share spells with Animal Companion-question

[Vegepygmy]

Wow...that's a dumb line of text. What effect is the drinker controlling?

Dismissability, I would think. I do not concur that being the "effective caster" allows one to Share Spells with an animal companion or familiar by drinking a potion.

I believe the FAQ addressed this point, but I don't feel like looking it up. I would just smack any player who tried to argue with me about it.

 

[Dandu]

Dismissability, I would think. I do not concur that being the "effective caster" allows one to Share Spells with an animal companion or familiar by drinking a potion.

Explain why it is that someone who has effectively cast the spell cannot treat it like any other spell that he has cast? I'd be interested in hearing your take on the rules and how to interpret them.

I believe the FAQ addressed this point, but I don't feel like looking it up.

Not in the FAQ as far as I can tell.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Explain why it is that someone who has effectively cast the spell cannot treat it like any other spell that he has cast?

Let me answer your question with another question:

In what way (if any) is actually casting a spell different from effectively casting a spell?

Extra Credit: If there is no difference, why include the word "effectively" at all?

 

[Dandu]

Let me answer your question with another question:
In what way (if any) is actually casting a spell different from effectively casting a spell?

Not much in my book (metamagic is out, for example, but in most respects the spell is treated as if the person had actually cast it), which is why I'm asking you for a direct answer.

Extra Credit: If there is no difference, why include the word "effectively" at all?

Variety is the spice of life.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Not much in my book (metamagic is out, for example, but in most respects the spell is treated as if the person had actually cast it), which is why I'm asking you for a direct answer.

Fair enough. First and foremost, I don't think it was the authors' intent for the effects of quaffed potions to be shared between masters and familiars.

As a rationalization, I'd say that while the drinker of a potion is treated as if he were (i.e., effectively) the caster of a spell, no casting has actually taken place, and it is the act of casting a spell that allows it to be shared--as evidenced by the words: "At the master's option, he may have any spell...he casts on himself also affect his familiar." Since no actual casting occurs (only drinking of fluids), there can be no sharing of the spell.

 

[Nodnarb]

I tend to agree with that if the caster isnt actually casting a spell then it cant affect the familiar (animal companion), Potions are consumed and dont seem right to just happen to affect the companion as well. Scrolls and wands yes, they should affect both user and companion as they magic comes from the device (scroll or wand) to target whomever, but a potion...?

 

[Dandu]

Potions are consumed and dont seem right to just happen to affect the companion as well.

Yes it does.

 

[Nodnarb]

The Animal companion itself didnt consume the potion though, it just stood nearby.

 

[Dandu]

The Animal companion itself didnt consume the potion though, it just stood nearby.

Didn't activate the wand or use the scroll either.

 

[jefgorbach]

IMO it means that while the potion's strength and duration are predetermined by whomever prepared the potion, the drinker controls when its trigged by either drinking or applying it in some suitable fashion (drink the liquid, rub on the oil/gel, etc).



Casting from memory, drinking a brew, pointing a wand, or reading from a scroll are all plot devices referencing the same underlying spell's magic; which RAW has already indicated can be shared with a familiar/companion via their empathic link. Its the magic effect being shared not the means of its casting - so in all cases, the answer is: yes.