Mefisto's page

Not that my answer may mean much, but I read it to be the 1st option.

"He may also cast spells upon the familiar that would normally not affect that type of target." NOT

"He may also cast spells upon the familiar that would normally not affect that type of target, as long as the spell has a target of 'you'."

Every answer means something. If a very large majority of people think that it is one way or another, that probably makes it likely that the interpretation that enjoys a very large majority is the correct one. Or at least, what to go with until someone gives an official ruling. For what it's worth, the way you interpret it is also the way that I interpret it.

Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).

This was touched on in an earlier thread, but never really answered, and it's something that I feel deserves it's own thread, if not a FAQ.

There seem to be two ways to interpret 'Share Spells' as it's written for a familiar.

The first way "A wizard can cast spells on his familiar that normally have a target of 'you'. He may also cast spells upon the familiar that would normally not affect that type of target."

Example - Wizard can cast 'shield' on the familiar, normally has a target of 'you'. Wizard may also cast 'enlarge person' on familiar, even though familiar is not humanoid.

The second way "A wizard may cast spells on his familiar if they have a target of you. Only spells that have a target of 'you' will disregard the creature type of the familiar"

Example - Wizard may cast 'shield' on the familiar, normally has a target of 'you' but cannot cast 'enlarge person' on familiar because it does not have the target of 'you'

Is there an official ruling on this somewhere? I'm very interested to see what people have to say about it, because it would greatly affect the utility of the familiar one way or the other.

Except that bit ignores the bit I boldfaced.

1. You can cast spells on your familiar that are normally restricted to you.
2. These spells normally restricted to "you" are not required to match type.

The ability is called "Share Spells" because it is what lets you cast spells on your familiar that normally apply only to "you". The second sentence is a modifier to the first, it is not an either or.

That three post thread is not an FAQ answer. It does not take into account the portion of the description I pointed out and it omitted. It omits the relevant portion of the ability description.

"Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast)."

That doesn't seem to be a modifier. They seem like two separate, independent sentences, neither of which gives any indication that it's supposed to be 'modifying' the other. Maybe that's what it is in 3.5 or something but I've never played a game in 3.5. Can you point me to a FAQ that supports your claim?

I'm not debating the 'awaken' thing by the way, that was a long shot, but by that text it isn't at all clear why something like 'enlarge person' couldn't be applied to a familiar.

Mefisto wrote:

I am a little curious what you guys would have to say about 'Awaken' used on an Improved Familiar. Since share spells allows you to use spells on your familiar even if they don't normally affect things of that 'type', would it be possible to cast Awaken on an Improved Familiar?

Nearly all the Improved familiars have more than 2 INT to begin with for one, so you wouldn't actually be giving it more intelligence, but I can see the potential of it being useful with the increase in charisma or real HD.

So what would be the verdict on that?

On one hand, if you're really being a rule lawyer the text of 'Awaken' says that 'An awakened animal can't serve as an animal companion, familiar, or special mount', it doesn't say anything about an outsider or some other Improved Familiar that had it cast of them with 'share spells' being unable to continue being a familiar.

On the other hand, it seems a little against the spirit of what the spell was intended for.

So, what are your thoughts on this? I'm relatively new to the game as well and I'm not sure if this is something that could be legit or not.

Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).

Awaken
Target animal or tree touched

Share spells doesn't let awaken work

A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type

The above aspect of share spells allows spells that do not normally affect creatures of that type to be effected by spells through 'share spells'.

For instance, you could use enlarge person on your familiar even though it normally wouldn't effect that creature type.

See http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvzg?Share-Spells-w-Familiar-Enlarge-Person for confirmation. So, the original question I asked still stands

I am a little curious what you guys would have to say about 'Awaken' used on an Improved Familiar. Since share spells allows you to use spells on your familiar even if they don't normally affect things of that 'type', would it be possible to cast Awaken on an Improved Familiar?

Nearly all the Improved familiars have more than 2 INT to begin with for one, so you wouldn't actually be giving it more intelligence, but I can see the potential of it being useful with the increase in charisma or real HD.

So what would be the verdict on that?

On one hand, if you're really being a rule lawyer the text of 'Awaken' says that 'An awakened animal can't serve as an animal companion, familiar, or special mount', it doesn't say anything about an outsider or some other Improved Familiar that had it cast of them with 'share spells' being unable to continue being a familiar.

On the other hand, it seems a little against the spirit of what the spell was intended for.

So, what are your thoughts on this? I'm relatively new to the game as well and I'm not sure if this is something that could be legit or not.