Share Spells limits

[Suikoden]

The Share Spell special ability of Familiars (Fs), Animal Companions (ACs), Eidolons (Es), and Phantoms (Ps) works the same for all (all = FACEP):

Quote:

Share Spells (Ex):

STATEMENT 1: The [class] may cast a spell with a target of “you” on his [FACEP] (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself.

STATEMENT 2: A [class] may cast spells on his [FACEP] even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the [FACEP]'s type ([Magical Beast/Animal/Outsider]).

STATEMENT 3: Spells cast in this way must come from the [class] spell list.

STATEMENT 4: This ability does not allow the [FACEP] to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.

Now, here are my questions (S1 = statement 1, etc.):

1. The Familiar's Share Spells description lacks S3 and S4. Does that mean that it *actually and purposefully* doesn't have those rules applied to it, or was it an error of omission?
ACs, Es, and Ps all have those statements.
ACs are in the Core Rulebook just like Fs, and I see no particular reason for Fs to function differently on this aspect, so not sure which case is true.

2. The most important issue: S2 is separate from S1, and worded slightly differently.
S1 says that "[class] may cast a spell" (singular), while S2 says that "[class] may cast spells" (plural), which seems more generic and potentially referring to "all spells", because it doesn't directly refer to S1 by saying something like "can cast such spells".
So, are they to be taken separately, or do you think it is implicitly intended that S2 is subordinated to S1 and refers only to the spells with a target of "you"?
Thematically, it makes sense that S2 is subordinate to 1, just specifying a sub-rule of the first rule, because sharing spells with a target of "you" is proper "sharing", while just casting any spell on another creature as normal (except the creature-type bypass) is just using the spell as intended, not this peculiar form of "sharing".

As a practical example, take Enlarge Person:
"Target: one humanoid creature".
The creature type isn't an issue, because it would be bypassed.
But the target is not "you", so, if S2 is subordinated to S1, Enlarge Person couldn't be cast on a FACEP; yet, if S2 has to be considered on its own, it could be cast.

I can also imagine some issues with certain spells, if S2 is on its own, although at present I don't have practical examples for that in mind.

But anyway, which is it? Is S2 subordinated to S1 or just on its own?

[Mysterious Stranger]

Share spells is one ability so the restriction and abilities all apply. So, only spells with a target of you can bypass type.

As to statement 3 and 4 originally only wizards had familiars, but druids, rangers and some clerics could have animal companions. That being the case the restriction on animal companions had to be spelled out in more detail, because you have three classes with different class abilities. I would say statements 3 and 4 are errors of omission.

In the core rule book Wizards did not have any abilities that functioned like spells that were not spells. Druids on the other hand have wildshape which does specify it functions like a (beastshape) spell. The 4th statement was probably put in to make sure that people did not claim that a druid could use share spell to use wildshape on his companion.

[Java Man]

Unless there are personal range spells that specify type then S2 must be independant of S1. I suppose it could also be the case that S2 is pointless.

[Name Violation]

Java Man wrote:

Unless there are personal range spells that specify type then S2 must be independant of S1. I suppose it could also be the case that S2 is pointless.

paragon surge is the only one i can think of

"Range personal (half-elf only)"

[I grok do u]

1) Seems intentional. Your Enlarge Person example is part of that; the companion classes don't have it on their spell lists, and Animal Growth is a 5th level spell.* Wizards already had a great spell list, so they maybe didn't see the point with familiars?

2) They are separate statements, and S2 stands on its own. Well, S3 is subordinate to S2 for the companion classes.

*Only a few outliers like Construct Rider or Bloodrider have that available. The summoner/eidolon also has access to the spell, but eidolons can get crazy anyway.

Of course, with the wide expansion of archetypes and (sub)domains, and the ability for anyone to gain a familiar or animal companion through feats arguably makes S3 pointless.

[Azothath]

Suikoden wrote:

...

1. The Familiar's Share Spells description lacks S3 and S4. Does that mean that it *actually and purposefully* doesn't have those rules applied to it, or was it an error of omission?

2. The most important issue: S2 is separate from S1, and worded slightly differently.
.. is implicitly intended that S2 is subordinated to S1 and refers only to the spells with a target of "you"?

1) Unknown. As it is published material we must assume it was all intentional as the errata has been completed years ago.

2) Unknown. There are spells, spell like abilities(SLA) and class abilities of Sp or SU, magical effects, scrolls, wands, use magic device, etc. Likely a distinction is made for that class and expected interactions.
Spells with "Range personal" also have "Target you". see Magic Basics. If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.

As RAW is neither logical nor uniformly consistent a logical analysis is going to go nowhere.
You are equating how PC class granted creatures operate and that is not True. RAW is descriptive and rationalized with each class a mostly independent object. Four distinct names ≡ 4 different things. There are similarities.
GMs have been executing the classes in play for 15+ years without issues (as PF1 is an OGL 3.5 spinoff). So it seems well understood.

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).
Thus a Wizard may cast Long Arm:T1 Range personal Target you on his familiar but not Enlarge Person:T1 Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target one humanoid creature.

[Near The End]

Azothath wrote:

You are equating how PC class granted creatures operate and that is not True. RAW is descriptive and rationalized with each class a mostly independent object. Four distinct names ≡ 4 different things. There are similarities.

GMs have been executing the classes in play for 15+ years without issues (as PF1 is an OGL 3.5 spinoff). So it seems well understood.

It's not the classes being equated, it's a specific ability that is exactly the same for all.

The only differences are the types of creature they ignore (obviously), the two missing statements in the familiar, and a minor difference in the animal companion's Share Spells made to include multiclassed druid/ranger or other relevant combinations.
Which makes the omission in the familiar seem more of an error, because a sorcerer with the arcane bloodline (speaking of Core Rulebook, not later books that might have muddled up things as time went on) can also get a familiar, and might multiclass into wizard as much as druids and rangers can into each other.

Anyway, seems like the general consensus is that the 2nd statement is suborditate to the 1st, but then what was the point of it?
As other mentioned, in Core (and it seems in most other books as well) there doesn't seem to be any spell that both has "target: you" and is restricted by type (which also makes sense, unless we're talking about specific magic that certain types of creatures developed to use only for themselves, but that's not the case for most spells in all the books).

[Melkiador]

I’ve seen it interpreted more often that the 1st and second sentence are not linked. They are independent statements. Your table may vary

The confusion is from the abridging that happened from 3.5 to Pathfinder.

Quote:

Share Spells

At the master’s option, he may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) he casts on himself also affect his familiar. The familiar must be within 5 feet at the time of casting to receive the benefit.

If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the familiar if it moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the familiar again even if it returns to the master before the duration expires. Additionally, the master may cast a spell with a target of "You" on his familiar (as a touch range spell) instead of on himself.

A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast).

[Near The End]

Melkiador wrote:

the master may cast a spell with a target of "You" on his familiar (as a touch range spell) instead of on himself.

A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast).

Worded this way, it seems a lot more like they're linked and less like it refers to all spells out of nowhere.

[Azothath]

Near The End wrote:

Azothath wrote:

You are equating how PC class granted creatures operate and that is not True. RAW is descriptive and rationalized with each class a mostly independent object. Four distinct names ≡ 4 different things. There are similarities.

GMs have been executing the classes in play for 15+ years without issues (as PF1 is an OGL 3.5 spinoff). So it seems well understood.

It's not the classes being equated, it's a specific ability that is exactly the same for all.

...

Please read and understand what I wrote before quoting and responding as it's helpful. Suikoden is being rather formal and thus my initial answers addressed those questions. It's somewhat unique for this forum.

The first part of your first line simply restates what I said even though it is used for the second part.
The second half of your first line is patently False for a combination of Familiars, Animal Companions, Eidolons, and Phantoms which is what Suikoden assumed in his opening post AND what I'm addressing. The different PC granted pets operate differently even if Share Spells is highly similar. To prove Share Spells operates the same you need both identical RAW text (which fails) AND the relationship to the parent/higher order object to be identical. You may be referring to only Familiars and only share spells but you need to state that within your statement.

We can't determine intent and we only have what's published. Sure, things could have been written with better technical writing and class definitions but they kinda made it up as they went.

I could post more but I don't normally respond to your posts.