| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Does the teamwork feat improved spell sharing allow me to cast spells on both myself and my mount if the target of those spells is "you" as opposed to "creature touched?" Does the feat allow me to bypass normal targeting restrictions of spells?
1) Yes, because it says you cast the spell on yourself.
2) You have to be a legal target yourself; your pet doesn't, as you are not technically casting the spell on it.
You also need a way for your pet to have the feat. It doesn't qualify to take the feat itself. You can do it with the horsemasters saddle.
It could qualify if you don't mind a bit of silliness. Raise its Int to 3, have it take Iron Will, have it take Familiar Bond. Now your A/C has a familiar and therefore qualifies to take ISS itself.
Thanks for the quick reply! This is going to be a hard question so get ready. Can improved spell sharing be used in conjunction with the fervor mechanic (below)? Does the feat apply if the spell is cast in a unique way like this? Does the "affect other or multiple targets" imply the feat doesnt work when using fervor? Would the developers have intended them to work together or am i being a tryhard?
As a swift action, a warpriest can expend one use of fervor to cast any one warpriest spell he has prepared with a casting time of 1 round or shorter. When cast in this way, the spell can target only the warpriest, even if it could normally affect other or multiple targets. Spells cast in this way don't require somatic components and do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Mmm, the way ISS is written any spell you cast that targets yourself can be shared. Fervor casting is still casting, and it targets you, so it should work RAW. It wouldn't if it said "the spell affects only the warpriest" but that's not how they wrote it.
RAI, I dunno. It doesn't seem OP or abusive, though.
Mmm, the way ISS is written any spell you cast that targets yourself can be shared. Fervor casting is still casting, and it targets you, so it should work RAW. It wouldn't if it said "the spell affects only the warpriest" but that's not how they wrote it.
RAI, I dunno. It doesn't seem OP or abusive, though.
Just decided on my next character, then. Thanks again, fuzzy!
Two final questions regarding this. Say a level 6 warpriest uses a class ability to grant the mount the improved spell sharing feat for a few rounds, then casts divine favor to share with his mount. The class ability expires and the mount loses the feat. Does the mount keep the effect of divine favor even after losing the feat? Also, would the mount get a +1 as if it had cast divine favor on itself, or get a +2 based on the warpriest's caster level, like it would in the case of shield of faith or a similar spell?
I understand the feat to mean the following: If the warpriest and his mount both have this feat, the warpriest can cast a spell on himself for half duration. When he does this, the mount is affected (not targeted) by the spell as if the warpriest had cast the spell on it, regardless of whether the mount could have been targeted by the spell. While the feat bypasses targeting restrictions because it doesn't target the mount, it doesn't allow spells like enlarge person to affect the mount. The spell's effect on the mount does not end if the mount loses the feat. Is there any part of that I'm misinterpreting, even a little?
I understand the feat to mean the following: If the warpriest and his mount both have this feat, the warpriest can cast a spell (divine favor) on himself for half duration. When he does this, the mount is affected (not targeted) by the spell exactly as it affects the warpriest (so +2 on attack and dmg rolls for 5 rounds) regardless of whether the mount could have been targeted by the spell.
Agreed on all counts.
The spell's effect on the mount does not end if it loses the feat.
Hardest question!
I personally would rule in your favor, but if someone else ruled that the mount lost the spell effect when it or you lost the feat (with its share of the duration just vanishing, not reverting to you) I couldn't call them wrong. :-/
Thanks! Ill post this question in a separate thread and see if anybody has any insight on that.