3.0 Paladin Dragon Mount spell sharing

[jefgorbach]

Dross,
As noted, all OD&D familiars were mundane animals so the issue was moot until 1e added creatures like Imps without addressing the issue of Familar>Master spells/etc.

RAW allows such creatures to use their abilities on another within combat range, so its not a question of being able to do so, but rather WHAT can be shared via the link. TSR clearly stated the link was limited to general emotions only, then muddled the waters by allowing Familiars to share their familiarity with a place with their Master -- implying the link is indeed two-way, and CAN share more than general emotions. V3.0 clarified this by allowing the Familiar to share Feats and Skills which again clearly exceed general emotional content.

Given this, we can presume either TSR was either uncertain asto the meaning of "empathy" or were simply did an ineligant at expressing their intention. Accepting the latter as more likely, I provided Merriam-Webster's official defination of "empathy" as an accepted independent authority regarding the meaning of words. MW clearifies empathy is the ability to "vicariously experience the feelings, thoughts, and experiences of another" - confirming TSR/WOTc's useage as a means of two-way communication.

However since further clairification is needed, we can likewise lookup "communication", finding it means "1 : an act or instance of transmitting, 2a : information communicated b : a verbal or written message, 3 : a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior". Its my belief a magical spell/innate spell-like-ability would qualify as communication per either defination #1 or (especially) defination #3 and thus WOULD be shareable via the empathic link.

 

[Dross]

RAW allows such creatures to use their abilities on another within combat range, so its not a question of being able to do so, but rather WHAT can be shared via the link. TSR clearly stated the link was limited to general emotions only, then muddled the waters by allowing Familiars to share their familiarity with a place with their Master -- implying the link is indeed two-way, and CAN share more than general emotions. V3.0 clarified this by allowing the Familiar to share Feats and Skills which again clearly exceed general emotional content.

I accept that the link IS two way as each side gets something. However, everything that is provided via the link is ONE way (I liken it to a symbiotic relationship, one provides something the other lacks). The only exception to this is the empathic communication, and that has a definition in this context of general emotions.

I don't see the familiarity as muddying the water. It calls out a specific case of a bonus the familiar provides the master. The master cannot share its familiarity with the familiar.

As for two-way sharing feats and skills. I don't see that either share feats (one provides the other with feats). If the familiar has Improved Initiative the master does not get it, or visa versa. The bonus to saves are similar to the feats that improve saves: +2 on Fort for a rat V Great Fortitude. For skills the master provides ranks (if better). Each is shared in one direction only.

There is only one other place where I see anything along the lines of: if one or the other has ####, then both have ###, (the language between the two at 5th level, but this is given to both at the same time, not a case of one having and the other gets), which is what you say is able to be done in the case of share spells. Everything else is one providing the other with something.

Given that the master and familiar can only share an empathic communication, does that not imply that everything else is one way. Or if Share Spells goes both way,why is not all the other abilities also shared both ways?

Given this, we can presume either TSR was either uncertain asto the meaning of "empathy" or were simply did an ineligant at expressing their intention. Accepting the latter as more likely, I provided Merriam-Webster's official defination of "empathy" as an accepted independent authority regarding the meaning of words. MW clearifies empathy is the ability to "vicariously experience the feelings, thoughts, and experiences of another" - confirming TSR/WOTc's useage as a means of two-way communication.

There is a third option: that they were aware enough of the meaning of "empathy" and chose to further define it for a specific case (such as a familiar communicating with it's master).

However since further clarification is needed, we can likewise lookup "communication", finding it means "1 : an act or instance of transmitting, 2a : information communicated b : a verbal or written message, 3 : a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior". Its my belief a magical spell/innate spell-like-ability would qualify as communication per either defination #1 or (especially) defination #3 and thus WOULD be shareable via the empathic link.

This is an English language definition. PHB & 3.5 Rules Compendium (no DMG 3.0 access ATM) do not have a definition so the WM definition is is fine.
Until we come to the PHB familiar sidebar which provides a definition for what it means in the case of an empathic link with a familiar.