (Su): wrote:

If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the “toucher.” The familiar can then deliver the touch spell [b]just as the master would[b/]. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates.

[Diego Rossi]

I think (RAW is unclear) that the familiar could use a free action to touch someone/something when the spell is cast, but, as the familiar must be in contact with the wizard when the spell is cast and most familiars are tiny or smaller, there is no range advantage in doing that.

Tiny or smaller creatures generally have a reach of 0, so they need to enter the target square to deliver a touch spell.

After the casting and the wizard's turn have ended the familiar can act at his/its initiative the spell is treated as a held spell.

[glass]

If the familiar (or AC or eidolon) has its own turn separate from its PC, then yes it needs a standard action to deliver the touch spell.

But every table I have ever played at has had familiars etc share their PCs' turns, to the extent that I had forgotten that that was not strictly RAW. In which case, it is the same turn and IMO they qualify for the free action delivery.

[Diego Rossi]

glass wrote:

If the familiar (or AC or eidolon) has its own turn separate from its PC, then yes it needs a standard action to deliver the touch spell.

But every table I have ever played at has had familiars etc share their PCs' turns, to the extent that I had forgotten that that was not strictly RAW. In which case, it is the same turn and IMO they qualify for the free action delivery.

The familiar can share the same initiative number as the wizard, but can't share his turn, so it had to wait until the wizard's turn ends to act.

At that point, the spell is an held spell.

Put another way, the wizard can't cast a touch spell, then the familiar moves and delivers it as a free action (unless it has a readied action to do that), then the wizard moves and casts a quickened spell, and then the familiar takes its second move.

[glass]

Diego Rossi wrote:

The familiar can share the same initiative number as the wizard, but can't share his turn

I can assure you they absolutely can, unless I have been hallucinating the last couple of decades of gaming history, because....

glass wrote:

every table I have ever played at has had familiars etc share their PCs' turns, to the extent that I had forgotten that that was not strictly RAW.

EDIT: Whether or not they should is a separate question, but they frequently do.

[Diego Rossi]

glass wrote:

every table I have ever played at has had familiars etc share their PCs' turns, to the extent that I had forgotten that that was not strictly RAW.

Every table I ever played had a different initiative for each different combatant, familiars, eidolons, and animal companions included.

CRB - Initiative wrote:

If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll to determine which one of them goes before the other.

Often the PC of the familiar etc. delayed to get the same initiative, but sometimes they did the opposite to get/give flanking with other PCs, deliver a touch spell, or other reasons.

For sure sharing the turn is against the rules, as sharing would include mixing the actions of the PC and the familiar, animal companion, etc., something that is clearly against the rules.

Sharing the initiative count is different from sharing the turn. When you share the same initiative count as another creature you act before or after the other creature.

Mounts are somewhat of an exception:

CRB wrote:

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it.

You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
...
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
Casting Spells While Mounted: You can cast a spell normally if your mount moves up to a normal move (its speed) either before or after you cast. If you have your mount move both before and after you cast a spell, then you’re casting the spell while the mount is moving, and you have to make a concentration check due to the vigorous motion (DC 10 + spell level) or lose the spell. If the mount is running (quadruple speed), you can cast a spell when your mount has moved up to twice its speed, but your concentration check is more difficult due to the violent motion (DC 15 + spell level).

Mounts that are Animal Companions, Eidolon, or Familiars can act at your initiative count so, apparently, they can move, then you can cast a spell, then they can move again and deliver it as a free action (all that, while you are riding them).

As usual, Mounted Combat makes things muddy.

[glass]

Diego Rossi wrote:

For sure sharing the turn is against the rules

You may well be right (although I disagree that it is remotely as clear as you claim it is), but I literally said in my first post that "it is not strict RAW" so I am not sure why you are trying to turn this into a RAW argument.

[Name Violation]

glass wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

For sure sharing the turn is against the rules

You may well be right (although I disagree that it is remotely as clear as you claim it is), but I literally said in my first post that "it is not strict RAW" so I am not sure why you are trying to turn this into a RAW argument.

Have you been in the rules forum?

Around these parts its like when Gordon Ramsey sees undercooked chicken...