How does Cooperative Spell Work?

[CrimsonTemplar]

If you answered "one spell is cast by two casters", tell me this:

If the spell cast is a charm person, which of the casters becomes the target's friend?

If the spell is a polymorph other, who decides who the target is, and what the target's new shape will be?

If your answer is "the highest level caster," what do you do in the case of a tie? Ability scores? The casters have the same ability scores (not too improbable, with point buy).

If the feat affects only the spell cast by the highest level caster, why does the feat only say "the spell," which in every other metamagic feat description refers to the spell cast by the one using the feat?

So if it's a "Cooperative Spell" wouldn't it be safe to assume that the casters could decide these things. They're cooperating to cast it so it seems likely that they'd have to reach a consensus about the effects. If the players can't do that then the DM would be well within his right to say the spell failed for all of them and that slot is wasted.

"Alright, let's put our combined magical might into nuking that gaggle of Frost Giant Monks over there. Tim, you're the one of the mightiest casters among us so you guide the spell. Bob since you drew the short straw and are just as mighty as Tim you'll be the focus we pour our cosmic might thru...don't mess it up."

 

[Cheiromancer]

So if it's a "Cooperative Spell" wouldn't it be safe to assume ...

I'm not sure that it is safe to make *any* assumption based on the name of a feat. And the example you give of planning and coordination goes beyond the rules as written.

What my argument boils down to, basically, is if one spell is being cast by two casters, someone needs to be designated the controller. But, short of house-ruling it, there is no way to implement that.

Since the "two spells, both enhanced" reading is permitted by the text, and doesn't involve any house-ruling, I think it must be the correct one.

It also makes the feat more balanced. It's still completely useless if none of your companions has it, but is like a combined Spell focus and Spell Penetration when they do.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

What my argument boils down to, basically, is if one spell is being cast by two casters, someone needs to be designated the controller. But, short of house-ruling it, there is no way to implement that.

I disagree. If you want to cooperatively cast a spell with somebody you need to make *all* that same choices. If you don't, you're not cooperatively casting a spell.

Since the "two spells, both enhanced" reading is permitted by the text, and doesn't involve any house-ruling, I think it must be the correct one.

I think it's the smoking crack one personally.

It also makes the feat more balanced. It's still completely useless if none of your companions has it, but is like a combined Spell focus and Spell Penetration when they do.

So when you have two spellcasters in the party it's okay for them to get two feats for one? Your version is absolutely better for two wizards who are willing to work together.

The common understanding of the published version is a feat akin to endurance. Highly specialized and used as a kind of payment. Take this and you can get some better things later on, like perhaps this P-class.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Hey! I'm not the one adding extra sentences into the feat description. There is nothing in there about how all the casters have to agree on the decisions to be made regarding the spell; it just says they have to be casting the same spell at the same time.

It doesn't say anything about how all the spells are combined to make one spell that is more powerful than any of the sub-spells. It says that when you have this feat and cast a spell under such and such conditions, the spell gets these extra bonuses.

Adding extra bits of text to the feat description is like deciding that having the endurance feat means that "you can do activities twice as long before having to make constitution checks". The description of the endurance doesn't say that. No matter what you think "endurance" should mean or should do, it doesn't say that, and that's not how the feat works.

Similarly, the text of cooperative spell doesn't say that decisions have to be made unanimously, or that the spell energies combine to make one spell. So that's not how the feat work.

The closest parallel I can find to a similar feat is "dual strike" in sword and fist. That gives you an additional +2 to your attack roll when you and someone else with the feat are flanking an opponent. Nothing there about one person having to sacrifice their attack so the other one gets a bonus- both you and your friend get an attack bonus.

Similarly, when you and your friend are casting the same spell (though perhaps against different opponents), you both get bonuses.

 

[the Jester]

Each caster is using the same spell; so, when Hennek and Mialee each cast a cooperative fireball, two fireballs, each enhanced by the cooperative spell, shoot out.

I view this spell as most useful with a high level caster and multiple low-level backups; say Malford, a 10th level wizard (Int 23), and four 1st level apprentices (all have Int 16) cast cooperative burning hands... you have five burning hands spells going off with Ref DC 21 (11+ 6 for Malford's int bonus +2 for cooperative + 3 for five participants) and a +14 on spell penetration rolls.

The confusion comes from the poor example. But the benefit's description doesn't say anything about one of the spell's casters not casting the spell- everyone does- and it doesn't say anything about the spell not going off.

 

[Caliber]

I voted that only one spell goes off, but the more I think about it, I'd rather change my vote. It simply makes more sense for there to be two spells, both enhanced ...

But maybe thats just me.

 

[AuraSeer]

The feat isn't really that complicated. IMO its description is perfectly clear.

No matter how many casters cooperate, only one spell goes off. Any other interpretation is blatant munchkinish weaseling (not to put too fine a point on it).

 

[the Jester]

The feat isn't really that complicated. IMO its description is perfectly clear.

No matter how many casters cooperate, only one spell goes off. Any other interpretation is blatant munchkinish weaseling (not to put too fine a point on it).

So you think one fireball with a slightly higher penetration check and DC is better than three fireballs?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

no its worse, but one poly other with a higher Dc may be better than 3. And besides whether its a good feat or not is another issue to what the feat says it does. I don't think the feat is unclear at all in its wording, 1 dang spell is produced. You have to use a lot of wierd interpretations on the language of the feat to have more than one spell come out.

 

[AuraSeer]

So you think one fireball with a slightly higher penetration check and DC is better than three fireballs?

I'm not saying it's better, I'm saying it's correct. There's a big difference.

Here's an extreme example: A crack-smoking munchkin might think that a Cooperative fireball does 50d6 damage in a 100' radius, ignoring energy resistance and SR, and leaving allies unharmed. That would clearly be "better" (more powerful) than either poll option, but it's still completely wrong.