Animal companion and shared spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Animal companion and shared spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Aliquid
02-07-05, 04:56 PM Ok... here's a debate I had at the last game I played:

If a ranger/druid casts a spell, their animal companion can share the effect.

This is simple enough for something like "bull's strength", but we started arguing about how it would effect "Cure Light Wounds"

Would this be a case of the spell being "shared" between the Druid and the animal, and as such they share the effect of the spell? i.e. 1/2 of the total HP healed for the Druid and 1/2 for the animal.

Or would this be a case of the spell being "duplicated" for the animal. i.e. the full HP value for the Druid, and the same amount for the animal.

What do you all think?
Schmendrick
02-07-05, 05:33 PM The spell is duplicated. Any other spell is effectively duplicated. Full effects are granted to both; why should Cure spells be any different?

Under the entry for "share spells" it is strongly implied that even instantaneous spells are "shared." ("If the duration is not instantaneous, then... [special rules about 5"]")
Seeker95
02-07-05, 10:53 PM It really is up to your DM. Either both get full effects, or the effects are halved. The arguments for both interpretations are valid. Just make sure things stay consistent in your game.
deusxmachina
02-08-05, 04:40 AM Certainly something like Cure Light Wounds would be shared. The only kind of stuff you can't share would be something like Flame Blade since it's kind of hard for a crocodile or bear to wield a sword. And now that I think about it, a shared Produce Flame would be pretty sweet when melee'ing side by side.
Seeker95
02-08-05, 08:54 AM Certainly something like Cure Light Wounds would be shared.There is no doubt that cure light wounds can be shared. The question is whether the hit points bestowed are divided between the two, or applied in full to both. Both answers fit within the rules as written.

In my campaign, the spell is shared. Its effects are not.
I treat "share spells" as if there were two castings.
A cure light wounds is fully applied to both the master and the pet.

Whichever route you choose for your game, remain consistent.
Aliquid
02-08-05, 04:10 PM There is no doubt that cure light wounds can be shared. The question is whether the hit points bestowed are divided between the two, or applied in full to both. Both answers fit within the rules as written.

In my campaign, the spell is shared. Its effects are not.
I treat "share spells" as if there were two castings.
A cure light wounds is fully applied to both the master and the pet.

Whichever route you choose for your game, remain consistent.The DM for this game made a ruling on the subject, and I am sure he will be consistent. It isn't my character, so I don't have anything personally invested in the argument, I just found it quite interesting how seriously people took the debate.

Personall, I can see the logic for both sides of the argument..... but other individuals at the game refused to consider the possibility that an interpretation different from theirs was possible.

I was just curious which side of the debate would be supported by the people on these boards.
Zherog
02-08-05, 06:01 PM but other individuals ... refused to consider the possibility that an interpretation different from theirs was possible.

The boards are the same way. ;)
tarkin
02-08-05, 06:21 PM I see both sides being possible, and would make the ruling based on the magic level of my game.

In an above average - high magic game, I would rule that both got the healing. (Faerun)

In an average - low power game (one where Guilds had fees to make magic items so all prices were higher), I would rule that you divide the healing. (Dark Sun)
Moon-Lancer
02-08-05, 10:06 PM Lets think for a bit. So some spells you share like havesis and others you don’t? I think if was that complicated they would specify. Especially because Sharing spells is basically healing oneself and healing the companion with one spell. its effectively making it useless because you have to cast 2 spells to get the same benefit. They definitely would have stated that cures would be split. Or dice would be split. The spell is shared as in its the is the same on both. d8s for both because the spells effect is a d8.

basically the title is what’s throwing you off. It actually doesn’t say in the text that they share the spell. that’s only the ability name.

"she may have any spell she casts upon herself also affect her animal companion" if that’s the interpretation of splitting the spell I have to wonder what else people read to much into. I think a valid question is do you roll once say a d8 and you roll a 4. does that mean that you get for and your animal get 4. Or do you reroll because its effectively casting the same spell on the animal too.

Too many words for the same meaning Uggg. Working languages suck. This is the true root of war.

Also I was wondering. Buff spell with a duration. Can you move say 30 feet and if you animal companion moves 30 feet on his turn does he keep his buffs. Even though you moved 5 feet away from him at your turn, supposedly during rounds one round is 5 or so seconds so visually the animal is walking at your side and you’re not running ahead and he is not catching up? By this I am confused?
deusxmachina
02-08-05, 10:14 PM Also I was wondering. Buff spell with a duration. Can you move say 30 feet and if you animal companion moves 30 feet on his turn does he keep his buffs. Even though you moved 5 feet away from him at your turn, supposedly during rounds one round is 5 or so seconds so visually the animal is walking at your side and you’re not running ahead and he is not catching up? By this I am confused?

We started having druids and companions act on the same initiative since otherwise the companion would usually be waiting for the druid to act anyway. This method hinders them in some instances, but it also makes the buffs easier since they both move together and can stay within 5' that way.
Seeker95
02-09-05, 12:32 PM Also I was wondering. Buff spell with a duration. Can you move say 30 feet and if you animal companion moves 30 feet on his turn does he keep his buffs.We rule that the two still operate on separate initiatives. However, the share is broken only if the distance between the two is greater than 5' at the end of the caster's turn. This permits the two to "move together" so long as the caster waits to go after the familiar/companion/etc. Sometimes it causes odd mechanics, but it also causes tactical fun with bull rush etc. :D
troll18
02-10-05, 04:15 PM they addressed this in the 3.0 splatbooks... could be Tome & Blood with familiars

they said the healing hps was split between the two...
Seeker95
02-10-05, 08:08 PM they addressed this in the 3.0 splatbooks... could be Tome & Blood with familiars [...] they said the healing hps was split between the two...Which would be canon if it made it into the FAQ, the 3.5 rule books, or the errata.

Actually, it is the Tome and Blood reference that makes this a divided camp type of question. Were it not for that accursed piece of ahem... document, most would quite easily acknowledge that you share the spell, not the effects of the spell.
cwslyclgh
02-10-05, 08:36 PM Actually, it is the Tome and Blood reference that makes this a divided camp type of question. Were it not for that accursed piece of ahem... document, most would quite easily acknowledge that you share the spell, not the effects of the spell.

I actually agree... I found the tome and blood passage to actually be pretty much a direct contradiction of what was written in the Player's Handbook on the subject and conseqently ignored it even in 3.0, using the primary source guidelines.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aliquid 02-07-05, 04:56 PM	Ok... here's a debate I had at the last game I played: If a ranger/druid casts a spell, their animal companion can share the effect. This is simple enough for something like "bull's strength", but we started arguing about how it would effect "Cure Light Wounds" Would this be a case of the spell being "shared" between the Druid and the animal, and as such they share the effect of the spell? i.e. 1/2 of the total HP healed for the Druid and 1/2 for the animal. Or would this be a case of the spell being "duplicated" for the animal. i.e. the full HP value for the Druid, and the same amount for the animal. What do you all think?
Schmendrick 02-07-05, 05:33 PM	The spell is duplicated. Any other spell is effectively duplicated. Full effects are granted to both; why should Cure spells be any different? Under the entry for "share spells" it is strongly implied that even instantaneous spells are "shared." ("If the duration is not instantaneous, then... [special rules about 5"]")
Seeker95 02-07-05, 10:53 PM	It really is up to your DM. Either both get full effects, or the effects are halved. The arguments for both interpretations are valid. Just make sure things stay consistent in your game.
deusxmachina 02-08-05, 04:40 AM	Certainly something like Cure Light Wounds would be shared. The only kind of stuff you can't share would be something like Flame Blade since it's kind of hard for a crocodile or bear to wield a sword. And now that I think about it, a shared Produce Flame would be pretty sweet when melee'ing side by side.
Seeker95 02-08-05, 08:54 AM	Certainly something like Cure Light Wounds would be shared.There is no doubt that cure light wounds can be shared. The question is whether the hit points bestowed are divided between the two, or applied in full to both. Both answers fit within the rules as written. In my campaign, the spell is shared. Its effects are not. I treat "share spells" as if there were two castings. A cure light wounds is fully applied to both the master and the pet. Whichever route you choose for your game, remain consistent.
Aliquid 02-08-05, 04:10 PM	There is no doubt that cure light wounds can be shared. The question is whether the hit points bestowed are divided between the two, or applied in full to both. Both answers fit within the rules as written. In my campaign, the spell is shared. Its effects are not. I treat "share spells" as if there were two castings. A cure light wounds is fully applied to both the master and the pet. Whichever route you choose for your game, remain consistent.The DM for this game made a ruling on the subject, and I am sure he will be consistent. It isn't my character, so I don't have anything personally invested in the argument, I just found it quite interesting how seriously people took the debate. Personall, I can see the logic for both sides of the argument..... but other individuals at the game refused to consider the possibility that an interpretation different from theirs was possible. I was just curious which side of the debate would be supported by the people on these boards.
Zherog 02-08-05, 06:01 PM	but other individuals ... refused to consider the possibility that an interpretation different from theirs was possible. The boards are the same way. ;)
tarkin 02-08-05, 06:21 PM	I see both sides being possible, and would make the ruling based on the magic level of my game. In an above average - high magic game, I would rule that both got the healing. (Faerun) In an average - low power game (one where Guilds had fees to make magic items so all prices were higher), I would rule that you divide the healing. (Dark Sun)
Moon-Lancer 02-08-05, 10:06 PM	Lets think for a bit. So some spells you share like havesis and others you don’t? I think if was that complicated they would specify. Especially because Sharing spells is basically healing oneself and healing the companion with one spell. its effectively making it useless because you have to cast 2 spells to get the same benefit. They definitely would have stated that cures would be split. Or dice would be split. The spell is shared as in its the is the same on both. d8s for both because the spells effect is a d8. basically the title is what’s throwing you off. It actually doesn’t say in the text that they share the spell. that’s only the ability name. "she may have any spell she casts upon herself also affect her animal companion" if that’s the interpretation of splitting the spell I have to wonder what else people read to much into. I think a valid question is do you roll once say a d8 and you roll a 4. does that mean that you get for and your animal get 4. Or do you reroll because its effectively casting the same spell on the animal too. Too many words for the same meaning Uggg. Working languages suck. This is the true root of war. Also I was wondering. Buff spell with a duration. Can you move say 30 feet and if you animal companion moves 30 feet on his turn does he keep his buffs. Even though you moved 5 feet away from him at your turn, supposedly during rounds one round is 5 or so seconds so visually the animal is walking at your side and you’re not running ahead and he is not catching up? By this I am confused?
deusxmachina 02-08-05, 10:14 PM	Also I was wondering. Buff spell with a duration. Can you move say 30 feet and if you animal companion moves 30 feet on his turn does he keep his buffs. Even though you moved 5 feet away from him at your turn, supposedly during rounds one round is 5 or so seconds so visually the animal is walking at your side and you’re not running ahead and he is not catching up? By this I am confused? We started having druids and companions act on the same initiative since otherwise the companion would usually be waiting for the druid to act anyway. This method hinders them in some instances, but it also makes the buffs easier since they both move together and can stay within 5' that way.
Seeker95 02-09-05, 12:32 PM	Also I was wondering. Buff spell with a duration. Can you move say 30 feet and if you animal companion moves 30 feet on his turn does he keep his buffs.We rule that the two still operate on separate initiatives. However, the share is broken only if the distance between the two is greater than 5' at the end of the caster's turn. This permits the two to "move together" so long as the caster waits to go after the familiar/companion/etc. Sometimes it causes odd mechanics, but it also causes tactical fun with bull rush etc. :D
troll18 02-10-05, 04:15 PM	they addressed this in the 3.0 splatbooks... could be Tome & Blood with familiars they said the healing hps was split between the two...
Seeker95 02-10-05, 08:08 PM	they addressed this in the 3.0 splatbooks... could be Tome & Blood with familiars [...] they said the healing hps was split between the two...Which would be canon if it made it into the FAQ, the 3.5 rule books, or the errata. Actually, it is the Tome and Blood reference that makes this a divided camp type of question. Were it not for that accursed piece of ahem... document, most would quite easily acknowledge that you share the spell, not the effects of the spell.
cwslyclgh 02-10-05, 08:36 PM	Actually, it is the Tome and Blood reference that makes this a divided camp type of question. Were it not for that accursed piece of ahem... document, most would quite easily acknowledge that you share the spell, not the effects of the spell. I actually agree... I found the tome and blood passage to actually be pretty much a direct contradiction of what was written in the Player's Handbook on the subject and conseqently ignored it even in 3.0, using the primary source guidelines.