Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 04-05-06, 06:43 PM	Does share spells allow me to cast "alter self" from my bard list onto my mount? If so, does the mount count as just an animal, or as a magical beast? Being able to alter my mount into a pegasus would be kind neat...
smrtgmp 04-05-06, 09:05 PM	I dont see why it wouldnt work. It would count as a magical beast.
Milo HoBo 04-05-06, 10:47 PM	But there is a slight problem with the bard-paladin part. Any non-lawful vs lawful good specifically. Other than that, I too agree with smrtgmp.
KublaiKhan 04-06-06, 09:38 AM	But there is a slight problem with the bard-paladin part. Any non-lawful vs lawful good specifically. Other than that, I too agree with smrtgmp. The Devoted Performer feat allows you to start as a Bard, then multiclass into Paladin, and then freely multiclass [ and keep abilities! ] as a Bard while maintaining a LG alignment. It also, interestingly enough, allows Paladin levels to count for Bardic levels for things such as Bardic Knowledge. Crazy, huh? Lawful Bards.
JulesCARV 04-06-06, 09:53 AM	Sadly, paladin and bard levels don't stack for bardic knowledge (sigh). They stack for bardic music usages per day and smite evil damage. I wish they stacked for bardic knowledge, bardic music types available, or lay on hands. I can make arcane caster (i.e., bard) levels stack with paladin levels for the purposes of my mount, but that requires another feat: theurgic mount. I'm wondering whether that'll be worth it.
Jarrad 04-06-06, 10:15 AM	Does share spells allow me to cast "alter self" from my bard list onto my mount? If so, does the mount count as just an animal, or as a magical beast? Being able to alter my mount into a pegasus would be kind neat... It would be neat, but you couldn't. Adapted from a similar post I made earlier: ...I would read "You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form" to mean in this instance: "the same type as you-the-caster's normal form". You can cast range Personal spells on a special mount but: Additionally, the paladin may cast a spell with a target of 'You' on her mount (as a touch range spell) instead of on herself. It doesn't say anywhere that this functions as though the mount had cast the spell. In the absence of a shred of evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that the spell functions as it usually would when cast by the Paladin/Bard. Thus, the Paladin's special mount could only be altered to a creature of the same type of the spellcaster. Whether you'd want to turn your mount into another human is a matter entirely between you, your DM and your local support groups ;) Cheers, Jarrad
KublaiKhan 04-06-06, 10:58 AM	It doesn't say anywhere that this functions as though the mount had cast the spell. Actually, it's fairly clear that it's the master casting the spell onto the mount--just that the formerly personal-range spell is now considered a touch-range spell. Whether you'd want to turn your mount into another human is a matter entirely between you, your DM and your local support groups ;) Hey, it's one way to get them to stop [ or start... ] making those cracks about the 'special' relation of a paladin to the warhorse...
JulesCARV 04-06-06, 08:22 PM	It would be neat, but you couldn't. Adapted from a similar post I made earlier: ...I would read "You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form" to mean in this instance: "the same type as you-the-caster's normal form". You can cast range Personal spells on a special mount but: It doesn't say anywhere that this functions as though the mount had cast the spell. In the absence of a shred of evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that the spell functions as it usually would when cast by the Paladin/Bard. Thus, the Paladin's special mount could only be altered to a creature of the same type of the spellcaster. Whether you'd want to turn your mount into another human is a matter entirely between you, your DM and your local support groups ;) Cheers, Jarrad Hmmm... interesting point. It isn't quite clear, I suppose, whether alter self alters you into a creature of the caster's type, or into a creature of the target's type. Since caster and target are one and the same, it's not necessary to distinguish for alter self as written, but when applied to a paladin's mount, it becomes ambiguous. Hey, it's one way to get them to stop [ or start... ] making those cracks about the 'special' relation of a paladin to the warhorse... This sounds like a topic for the (Allegedly) Mature Boards! A paladin's relationship with his (somewhat) intelligent, altered-to-humanoid warhorse. Hmm... :thinks: I suppose that, if nothing else, altering your mount into a humanoid, or some talking magical beasts (e.g., unicorn) does allow clearer communication. My impression is that a paladin's mount probably knows common, but just doesn't have the vocal equipment sufficient for more than neighing. Of course, Speak with Animals might also work, but for a bard, that's actually a higher level spell than Alter Self. Maybe giant owl would be the best. They can speak, fly, and have a good move silently check. I like the idea of turning invisible (and sharing invisibility with my mount) and silently swooping in on the back of a giant owl to lance important bad guys.
Jarrad 04-07-06, 07:50 AM	Actually, it's fairly clear that it's the master casting the spell onto the mount--just that the formerly personal-range spell is now considered a touch-range spell. Well, yes, I'd have said it was pretty clear that it's now a touch-range spell... The point is, it's a touch-range spell where the recipient can be altered to a creature of no more than 5HD with the same type as the caster rather than the type of the recipient, as the "you" in the spell description refers to the caster. As JulesCARV said, the situation is ambiguous due to the lack of necessity for clarification in the absence of an ability that allows one to cast a Personal spell on someone or something else. However, as both sets of circumstances are core, I think it's a bit lax that they haven't clarified this in the rules. Nonetheless, I honestly can't see any reason for interpreting it in a way other than I've described. The "you" in the spell description obviously refers to "you-the-caster" because "you-the-caster" is the only scenario described. Therefore, the spell on the familiar, animal companion or mount behaves as though it were cast by the caster, not by the creature.
SwiftFox 04-13-06, 12:38 AM	Whether you'd want to turn your mount into another human is a matter entirely between you, your DM and your local support groupsHey, it's one way to get them to stop [ or start... ] making those cracks about the 'special' relation of a paladin to the warhorse...Lol, you know what this reminds me of? THIS (http://us-p.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Furronica/New%20Art/vrnka196_MF_fur.jpg) (warning adult content). :D
JulesCARV 04-13-06, 12:46 AM	:weep: And all I ever wanted was to be able to silently swoop in on my mount altered into a giant owl while invisible so that I could silently smite the bad guys with a lance! I'm a munchkin, damnit, not a pervert! I swear, I'm just trying to powergame here! Although this is really partially my fault for linking to this from a semi-related post on the mature boards. Sorry.
Jarrad 04-13-06, 09:58 AM	As an interesting aside, the upshot is that Alter Self could not in theory be used by certain creature types: i.e. those that have more than 5 Hit Dice as base. Now whether there are in fact any such creature types I couldn't say, but it does mean for instance that an Ancient Gold Dragon who wanted to use Alter Self to make itself look like a different dragon would have to become something like a wyrmling copper dragon... Except that it couldn't, because you can only become something within one size category of your normal form! Heheh :D Does anyone know of any other core spells that couldn't possibly be used by certain casters? I'm not talking about spells that depend on the caster having certain abilities, or those that grant an ability that wouldn't stack with something that a caster might already have. I'm specifically wondering about spells that contain conditions that mean they logically couldn't be cast by certain creatures. Spells that "can't be cast by creatures who don't or can't have levels in the character class required in order to cast them" don't count, before anyone feels like being a smart-alec ;)