At that point, you decide "what spells to prepare", meaning that the spell you had previously modified with share transformation would be replaced.
Brown-fur doesn't specify a spell you've prepared though. Or even that it's associated with spell slots at all. It merely says you select a transmutation spell with a range of personal, with no restriction at all beyond that. Hell you could select a spell you can't even cast (though obviously that wouldn't do anything).
If we're going to take your interpretation we can't piecemeal it. Share Transmutation has no duration associated with it, so once you spend a standard action and the point from your reservoir then that spell has a range of touch indefinitely.
That problem is that "spell" gets used interchangeably a lot in the rules. It's a spell in your spellbook, it's a spell that you have prepared and it's a spell that you cast. Since the ability requires a standard action, it can't be used as part of a spell that you cast. So it could either be a spell in your spellbook or a spell that you prepare. I found it to be more reasonable to say it's a spell that you prepare, otherwise the cost of the point seems pointless and the ability too overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW its a poorly written exploit.
RAI I agree that it should be spent as you cast the spell, no additional action required, and it changes that casting of the spell to be shared. This means if you wanted to cast it twice, and touch 2 different teammates, you would spend 2 arcane points to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Break the game? I've already shown all of the text for how this works.
No. You have not.
You are assuming that the rules and your interpretation of them are so perfect that none of the contradictory evidence to your position matters at all. You are falling into a trap of using Aristotelian logic when the required assumptions for Aristotelian logic do not apply.
You are absolutely convinced that it is it's own, seperate, standard action to use.
From that, there MUST be some way for it to work...
But you have no, nadda, zip, zero, zilch, absolute bupkiss for evidence that such a mechanism for it working exists, much less which mechanism that is or how it works. Claiming that you have shown evidence for such a system is an objective falsehood.
Despite that, you think it is more likely that the authors expected every gamer to derive the exact same mechanism that you did without saying anything than that they expected you to notice how arcanists spend arcane pool points. That isn't just wrong that is squirrel poo level nuts.