Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gwumph 11-17-06, 01:33 AM	Hello folks I know this has been asked before. But i couldn't find the thread in any of the lists. How does spell sharing work? Does the animals have to be special to you or can it just be a warhorse or guard dog you bought. what spells work? i.e. mage armour, CLW, etc. If you drink a potion or read a scroll of a that kind of spell, does that work? Thanks
wooti 11-17-06, 02:34 AM	In my oppinion spell sharing is poorly writen. There is a "Rules of the game article" here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050913a But that just makes things more confusing and only straightens things out for the few spells given as an example. Yes the animal has to be special, they have to have the spell sharing ablity familars, animal companions and special mounts all have it. Any spell you cast on your self can be shared (if you stay within 5ft), or any that could be cast on your self can be cast on your animal. I'm not sure here, I don't think drinking a potion works but a scroll might. Someone else?
Sieylianna 11-17-06, 07:39 AM	If you drink a potion or read a scroll of a that kind of spell, does that work? No, it must be a spell that you personally cast. Ed
kjenks 11-18-06, 12:20 AM	No, it must be a spell that you personally cast. Ed That's not what the rules say.
Iswald 11-18-06, 04:15 AM	If you drink a potion or read a scroll of a that kind of spell, does that work? Although I don't think it should work, the rules do allow it since you are considered the caster when you use a potion. There might still be some threads debating this if you do a search.
_m_ 11-20-06, 08:43 PM	personally, i always buffed the familiar and myself seperately. mostly because my pets always went off without me and fought things, more like companion animals.
Cynric 11-22-06, 03:25 AM	I almost always share spells with my animal companion (druid\Beastmaster) which is a good thing considering I now have access to Bite of the Weretiger from Spell Compendium. Have not had the need to get both the Druid and the Companion on line attcking yet, mainly because by the time natures favour, bard song, GMF, Animal growth and it goes off (2 rounds worth and the tiger is hitting in that time), not much survives a round with the advanced tiger. Still waiting to get dire bear form for the druid and then get both of us wacking on something though.
_m_ 11-22-06, 05:50 PM	I almost always share spells with my animal companion (druid\Beastmaster) which is a good thing considering I now have access to Bite of the Weretiger from Spell Compendium. Have not had the need to get both the Druid and the Companion on line attcking yet, mainly because by the time natures favour, bard song, GMF, Animal growth and it goes off (2 rounds worth and the tiger is hitting in that time), not much survives a round with the advanced tiger. Still waiting to get dire bear form for the druid and then get both of us wacking on something though. my gsa uses his blink dog (dimension door as a free action) as a portable flank, so its often not within 5 feet. btw: surely you must occasionaly come up against monsters that can go toe to toe with your pet. u know, like... hard fights... ...
Cynric 11-22-06, 06:17 PM	I am well aware that there are things out there that will take my tiger. But considering there is not always a fighter around, I try and make it capable. Lately there have not been many things that stand up to it. Although it does come in cylces, plus, the cat is at the top of the power curve now, over the next few levels it loses a bit, until the next bump happens.
_m_ 11-22-06, 06:21 PM	I am well aware that there are things out there that will take my tiger. But considering there is not always a fighter around, I try and make it capable. Lately there have not been many things that stand up to it. Although it does come in cylces, plus, the cat is at the top of the power curve now, over the next few levels it loses a bit, until the next bump happens. mmm. bumps. the only thing my pets dont have going for them is damage. as in, at absolute best, they do 4 damage, and have 1 hit... ok so that seems like a fair sized problem, but they're more support for the caster than an actual fighting presence.
RedKnightofKet 11-22-06, 10:01 PM	I almost felt sorry for my DM the other day.... I just recently got my tiger a level bump, got the elite array the night before, and most of the encounters had 4+ baddies in each one. She did, however, manage to roll four 20's on me in one combat, resulting in two hits on the tiger, and one crit on me. I still ripped everything up, though....
kjenks 11-23-06, 10:31 AM	the only thing my pets dont have going for them is damage. as in, at absolute best, they do 4 damage, and have 1 hit... Nu? Greater Magic Weapon (1 hour/level) gives you a decent bonus. Nature's Favor (swift, Spell Compendium) stacks with it. All of the combat-capable animals have at least Str 16. Most of them have multiple attacks. So why the heck are your pets doing such pitiful damage?
Cynric 11-23-06, 06:05 PM	mmm. bumps. the only thing my pets dont have going for them is damage. as in, at absolute best, they do 4 damage, and have 1 hit... ok so that seems like a fair sized problem, but they're more support for the caster than an actual fighting presence. That would be a result of your pets being familiars, and not wild animals trained to fight from birth (animal companions).
_m_ 11-23-06, 06:11 PM	Nu? Greater Magic Weapon (1 hour/level) gives you a decent bonus. Nature's Favor (swift, Spell Compendium) stacks with it. All of the combat-capable animals have at least Str 16. Most of them have multiple attacks. So why the heck are your pets doing such pitiful damage? because the poor thing was a tiny pseudo dragon. my pets are familiars, not companion animals. ah, but you see, my pet excelled in other areas. high hp, high armour, high int, able to talk, communicate telepathically, can use door handles, can read and write, spell resistance, a perfect fly speed... though my new pet is a companion... um... elemental, so it hits properly.
clannagh 11-23-06, 10:47 PM	Out of interest as this has come up a few times locally .. how would this one work .... level 8 druid in Dire Lion form fighting next to Tiger pet in spell share distance casts Produce Flame (duration 8 minutes, D6+5 fire damage reduces duration by 1 minute each time it is used) - do they now both get natural attacks plus produce flame fire damage ? - assuming yes, do Dire Lion and Tiger have separate allocations of produce flame attacks (basically 8 attacks each) or is the allocation shared for 8 attacks total? - what would happen if the druid cast before charging .. would the animal lose the spell becasue of how initiative works (no simultaneous charge)
Cynric 11-23-06, 11:57 PM	Out of interest as this has come up a few times locally .. how would this one work .... level 8 druid in Dire Lion form fighting next to Tiger pet in spell share distance casts Produce Flame (duration 8 minutes, D6+5 fire damage reduces duration by 1 minute each time it is used) - do they now both get natural attacks plus produce flame fire damage ? - assuming yes, do Dire Lion and Tiger have separate allocations of produce flame attacks (basically 8 attacks each) or is the allocation shared for 8 attacks total? - what would happen if the druid cast before charging .. would the animal lose the spell becasue of how initiative works (no simultaneous charge) From someone who plays a Druid 11/Beastmaster 1, The animal companion moves on your initiative. I have yet to find a Gm that does not allow me to buff myself and share with the tiger, then use my move action to stay in contact with the tiger as it charges (as long as it does not charge too far). Produce flame is ok, What you want is access to the limited spell Bite of the Weretiger (5th level) or Bite of the Werebear(6th level) from the Spell Compendium. The way combats usually develop for this character is as follows. Round 1 Natures Favour (swift) Animal growth\Bite of the Weretiger (standard), move with companion (move) Round2 Bite of the Weretiger\Animal Growth (standard), follow the tiger (move). If need be in the third round I drop fires of purity or rejuvenating cocoon on the tiger, or step in to help out. Note I share all these spells, mainly because that way if the cat fails a will save, I can debuff it by moving away and then come back to take it out. Given that there are not many fighters at my APL , it seems to work, although I have had to build it that way.
Gwumph 11-23-06, 11:59 PM	This leads to another couple of questions? 1. Hows does cure spells work, do both druid and companion get to roll a D8 or is one D8 rolled and the split the amount? 2. Move actions: Can a druid and his companion move at exackly the same time (therefore allowing them to stay within 5' of each other) or do they have to move seperately??
Arvagor 11-24-06, 12:19 AM	Produce flame is ok, What you want is access to the limited spell Bite of the Weretiger (5th level) or Bite of the Werebear(6th level) from the Spell Compendium.IMO, produce flame is not a valid spell for sharing -- it is not a spell you cast on yourself, but merely has an effect that appears to have been cast on yourself.
zigspatty 11-24-06, 12:28 AM	level 8 druid in Dire Lion form fighting next to Tiger pet in spell share distance casts Produce Flame (duration 8 minutes, D6+5 fire damage reduces duration by 1 minute each time it is used) You can only share spells which affect you, the druid. Produce Flame does not affect or target you, it produces a flame which just happens to keep appearing in your palm. It's the same sort of spell as Call Lightning - do you think your tiger should get his own lightning bolts? It does not affect you any more than a wizard's magic missile spell affects him, and I've never heard anyone suggest that MM could be shared with a familiar. Besides, your tiger has a 2 intelligence. If you produced a flame in his paw, he's liable to decide that putting out the flame (by rolling in the dirt or getting in some water?) is far more important than attacking. And no, you can't train him to "throw Produced Flame" because I'm pretty sure it's not one of the standard tricks listed under the Handle Animal skill in the PHB. - do they now both get natural attacks plus produce flame fire damage ? Your tiger gets his natural attacks - no flames. You can throw your flame OR you can make a melee touch attack. It's possible that a really generous judge would allow you to make a natural attack with the flame in your paw and get both types of damage, but I wouldn't count on it. Nowhere in the spell description does it say the flame is a damage enhancement. (C'mon, it's a lowly 1st level spell that requires a touch attack to do damage!) As a druid, you've far better buffing options that you can legitimately share with your companion - nature's favor, magic fang, barkskin, bullstrength, bears endurance. It's silly to take a chance of trading your full dire lion pounce attack for a 1d6+5 flame touch attack. Patty
TallGuy 11-24-06, 05:15 AM	Produce flame is ok, What you want is access to the limited spell Bite of the Weretiger (5th level) or Bite of the Werebear(6th level) from the Spell Compendium. What, someone was stupid enough to give out access to these? Bas Vermeulen Sunndi Triad, who will make sure the Bite of the Weremunchkin spells don't get given out where he comes from :)
DuctShuiTengu 11-24-06, 02:59 PM	Your tiger gets his natural attacks - no flames. You can throw your flame OR you can make a melee touch attack. It's possible that a really generous judge would allow you to make a natural attack with the flame in your paw and get both types of damage, but I wouldn't count on it. Nowhere in the spell description does it say the flame is a damage enhancement. (C'mon, it's a lowly 1st level spell that requires a touch attack to do damage!) Actually, Complete Arcane specificly notes that you may use touch spells with an unarmed attack, dealing damage from both, though you then have to hit their normal AC instead of just touch and critting the unarmed attack doesn't multiply the damage from the spell (so for instance, you could cast shocking grasp and then punch your opponent to deal both bludgeoning damage and electricity). It doesn't mention other natural weapons (claw, bite, etc.) being used like this, but I'd hardly consider it to be too much of a stretch.
copper_wyrmling 11-24-06, 03:38 PM	Actually, Complete Arcane specificly notes that you may use touch spells with an unarmed attack, dealing damage from both, though you then have to hit their normal AC instead of just touch and critting the unarmed attack doesn't multiply the damage from the spell (so for instance, you could cast shocking grasp and then punch your opponent to deal both bludgeoning damage and electricity). It doesn't mention other natural weapons (claw, bite, etc.) being used like this, but I'd hardly consider it to be too much of a stretch. Produce Flame is not actually technically a touch spell, since instead of Range: Touch, Target: Creature Touched it has Range: 0ft, Effect: Flame In Your Palm. It creates a flame effect that can be used as a thrown weapon or a melee touch attack, kind of like Flame Blade (which has similar range / effect entries). In my experience, this has led to table variation on whether you can make a single attack with the spell on the same round that you cast it. I would expect similar table variation on whether you can deliver it with a natural weapon attack (yes if you view it like Chill Touch, as a touch spell with multiple charges; no if you view it like Flame Blade, as a created weapon). On the spell-sharing questions, the way I've always seen it ruled is that both creatures take the full effect of the spell, you don't need to divide the pool of bonuses / healing / whatever between the targets. Every GM I've played with will either allow simultaneous movement of creatures OR resolve spell effects based on position at the end of the round. Otherwise spells like Mass Fly become rather useless (60ft fly speed but fails if you get more than 30ft away from the other targets of the spell).
JamesMaissen 11-24-06, 06:48 PM	What, someone was stupid enough to give out access to these? Bas Vermeulen Sunndi Triad, who will make sure the Bite of the Weremunchkin spells don't get given out where he comes from :) That's the problem with default limited. Things that are grossly overpowered are brought in as 'limited' and aren't even listed out to draw attention (and realization of how overpowered they are).. at some point in some places they will be given out and then propogate. The worst case is that it happens just to a small number of players and thus the impact overall to the campaign 'isn't worth' banning such spells. If there's a problem with a spell, feat or PrC then it should be removed from the game. Limited should be a conscious choice after looking at the item and deciding it's not broken, James
PaulH 11-24-06, 08:32 PM	Hi I use the 'Bite' spells in a non - Lg game. Had a look at Master Many Forms PrC, then DM said full access to Spell Compendium at 3rd lvl. No need for PrC any more - the Bite spells, though only lasting 1 rnd/lvl, are more powerful, and grant enhancement bonuses which stack even when shapeshifted. I've (so far) been using Bite of the Wererat (+6 Dex, +2 Con +3 Nat Armour, etc). And that's the 'least' powerful version. Worse is Enhance Wild Shape. (Gain Extraordinary abilities whilst shaping). Cheers Paul H
katrick 11-29-06, 03:39 AM	From someone who plays a Druid 11/Beastmaster 1, The animal companion moves on your initiative. I have yet to find a Gm that does not allow me to buff myself and share with the tiger, then use my move action to stay in contact with the tiger as it charges (as long as it does not charge too far). Produce flame is ok, What you want is access to the limited spell Bite of the Weretiger (5th level) or Bite of the Werebear(6th level) from the Spell Compendium. The way combats usually develop for this character is as follows. Round 1 Natures Favour (swift) Animal growth\Bite of the Weretiger (standard), move with companion (move) Round2 Bite of the Weretiger\Animal Growth (standard), follow the tiger (move). If need be in the third round I drop fires of purity or rejuvenating cocoon on the tiger, or step in to help out. Note I share all these spells, mainly because that way if the cat fails a will save, I can debuff it by moving away and then come back to take it out. Given that there are not many fighters at my APL , it seems to work, although I have had to build it that way. druid 5 \beastmaster 10;cohort druid 5 \ beastmaster 8 natural bond multiple try 2 t-rex,2 elephants, 2 dire lions,1 giant croc, and 2 halflings= 1 very upset DM,add mithrall full plate and your STR 6 doesn't matter much anymore
Iswald 11-29-06, 09:48 AM	druid 5 \beastmaster 10;cohort druid 5 \ beastmaster 8 natural bond multiple try 2 t-rex,2 elephants, 2 dire lions,1 giant croc, and 2 halflings= 1 very upset DM,add mithrall full plate and your STR 6 doesn't matter much anymore I don't fully comprehend your post. But, are you taking into account that the beastmaster's second, third and fourth animal companions only use beastmaster levels and not druid + beastmaster levels? The druid 5/beastmaster 10 character with natural bond has one effective druid level (EDL) 18 companion with EDL 21 abilities, one EDL 7 companion, one EDL 4 companion and one EDL 1 companion.
clik_ml 11-29-06, 10:31 AM	I don't fully comprehend your post. But, are you taking into account that the beastmaster's second, third and fourth animal companions only use beastmaster levels and not druid + beastmaster levels? The druid 5/beastmaster 10 character with natural bond has one effective druid level (EDL) 18 companion with EDL 21 abilities, one EDL 7 companion, one EDL 4 companion and one EDL 1 companion. Heh, it may be even worse than that. Some tables might not even let natural bond stack in any way, shape or form such that EDL would be higher than the character level. I personally don't consider the bit about "applying the indicated adjustment to the druid’s level for purposes of determining the companion’s characteristics and special abilities," to be suggestive that the adjustment for that purpose actually lowers the EDL. Just that it is an means for calculating how big of a companion and how big the bonuses are. If they hadn't stuck in "for purposes of" then I'd be gung ho for the adjustments actually lowering EDL, but that qualifying statement implies that it is not a universal adjustment to EDL. The way I see it, Natural Bond comes first to calculate the Equivalent Druid Level. Any bonus gained from Natural Bond cannot push the Equivalent Druid Level higher than the character level. From there subtracting a number from EDL solely for the purpose of calculating what kind of companion and its bonuses are... not actually changing the EDL per se. I realize my reading is certainly not the only interpretation, but there it is. But yes, Beastmaster's extra animal companions are worse than a joke, they are an insult. No DM is going to be upset at them.
DuctShuiTengu 11-29-06, 10:46 AM	Heh, it may be even worse than that. Some tables might not even let natural bond stack in any way, shape or form such that EDL would be higher than the character level. I personally don't consider the bit about "applying the indicated adjustment to the druid’s level for purposes of determining the companion’s characteristics and special abilities," to be suggestive that the adjustment for that purpose actually lowers the EDL. Just that it is an means for calculating how big of a companion and how big the bonuses are. If they hadn't stuck in "for purposes of" then I'd be gung ho for the adjustments actually lowering EDL, but that qualifying statement implies that it is not a universal adjustment to EDL. The way I see it, Natural Bond comes first to calculate the Equivalent Druid Level. Any bonus gained from Natural Bond cannot push the Equivalent Druid Level higher than the character level. From there subtracting a number from EDL solely for the purpose of calculating what kind of companion and its bonuses are... not actually changing the EDL per se. Then again, Natural Bond uses much the same language. "Add three to your effective druid level for the purpose of determining the bonus Hit Dice, extra tricks, special abilities, and other bonuses that your animal companion receives." So yeah, it's very open to interpretation on how that works, at least until/unless an official ruling gets made.
RedKnightofKet 11-29-06, 04:40 PM	How does the first animal companion get EDL 21 abilities. Natural Bond affects the EDL, which, when applied to a druid 5/beast 10 =15, and cannont be added further. What you have is an EDL 18 companion as the top dog. I agree on the later animals, though. Natural Bond applies to your "animal companion" (singular) To me, and I'm sure to most other judges, that means the primary one. Even the EDL 7 one is lucky to be a one-round speed bump at APL 14/16. I don't fully comprehend your post. But, are you taking into account that the beastmaster's second, third and fourth animal companions only use beastmaster levels and not druid + beastmaster levels? The druid 5/beastmaster 10 character with natural bond has one effective druid level (EDL) 18 companion with EDL 21 abilities, one EDL 7 companion, one EDL 4 companion and one EDL 1 companion.
Cynric 11-29-06, 07:46 PM	What, someone was stupid enough to give out access to these? Bas Vermeulen Sunndi Triad, who will make sure the Bite of the Weremunchkin spells don't get given out where he comes from :) Actually it was worse. From memory it said that for 2 TU's gain access to any two limited spelss from the Spell Compendium. I could have taken werebear, but settled for tiger, and mass align Fang. I know it is a broken combination, when you normally have a bard with you but if it is allowed I will use it, in this case anyway. Until they errata it:(
Mommy was an Orc 11-29-06, 10:33 PM	Actually it was worse. From memory it said that for 2 TU's gain access to any two limited spelss from the Spell Compendium. I could have taken werebear, but settled for tiger, and mass align Fang. I know it is a broken combination, when you normally have a bard with you but if it is allowed I will use it, in this case anyway. Until they errata it:( I believe the Circle indicated that such ARs should be errata'd. All ARs are supposed to specify which spells they are allowing into the game...
Cynric 11-30-06, 03:56 AM	I believe the Circle indicated that such ARs should be errata'd. All ARs are supposed to specify which spells they are allowing into the game... I am aware of that and have asked for a clarification. Unfortunately I have not gotten one. When I get one I will happily change it so it fits in the rules. As I said, until they errata it I will use it.
katrick 12-21-06, 09:08 PM	didn't see the bit about BM class levels that really sucks but to get the levels you take Natural bond for each animal just like Exotic weapon Proficiency etc can be taken multiple times for different critters giving 18 10 7 and 4 a polar bear may still cut it with some buffs but you would have to ride the brown bear and use a dire bat to scout though the main point is to spread the damage with extra targets and get more attacks per round ie with haste you still get 15 attacks minimum as opposed to the majority of opponents which get two or three and have up to 17 targets (me,cohort,7 animal companions,4 dogs,4 other party members their animals and summoned critters) it is the old probability at work lots of little things will have more chance of taking out 1 big thing which is why APL calculations are a bit silly one 15th level fighter would be slaughtered by a twelth level party marty
Ramacass 12-22-06, 04:32 AM	That's not what the rules say. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the rules say. I'll have to check when I get home but I'm almost certain it says the spell has to be personally cast and can not come from a magic item and last time I checked potions and scrolls were magic items.
kjenks 12-22-06, 10:46 AM	Gwumph, the OP, asked: "If you drink a potion or read a scroll of a that kind of spell, does that work?" Ed answered: "No, it must be a spell that you personally cast." Ken Jenks replied: "That's not what the rules say." I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the rules say. I'll have to check when I get home but I'm almost certain it says the spell has to be personally cast and can not come from a magic item and last time I checked potions and scrolls were magic items. Here is what the rules actually say for the three Share Spells abilities, all pretty much the same: Share Spells (Ex): At the druid’s option, she may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) she casts upon herself also affect her animal companion. The animal companion must be within 5 feet of her at the time of casting to receive the benefit. If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the animal companion if the companion moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the animal again, even if it returns to the druid before the duration expires. Additionally, the druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a touch range spell) instead of on herself. A druid and her animal companion can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion’s type (animal). === Share Spells: At the paladin’s option, she may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) she casts on herself also affect her mount. The mount 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 mount if it moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the mount again even if it returns to the paladin before the duration expires. Additionally, the paladin may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her mount (as a touch range spell) instead of on herself. A paladin and her mount can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the mount’s type (magical beast). === 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). As you can see, these rules say nothing about magic items, just about who is casting the spell on whom. Let's share a True Strike spell. If you cast the spell yourself, I don't think there's any real controversy about how it gets shared. You and your critter each get +20 on your next attack rolls, subject to the limits of the Share Spells ability. Let's say you activate a wand of True Strike, a spell triger item. The spell trigger and wand activation rules do not say that the wand itself casts the spell. Who is the spellcaster? It's gotta be the dude with the wand. He's the one who gets the +20 on his next attack roll, right? (It would be rather silly if the wand got the bonus.) So if the dude with the wand is the spellcaster and he meets the requirements for the Share Spells ability, it looks like he can share this True Strike spell from a wand just the same way as he can share a True Strike spell he casts the regular way. Now let's say you activate a scroll of True Strike, a spell completion item. The spell completion and scroll activation rules do not say that the scroll itself casts the spell. Who is the spellcaster? Again, it's gotta be the dude with the scroll, not the scroll itself. He's the one gets the attack bonus, right? (But I like the image of a blank piece of paper inflicting really accurate paper cuts.) So if he's the spellcaster, and he meets the requirements for the Share Spells ability, it looks like he can share this True Strike spell from a scroll just the same way as he can share a True Strike spell he casts the regular way. And finally, let's say you drink a potion, a use-activated item. You can't have a potion of True Strike, so let's use a potion of Enlarge Person as an example. The rules for brewing potions say, "The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target." So if he's the spellcaster, and he meets the requirements for the Share Spells ability, it looks like he can share this spell from a potion just the same way as he can share a spell he casts the regular way. If you have found any rules that contradict or modify these rules from the PH and DMG, please let me know.
Britt 12-22-06, 11:12 AM	Wands, scrolls, and potions do not count as "you" casting the spell, or they would work for PrC prerequisites, which they don't.
kjenks 12-22-06, 03:36 PM	Wands, scrolls, and potions do not count as "you" casting the spell, or they would work for PrC prerequisites, which they don't. That's an interesting observation. I know that's how we handle our campaign, and I'm sure that's how the game designers intended it to work, but do you have a rule citation for that?
Britt 12-22-06, 03:56 PM	No time to look right now, as I am still working on my paper :p I'll look later, but I think it is the only reasonable interpretation consonant with the spirit of the rules. Also, allowing magic items to qualify for PrCs would create all sorts of weird rules inconsistencies, such as what happens when you gain a caster level in the class that qualified you for the PrC, but there was no spellcasting class that qualified you?
Arvagor 12-22-06, 06:06 PM	Also, allowing magic items to qualify for PrCs would create all sorts of weird rules inconsistencies, such as what happens when you gain a caster level in the class that qualified you for the PrC, but there was no spellcasting class that qualified you?You might want to clarify that, Britt, as there's clearly support in the rules for magic items to qualify you for PrCs -- look at page 16 of Complete Warrior for example, under Meeting Class Requirements. Now granted, I think they're referring to things like a belt of giant strength or a helm of telepathy, items that grant "permanent" abilities, and I think the spirit of the rules supports that (and not scrolls, potions, wands, etc.) -- but just thought it needed to be pointed out...
Ramacass 12-22-06, 11:01 PM	Gwumph, the OP, asked: "If you drink a potion or read a scroll of a that kind of spell, does that work?" Ed answered: "No, it must be a spell that you personally cast." Ken Jenks replied: "That's not what the rules say." Here is what the rules actually say for the three Share Spells abilities, all pretty much the same: As you can see, these rules say nothing about magic items, just about who is casting the spell on whom. Let's share a True Strike spell. If you cast the spell yourself, I don't think there's any real controversy about how it gets shared. You and your critter each get +20 on your next attack rolls, subject to the limits of the Share Spells ability. Let's say you activate a wand of True Strike, a spell triger item. The spell trigger and wand activation rules do not say that the wand itself casts the spell. Who is the spellcaster? It's gotta be the dude with the wand. He's the one who gets the +20 on his next attack roll, right? (It would be rather silly if the wand got the bonus.) So if the dude with the wand is the spellcaster and he meets the requirements for the Share Spells ability, it looks like he can share this True Strike spell from a wand just the same way as he can share a True Strike spell he casts the regular way. Now let's say you activate a scroll of True Strike, a spell completion item. The spell completion and scroll activation rules do not say that the scroll itself casts the spell. Who is the spellcaster? Again, it's gotta be the dude with the scroll, not the scroll itself. He's the one gets the attack bonus, right? (But I like the image of a blank piece of paper inflicting really accurate paper cuts.) So if he's the spellcaster, and he meets the requirements for the Share Spells ability, it looks like he can share this True Strike spell from a scroll just the same way as he can share a True Strike spell he casts the regular way. And finally, let's say you drink a potion, a use-activated item. You can't have a potion of True Strike, so let's use a potion of Enlarge Person as an example. The rules for brewing potions say, "The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target." So if he's the spellcaster, and he meets the requirements for the Share Spells ability, it looks like he can share this spell from a potion just the same way as he can share a spell he casts the regular way. If you have found any rules that contradict or modify these rules from the PH and DMG, please let me know. :bow: So let me get this straight by druid drinks a potion of enlarge person and his companion gets bigger?:OMG! I agree with Britt that it's not in the spirit of the game. I'm sure there's something somewhere where I read it didn't work for magic items. I don't have time at the moment to try to find it. But if and until then I stand corrected.
Herrbard 12-23-06, 08:03 AM	So let me get this straight by druid drinks a potion of enlarge person and his companion gets bigger? My answer to this would fall under the entry on the spell description: "Target: one humanoid creature". Even if the potion could be shared (and I don't like it either) an animal companion is not a humanoid creature. Is this correct?
kjenks 12-23-06, 08:13 AM	My answer to this would fall under the entry on the spell description: "Target: one humanoid creature". Even if the potion could be shared (and I don't like it either) an animal companion is not a humanoid creature. Is this correct? The answer to your conundrum lies in this section of the Share Spells rules: SRD === A druid and her animal companion can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion’s type (animal). ===
Herrbard 12-23-06, 08:20 AM	The answer to your conundrum lies in this section of the Share Spells rules: SRD === A druid and her animal companion can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion’s type (animal). === Ah, yes. Once again I bow to the master. :bow: Thanks Ken!
Sieylianna 12-23-06, 01:01 PM	I've seen lots of wizard abuse with sharing offensive spells. Ed
zigspatty 12-23-06, 02:35 PM	It would be abuse if the spells are offensive - shared spells must be cast on oneself. Even if a player can twist the semantics of the spell description to claim that he can share his magic missile/scorching ray/produce flame/call lightning/etc, it violates the spirit of the rules to do so. Offensive spells aren't cast on oneself, they target an opponent. Fire shield is about the only spell I can think of that could be legitimately shared and potentially offensive. There'd be little reason to imbue a familiar with an offensive spell then, instead you'd just make sure the familiar's within 5 ft. when you cast it. Twin spell would be a silly feat choice if you could gain the same effect just by using your familiar's share spell ability.
copper_wyrmling 12-23-06, 02:40 PM	It would be abuse if the spells are offensive - shared spells must be cast on oneself. Even if a player can twist the semantics of the spell description to claim that he can share his magic missile/scorching ray/produce flame/call lightning/etc, it violates the spirit of the rules to do so. Offensive spells aren't cast on oneself, they target an opponent. Fire shield is about the only spell I can think of that could be legitimately shared and potentially offensive. Dragon Breath, plus breath-weapon-enhancing spells if you get access.
Gwumph 12-28-06, 12:16 AM	Hey Britt Onr thing about the Prc's and magic items. It says in the FAQ that magic items that boost abilities are eligible to be used in taking feats. So if guantlets of Dex +2 give you enought of a boost to take the Dodge feat and then you need dodge to enter a PrC, your ability to enter the PrC is based on a magic item. Gwumph
Britt 12-28-06, 10:41 AM	Yes, but those are not disposable items. We were specifically talking about wands and scrolls, and probably staves.
Reylance 12-28-06, 10:54 AM	Britt, Maybe you'd like to reconsider addressing rules questions in your sticky thread? I'd be happy to see issues like this clarified by the Circle, in the absence of clarification in the FAQ.