Explain Share Spell

[HMS Invincible]

According to the Druid's Share spell, if I cast a spell on myself and share it with my animal companion, it can't leave my side without losing the buff? Doesn't that restrict my buffed animal companion to being my mount? Unless there are many instantaneous duration spells that are good to share.

PS what happened to the search function? I can't find it for this forum.

[LordBlades]

According to the Druid's Share spell, if I cast a spell on myself and share it with my animal companion, it can't leave my side without losing the buff? Doesn't that restrict my buffed animal companion to being my mount? Unless there are many instantaneous duration spells that are good to share.

PS what happened to the search function? I can't find it for this forum.

That's pretty much how it works. You can take Companion Spellbond feat from PHB 2 to extend the reach to 30 ft. Alternatively, you might be able to convince your DM to houserule that since you're both acting on same initiative count, you can actually move at once with your animal companion

[Kelb_Panthera]

According to the Druid's Share spell, if I cast a spell on myself and share it with my animal companion, it can't leave my side without losing the buff? Doesn't that restrict my buffed animal companion to being my mount? Unless there are many instantaneous duration spells that are good to share.

PS what happened to the search function? I can't find it for this forum.

Share spell also has a clause that says that you can cast any spell with range: personal on you AC as a touch spell. Otherwise, yes, share-spell is only particularly useful for buffing yourself and a mount with a single casting.

The search function has been temporarily removed due to a pending update to the forums. There may also be several points in the future where the forum is closed for a few hours at a time in preparation for said update. There's a thread in the board issues sub-forum wherin the mod named Rawhide explains everything in detail.

[Person_Man]

Keep in mind that even if you're not sharing buffs, Familiars/Companions/Special Mounts can also benefit from Instantaneous spells and/or hold the charge of any touch spell. Thus, even if your Companion is fighting on the other side of the battlefield, it can move to within 5 ft of your space if it wants to benefit from a healing spell. Or if it starts within 5 ft of you, you can cast a touch attack spell, and then the companion can move and deliver it across the battlefield.

Also, instead of being your mount, your Familiar or whatnot can be perched on you and still benefit from buffs. It can basically be a shoulder cannon instead of a mount. (Though being a Mount adds more advantages).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Person_man just reminded me of one of my favorite uses for this feature; Mental Pinnacle. It's a 6th level sorc/wiz spell that normally shuts off your casting while granting you a decent number of PP and a few powers to manifest with them. It's a poor trade for the wizard that actually casts it on himself, but if he casts it as a touch spell on his familiar......

[HMS Invincible]

Dang, I thought I could share an enlarge person or some other buff and make a flank sandwich. Alas, poor fleshraker, buffed flanking and mounts was not meant to be.

[blazinghand]

Dang, I thought I could share an enlarge person or some other buff and make a flank sandwich. Alas, poor fleshraker, buffed flanking and mounts was not meant to be.

I have a question about how Share Spell works. Is it possible to cast Enlarge Person onto your familiar only but not effecting yourself? Normally of course you can't since familiars are Magical Beasts, but you can share it onto the familiar if you cast it.

[HunterOfJello]

It's also a very cost effective way of healing your animal companion. Cast a Heal spell on yourself for 150 hp and you can heal your animal companion for 150 hp too.

The same applies for spells that remove status effects like Remove Disease, Neutralize Poison, Dispel Magic, Greater Dispel Magic, and Lesser Restoration to list a few from the PHB.

If you want a few listed from the Spell Compendium then try Panacea (which cures almost everything) and Rejuvenation Cocoon (which is awesome for 5th level since Heal is 7th for Druids).

That's not to mention spells like the druid teleport, Master Earth, which would leave your companion behind completely as you teleport to the other side of the planet. If keep close to your companion you can both benefit from Stormrage and have fun shooting lightning bolts out of your eyes each round.

I have a question about how Share Spell works. Is it possible to cast Enlarge Person onto your familiar only but not effecting yourself? Normally of course you can't since familiars are Magical Beasts, but you can share it onto the familiar if you cast it.

Yes, you can choose to cast it only on your familiar and not yourself if you meet the prereqs for the situation. Unfortunately for you, nothing will happen.

You can cast any spell on anything. However, that doesn't mean it will do anything. If you cast a spell a Mind-Affecting spell on a Vampire, its not going to do anything. If you cast a 'Humanoid Only' spell on an animal or magical beast, it will also not do anything.

[Ashtagon]

Yes, you can choose to cast it only on your familiar and not yourself if you meet the prereqs for the situation. Unfortunately for you, nothing will happen.

You can cast any spell on anything. However, that doesn't mean it will do anything. If you cast a spell a Mind-Affecting spell on a Vampire, its not going to do anything. If you cast a 'Humanoid Only' spell on an animal or magical beast, it will also not do anything.

Actually, share spell specifically calls out this an an exception. The animal companion is considered to be either its actual creature type or it's owner's creature type, whichever is more favourable when the owner is casting a spell.

[blazinghand]

Actually, share spell specifically calls out this an an exception. The animal companion is considered to be either its actual creature type or it's owner's creature type, whichever is more favourable when the owner is casting a spell.

The specific thing I was thinking about would be casting Enlarge Person on my Tiny Hawk Familiar to make it Small, then casting Reduce Person on myself, a Small Halfling, to become Tiny, then riding it! Would this be possible?

[TuggyNE]

The specific thing I was thinking about would be casting Enlarge Person on my Tiny Hawk Familiar to make it Small, then casting Reduce Person on myself, a Small Halfling, to become Tiny, then riding it! Would this be possible?

I believe so.

Along similar lines, I have a partially-outlined idea for a Faerie Knight: an elf psywar with both expansion and compression, who shrinks down to ride his enlarged psicrystal.

[HMS Invincible]

Hmmm, so as a general rule of thumb, if I can buff myself, or I can use the same spell to buff my animal companion. Or get 2x healing off one cast. Got it.

[ahenobarbi]

The specific thing I was thinking about would be casting Enlarge Person on my Tiny Hawk Familiar to make it Small, then casting Reduce Person on myself, a Small Halfling, to become Tiny, then riding it! Would this be possible?

But would it work? Doesn't Enlarge Person work only on humanoids?

[blazinghand]

But would it work? Doesn't Enlarge Person work only on humanoids?

Normally, it only works on humanoids, but familiars with share spells are funny.

[eggs]

But would it work?

When talking about share spells, yes.

EDIT:
Or what blazinghand said.

[Blue Lantern]

When talking about share spells, yes.

EDIT:
Or what blazinghand said.

I don't think it would, the rule says "A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast)."
You can have the enlarge person affect the both the caster and the familiar you still can not target just the familiar with it.
The clause about targeting the familiar only works on spell with range of personal.

[DeusMortuusEst]

I don't think it would, the rule says "A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast)."
You can have the enlarge person affect the both the caster and the familiar you still can not target just the familiar with it.
The clause about targeting the familiar only works on spell with range of personal.

But you could cast it on both of you then dismiss it yourself and then cast reduce person. Problem solved.

[eggs]

I don't think it would, the rule says "A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast)."
You can have the enlarge person affect the both the caster and the familiar you still can not target just the familiar with it.
The clause about targeting the familiar only works on spell with range of personal.

You're right. I missed the complete context of the question.

But if the caster just wants to ride his familiar, it's completely legit to cast a shared enlarge and two unshared reduces. It costs an extra action and either a spell slot or a 15-gp wand charge, but I'm assuming this isn't a combat trick in the first place.

[Blue Lantern]

You're right. I missed the complete context of the question.

But if the caster just wants to ride his familiar, it's completely legit to cast a shared enlarge and two unshared reduces. It costs an extra action and either a spell slot or a 15-gp wand charge, but I'm assuming this isn't a combat trick in the first place.

By RAW that also would not work: "Reduce person counters and dispels en- large person." So if you cast a reduce person on you after having used an enlarge person the spell is dispelled.

But you could cast it on both of you then dismiss it yourself and then cast reduce person. Problem solved.

I personally would not make that pass, you cast only one spell and the familiar is merely, to put it poetically, bathing in that light, if you dismiss the spell it should end the effect on the familiar too.

[TuggyNE]

I personally would not make that pass, you cast only one spell and the familiar is merely, to put it poetically, bathing in that light, if you dismiss the spell it should end the effect on the familiar too.

I went looking for some rules support for either the "one dispel removes all instances from all targets" theory or the "one dispel removes spell effects from available targets only" theory, but I didn't actually find much, though I'd assumed the latter initially.

To put it more clearly, you're essentially arguing that if someone casts let's say prayer on a group, and then someone targets one of the members and dispels it, it ends for the whole group. This might actually be the case, but I'd like to see some additional basis for it; it's not obvious common sense to me.

[Blue Lantern]

To put it more clearly, you're essentially arguing that if someone casts let's say prayer on a group, and then someone targets one of the members and dispels it, it ends for the whole group. This might actually be the case, but I'd like to see some additional basis for it; it's not obvious common sense to me.

That's not what I am saying, prayer specifically target multiple people, and if you dispel the effect on one does not automatically disrupt it on the others, but a shared spell is a different thing, as the name itself says you are sharing the effect of a single spell, imagine the spell is like an umbrella, you can either cover both you and the familiar under it or give it to the familiar, but the umbrella is just one, so if it is removed like from a dispelling, both gets wet.
I also remember a faq on the subject, but for the life of me can not remember where, using mirror image as an example and it said that when a shared images gets hit it disappear from both the caster and the familiar group.

[Yuki Akuma]

Share Spells is a special ability that lets you target multiple people with one spell. I can't see why it should act at all differently from a spell that normally has two subjects.

Also generally the FAQ pulls rulings out of thin air, often ones that aren't even supported by the actual text of the rules.

[Blue Lantern]

Except it says nowhere that Share Spells lets you target multiple people, it says that if the familiar is near enough he can gain the benefits from the spell you cast on yourself, and the fact that those benefits are lost if the familiar gets too far would says that my interpretation has some basis.
That said i really don't want enter in an english grammar analysis on the wording of the ability and possible interpretation, especially cause english is not my first language, and everybody may do as he wishes.

[DeusMortuusEst]

Well, it's not so much about how English works as how spells work. Once the familiar is affected by a spell through share spell it is as if the spell would have been targeted at the familiar in the first place, except for the distance clause of course. There's nothing in the rules AFAIK that supports the idea that this is not the case.