RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I've joined a group that will begin meeting for the entirety of the next school year. The campaign will begin at level 1, but the DM has already laid out to us that unless we disband, the campaign WILL continue into the epic regions (PC's leveling into the 20's). As such, I've asked and my DM has already approved my playing a Druid with a Roc as a companion. Now, in the spirit of epic-campaigns, the DM has also decided that at 14th level, any animal companions will get another big boost identical to their level 4 or level 7 boost. i.e. at level 14 my Roc will be Huge sized, with a total of +16 str, +8 con, -4 dex to its initial stats. What I'm trying to find is a magical item that will CONTINUOUSLY grant my companion a size increase.
I've looked at the rules for custom magic items, and it appears I always have the option of having a continuous effect spell with grow animal (Druid 5, Ranger 4, grants animal +8 str, +4 con, -2 dex, increase one size category, +2 natural armor, lasts 1 min/caster level) at the price of 2000 x spell level x caster level x duration modifier (x2 for mins/level) . In other words, 180,000 gold to purchase, or 90,000 gold to make.
Does anyone know of a cheaper way to have an animal be permanently under the effect of this spell? Permanency does not effect grow animal, though perhaps a limited wish could make grow animal permanent.
Permanent animal growth does sound like exactly what you want. Don't forget that you can cast spells that target "you" on your companion thanks to share spells, so Enlarge Person actually would work too, but it would only work for you casting it, not on a permanent item. Also, I was just informed that there's a prestige class in the soon-to-be-available-in-PDF-form Paths of Prestige called the Mammoth Rider which essentially pushes your animal companion into the Huge size category. If you went with that, then you could still cast Enlarge Person on it, making it Gargantuan!!!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a catch all phrase as part of Permanency and Wish...GM approval. If the GM is cool with it there shouldn't be a problem with making it happen. BUT, be careful man...making your bird that big will mean he is going to be excluded from anything involving a city, tunnel, dense forest, dungeon, etc. due to space limitations...
BreakingDruids: At level 14 access to overland flight or other means of long term flight is a given. A Gargantuan Roc is just fluff rather than a mechanical necessity.
Regarding Enlarge Person: in order to cast it on your Animal Companion it must be on your spell list. Druids do not normally have it on their spell lists.
- Gauss
|
Enlarge Person won't work with Share Spells. Take a look at the wording for the Share Spells description:
Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself.
Then take a look at the Target of Enlarge Person:
Target: one humanoid creature
As a target descriptor, one humanoid creature can be you, but it isn't the same as Target: you.
Here's the target for Speak with Animals as an example:
Target: you
See the difference?
Now, if you invest in Use Magic Device and read off a scroll of Righteous Might (Target: you,) you might be onto something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually Enlarge Person DOES work with Share Spells IF the Druid has Enlarge Person on his/her spell list.
The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion’s type (animal). Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion. This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.
Share Spells has three elements:
First: It allows you to target spells that normally can be cast ONLY upon yourself on your familiar, Animal Companion, or Mount. This does not restrict you from casting normally targeted spells upon your familiar.Second: It allows you to ignore the type restrictions of spells. IE: Enlarge Person is restricted to Humanoids only. Share Spells states that it bypasses that restriction.
Third: Depending on the class Share spells may or may not require that they come from a class that grants the ability. IE: Druids cannot use a Scroll, Wand, or multiclass to cast Enlarge Person upon the Animal Companion. However, if the Druid has Enlarge Person from a Domain then it is fine. It is questionable if any of the 'add a spell from another class' abilities would be allowed or not.
- Gauss
I agree with you Gauss but I also think the wording could be more clear.
For example, that last sentence "spells cast in THIS way".. This is singular.
That implies that the previous two sentences refer to each other collectively not singularly. (that is, that you can cast spells with a target of you even if they don't meet the type, rather than those being two independent clauses).
I really wish they'd come down officially one way or the other and just settle it.
-S
Selgard, I have always understood it to be a restriction on the second sentance regarding type. However, I can understand if some people also read it to include the spells with a target of You. Either way is fine by me.
The part I like is that that sentance is not present for Familiars. :D
- Gauss
Gignere:
It has always been my understanding that subsets of a class do not count as changes to that class. IE: If a class subset has an exception that exception does not affect how everything else reacts to the original class. This would seem to apply here.
- Gauss
Thanks Gauss, I finally got the meaning behind that description (or at least I can follow your reasoning).
I remember a discussion over in another thread, where I failed to grasp the implication of Share Spells.
As to the OP: While... no BECAUSE it is mere fluff, a gargantuan roc AC is awesome! Rock on!
Ruyan.
A familiar for a druid?
|
|
I can agree with the semantics of arguing that "you" could mean you are the target of the spell but, in my own games, I rule that the intent is that "you" must be the sole target listed in the description of the spell in question.
For instance, a witch could cast False Life or Alter Self on their Familiar using Share Spells because the target listed for those spells is "You." However, they couldn't use Enlarge Person or Reduce Person with Share Spells because the listed target for those spells is not solely "you," but any viable creature within range including you.
Yes, it could be clearer, but allowing the alternate reading opens up the the potential for all kinds of weirdness like the witch being able to target their familiar with things like Pain Strike and Hold Person just because they could technically target themselves with those spells (not that I imagine they'd make a habit of this.)
Velcro Zipper: Enlarge Person can be cast upon other targets. Thus it is eligible to be cast on anyone not just the familiar.
Unless you mean that you believe that You is actually You+creature type bypassed.
In that case, I disagree. It is a second sentance that is not connected to the first.
- Gauss
|
|
The second one, I think.
I interpret:
"Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself."
to mean the Target portion of the spell's description
Enlarge Person
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S, M (powdered iron)Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one humanoid creature (this part)
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
must read:
Target you
for Share Spells to function. The familiar's monster type is bypassed as per the ability, but the target must ordinarily be only the caster.
There are plenty of beneficial spells that can target other creatures including you and/or the animal companion that don't require the Share Spells ability. Share Spells, to me, gives you the ability to extend a few otherwise ineligible spells (spells that only affect you personally) to your pet. Otherwise, it would make more sense to just write:
"Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself..."
,which seems silly and redundant to me.
I have fired a question on this topic off to James Jacobs. Asked him if the two sentances are connected or not.
Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself.
The part about 'range of touch' is required since otherwise people will ask 'at what range can I cast spells on my animal companion'?
- Gauss
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this was actually clarified by a dev, but since I can't find it, I'm gonna take a stab at this here.
The first part of the ability states "The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself." This is one complete sentence stating a benefit granted by the ability.
The next sentence states "A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal)." This is a new and complete sentence listing a separate benefit of the ability.
Your third sentence states "Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion." This is a qualifier for the preceding sentences.
Share spells allows your familiar to both:
a)benefit from spells the druid casts with a target of "You" and
b)benefit from spells that normally do not effect a creature of the companion's type.
So a druid could cast Enlarge Person on their Roc due to the second benefit granted by the ability Share Spells.
Well, Im surprised but: James Jacobs has stated that Enlarge Person is an ineligible spell for Share Spells due to it not meeting both criteria.
Oh well. That is going to be a significant departure from alot of people's understanding of Share Spells.
- Gauss
|
Design Manager
|
Well, Im surprised but: James Jacobs has stated that Enlarge Person is an ineligible spell for Share Spells due to it not meeting both criteria.
Oh well. That is going to be a significant departure from alot of people's understanding of Share Spells.
- Gauss
I feel like SKR said the complete opposite in an earlier thread, but I couldn't find it for the life of me. Ah well, c'est la vie.
Go to SKR's user profile hit posts and do a search that way. It narrows the focus. I would do it myself but I don't know the thread so wouldn't remember the keywords.
- Gauss
Oh well. That is going to be a significant departure from alot of people's understanding of Share Spells.
- Gauss
I've always played it the way JJ said, I never even knew there was a question about it until you brought it up.
Gignere: I think you misunderstood what I wrote.
Here is an example of what I meant:
Sylvan Sorcerer is allowed an animal companion from the Druid List. That means BASE Druid. They do not get to add all sorts of shiny animal companion abilities from alternate druid classes.
This is correct: If you state I have class X. Class X allows me to use class ability Y from class Z.
This is incorrect: I have class X. Class X allows me to use class ability Y from class Z. Class Z has an alternate class called class Z1. I want the alternate ability Y1 from class Z1 instead.
- Gauss
Well, it turns out James Jacobs was confused by my post. So here is the final answer:
Gauss wrote:
Sorry for being confusing. Lets ask one more time just to clarify confusion.Can a wizard cast Enlarge Person on his familiar?
- Gauss
Yes, he can.
- Gauss
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Whoa, can a Half-orc wizard cast Half-Blood Extraction on his familiar?
I don't think it would have an effect since the familiar is not a half-orc. This is because of the language in the spell description, not the target.
"You transform the target half-orc into a full-blooded orc. The target loses all of its half-orc racial traits and gains the orc racial traits."
Being your familiar, you are allowed to target it with the spell, but it still is not in any way a half-orc. The only way a non-half-orc could be affected by this spell is using Racial Heritage or something similar.
|
|
Actually it saids "Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion."
Now that sorcerer is a class that grants an animal companion doesn't that mean all the spells from the sorcerer/wizard list is fair game regardless of how you cast the spell.
Yep, sure can, and I can ride my pet Roc at level 1 to boot.
Sorcerer is not a class that grants an animal companion. A subset of sorcerer does. Therefore the entire sorcerer class does not qualify.
- Gauss
BreakingDruid is saying that since Enlarge Person is on the Sorcerer spell list and a subset of Sorcerers get Animal Companions then it satisfies the requirement for a class with the spell on the spell list even if he does not possess levels in that subclass.
The flaws in this logic:
First: the class Sorcerer does not get an animal companion. A subset of that class does.
Second: This assumes that the spell just needs to be on ANY class that has that on it's spell list. Not YOUR spell list. The wording could be interpreted either way but I believe it must be your spell list.
If you possess levels in a subclass that grants an animal companion then YES it is on your class list and that qualifies. But if you do not then it would not.
Example 1: A Sorcerer has access to Enlarge Person and would be able to cast it upon his animal companion if the Sorcerer (example: Sylvan Sorcerer)had an animal companion granted by a Sorcerer class feature.
Example 2: A multiclass Sorcerer/Druid would also be able to do so IF the sorcerer (example: Sylvan Sorcerer) has the animal companion class feature.
Example 3: A Druid cannot say 'well since one type of sorcerer (example: Sylvan Sorcerer) has animal companions I can use Enlarge Person on my animal companion'.
- Gauss
Edit: cleaned up a few things.
This thread makes my head hurt...
that's okay, at the end of the day a GM may look at it and say no way in hell is that happening in my game ;)
|
Design Manager
|
it doesn't say I have to cast spells from my familiar class on him. It says,
"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 may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal)."It doesn't say it has to be a druid spell. If I can cast enlarge person, I believe this means I can cast it on my companion.
Use the whole quote there:
"Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal). Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion. This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells"
So, your druid levels grant an animal companion. Unless the core class and/or specific archetype that you have taken which granted you the ability to cast Enlarge Person also grants an animal companion, those spells are not eligible for Share Spells.
Or multiclass as a Sylvan Sorcerer. :D
Or a cleric with the animal and strength domains.
Or any other class that grants both Enlarge Person and animal companion. Im sure others can be found.
Alternately, steal (add) the spell through the variety of spell stealing means that seem to be popping up lately.
- Gauss
Why would you need to get an argument together? It is written into the spell.
Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.
• Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.
• Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, even if it belongs to one of your opposition schools.
• Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 4th level or lower, even if it belongs to one of your opposition schools.
Now, the real problem is that you are trying to apply permanency to animal growth. THAT is the argument.
- Gauss
I think you are missing the point. Emulate a spell yes. Emulate Permanency, emulate Animal growth. Both completely legit. Where things break down is that Animal Growth is not a legal target for the spell Permanency. A whole bunch of spells are legal targets for permanency, they are listed in either thier spell descriptions or in the permanency description. Animal Growth is not on that list.
Edit: There IS one clause that might allow you to do this.
The GM may allow other spells to be made permanent.
Thus, it is entirely up to GM fiat to allow Permanency +Animal Growth.
If the GM DOES allow it I would suggest that it be priced as Telepathic Bond (another 5th level spell) in which case caster level 13 and 12,500gp would be required in addition to the 1,500gp from Limited Wish.
- Gauss