What you were told is wrong. Being of divine or arcane origina makes absolutely difference unless you come across something that specifically says so. However, what is important is that the enlarge person spell only works on humanoids. It doesn't work on animals or any other non-humanoid creature - even if it humanoid in shape.
It's not a divine/arcane thing, just a different-classes thing.
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.
But that's with just the base Share Spells companion feature. The Improved Spell Sharing feat has no such restriction. (Ditto the similar Improved Share Spells.) You're good to go.
So if I take a level in a spell casting class that gives me enlarge person i should be okay?
Yes. It doesn't need to be able to target the companion because with Improved Spell Sharing you're not targeting it, you're targeting yourself and merely affecting it as well.
get a dire collar or 4. Save yourself the multiclassing.
So no one cares that an animal is not a legal targets for enlarge person?
So no one cares that an animal is not a legal targets for enlarge person?
Not in this case.
Dire Collar: This leather collar resizes to fit almost any size of creature. Once per day on command, the creature that fastened the dire collar to the animal can cause that animal to grow larger and more bestial. The collar’s fastener must be within 30 feet of the animal to do so. The animal gains the benefits of an enlarge person spell (despite the normal targeting restrictions of that spell) for 1 minute.
If your party has an Occultist (and every party should), you could ask them to use the Size Alteration Focus Power on your Companion.
Size Alteration (Sp): As a standard action, you can expend 1 point of mental focus and touch a creature to alter its size. You can increase or decrease the creature's size by one step, as enlarge person or reduce person but not limited by the creature's type. If the creature is hostile toward you, using this ability requires a successful melee touch attack, and the creature can attempt a Fortitude save to negate the effect. This effect lasts for 1 round per occultist level you possess. You can't use this ability on a creature that is already subject to an effect that alters its size.
I was referring to improved spell sharing, because that is what the OP was asking about. The dire collar has wording that specifically addresses the normal restrictions.
I was referring to improved spell sharing, because that is what the OP was asking about. The dire collar has wording that specifically addresses the normal restrictions.
I see. While Improved Share Spells also has wording that removes the normal restriction, I agree that Improved Spell Sharing does not.
I was referring to improved spell sharing, because that is what the OP was asking about. The dire collar has wording that specifically addresses the normal restrictions.
The spell sharing feature is enough, for example a sylvan sorcerer.
Spell sharing 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."
Enlarge person says:
"Target one humanoid creature"
Does anyone see a problem with using spell sharing to cast enlarge person on an animal?
Spell sharing 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."Enlarge person says:
"Target one humanoid creature"Does anyone see a problem with using spell sharing to cast enlarge person on an animal?
Share Spells (Ex)
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.
That comes off of the animal companion, so anyone that has "As per a druid" has that as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the way I read the two sentences is that they both apply. Still needs a range of "you". I suppose it is possible they apply separately, but I do not read it that way.
Edited.
I guess the way I read the two sentences is that they both apply. Still needs a range of "you". I suppose it is possible they apply separately, but I do not read it that way.
Edited.
If I recall correctly that reading has come up before, and I think it was pointed out that spells that target you don't specify a creature type. So while it could be read both ways, the stricter reading has no application where it would matter, so most people seemed convinced it meant spells like this.
The stricter reading is that enlarge person doesn't have a range of "you", and that spell sharing only works with "you" spells.
The stricter reading is that enlarge person doesn't have a range of "you", and that spell sharing only works with "you" spells.
If Spell Sharing is interpreted in this way then it would restrict all spells that are already appropriately typed for the companion. For example, you would not be able to cast Magic Fang on your animal companion because it does not have a range of "You". That phrase expands the spells allowed to target the familiar to include those that have "You" as the target nothing more nothing less. It has no bearing at all on those that don't have "You" as the target.
You don't need spell sharing to cast spells like magic fang. An animal is already a legal target for magic fang.
I keep on rereading those first two sentences of spell sharing, and if my interpretation is wrong then I think it could have been written better. It could be made more clear if the second sentance were changed to "The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a touch range spell) instead of on herself. When she does so, she may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion’s type (animal)." If my interpretation is right, then it could still have been written better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need spell sharing to cast spells like magic fang. An animal is already a legal target for magic fang.
I keep on rereading those first two sentences of spell sharing, and if my interpretation is wrong then I think it could have been written better. It could be made more clear if the second sentance were changed to "The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a touch range spell) instead of on herself. When she does so, she may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion’s type (animal)." If my interpretation is right, then it could still have been written better.
You do realize that you inserted your interpretation into what you say the text should be changed into right? The way you worded it "When she does so" refers to the druid casting a spell with the target of "you" so that would be the only time it applies. It only makes it clearer if your interpretation were the intent in the first place.
If i say, "You can use a dry erase grid to play Pathfinder. You can use printable paper miniatures in addition to plastic or pewter ones to play Pathfinder." You would not interpret those two sentences to mean that you were unable to play pathfinder on dungeon tiles, Gaming Paper, or an electronic grid. Both of those sentences present a complete thought. There is no contextual requirement to make one dependent on the other. Spell sharing works the same way:
1) 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.
2)A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal).
Spell sharing allows either or both of those as any time. There is no contextual reason to make the second sentence dependent on the first. The second sentence doesn't say "if he does", "when he does", "when casting spell with a target of you" or any other reference back to the first sentence. It just says "A druid can do x" period.
My intent has been lost. It matters not I suppose.