| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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'."
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.
|
You know, I've always played (and GMed) it as both statements working together in concert, but now that you mention it they clearly are two different statements.
Statement #1: "The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself."
and
Statement #2: "A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast)."
Given that, I'd imagine you could cast Enlarge Person on your Familiar.
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).
I believe you don't have to meet both conditions. shield and enlarge person should both be valid options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first option makes the type rule useless, unless you can think of a spell with a target of "you" and a type requirement (I can't; maybe the ARG has one).
The second option allows rapid repair to work on familiars, which is quite silly.
The feature needs a rewrite, but it probably won't get one.
Sorry for the necromancered thread ... but to blahpers point, you could also use Mending found here as free healing on your cat or your owl or Make Whole found here to do up to 5d6 of healing.
It has to be the second interpretation.
|
No, you may cast spells that don't normally affect creatures of the familiar's type, but they still need to affect creatures. Rapid Repair works (odd as it is) because it affects constructs.
The first interpretation seems to be widely accepted as seen here, here, in the eventual conclusions here, and in this PFS GM thread where there is some discussion of whether you're supposed to be restricted to spells you could cast on yourself for share spells (which would make sense and disallow rapid repair), but no one is arguing that a humanoid couldn't cast enlarge person on their companion.
I thought I remembered that there was an FAQ saying native outsiders could use enlarge person on their companions, but I can't find it.
Sorry for the necromancered thread ... but to blahpers point, you could also use Mending found here as free healing on your cat or your owl or Make Whole found here to do up to 5d6 of healing.
It has to be the second interpretation.
Mending does not target creatures and therefore the clauses of Share Spell do not come into play.
notice in mending:
This spell does not affect creatures (including constructs).
On Make whole, well I can an argument for that since it can affect constructs and therefore familiars when normally it couldn't.
At 3rd level Make Whole offers the familiar 3d6 or ~10.5 hp, whereas a cure moderate wounds would offer 2d8+3 or ~12 hp. Maximums are 30 (make whole) to 26 (cure moderate wounds) with a "maximum" average of ~17 (make whole) to ~19 (cure moderate).
I'm okay with this honestly -- generally make whole is a lesser option to the actually healing spell of the same level, it's every limited in scope (being that it will only help the familiar), and honestly with infernal healing even when you get make whole it's not as good an option as a first level spell (since it's higher level and achieves the same overall effect).
|
I have always read it as the second option, but I can see the argument for the first way; the druid animal companion version is definitely the first way:
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). 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.
|
|
I have always read it as the second option, but I can see the argument for the first way; the druid animal companion version is definitely the first way:
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). 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.
What's different about the wizard's version that makes you read it the second way?
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).
Or the eidolon's?
The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself. A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list. This ability does not allow the eidolon to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.
I'm not sure why people find this confusing.
1) Can you normally cast spell [whatever] on your familiar? If so, you can cast it on the familiar.
2) Could you cast spell [whatever] on your familiar if the spell were able to be cast on others (i.e. not just "you")? If so, you can cast it on the familiar.
2) Could you cast spell [whatever] on your familiar if the familiar were of the appropriate creature type (i.e. something other than "magical beast")? If so, you can cast it on the familiar.
It's just not that complicated.