3.0 Paladin Dragon Mount spell sharing

[Emperawr]

Hi all. I'm curious to get some opinions on the spell sharing between a paladin and his dragon mount. His mount is a copper dragon CL9. So what I'm curious about is I know that if my paladin casts a spell he can choose to have it effect the dragon as well but what about if the dragon casts a spell?

I mean for the paladins share spells I've always thought of it as being an effect that was linked to their empathic link with each other. That a paladin was able to make the magic that he cast on himself flow through their link to effect the mount as well although with the obvious distance restrictions that apply to share spell and not to the empathic link.

I mean the dragon is a better spell caster then my paladin, hes smarter then my paladin, it would make sense that if the paladin could share spells with the dragon then the opposite would apply as well. Obviously the strict rules don't state anything about this but I'm just looking for opinions here on what people think about this idea.

 

[Shoe]

the long and short of it is "Ask your DM". there isnt a rule for this but as a DM I would certainly allow it if I allowed a Copper dragon mount. Seems like a 2 way street to me, but I am a fairly leanient DM when it comes to power level. I care more about how fun the game is and how immersed the players are than players having a balanced amount of gear and companions equal to what thier level dictates

 

[jefgorbach]

IMO its the same empathic relationship as a Mage:Familiar or Druid:Animal Companion share with their respective counterparts so would allow the Paladin:Mount to share spells in either/both directions as desired, provided they are within empathic range during the casting. Likewise with potions, scolls, wands, and some wondrous items depending upon how the effect is ruled to work.

 

[Dandu]

This thread is no more! It has ceased to be! Its expired and gone to meet it's maker! Its a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't dug it back up, it'd be pushing up the daisies! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off the mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-THREAD!!

 

[jefgorbach]

oops!
*quickly shovels dirt atop the thread*

 

[BENINHB]

two weeks isn't exactly thread necromancy

 

[Emperawr]

Ive got to say that I find it quite hillarious that my post got more replies from someone saying that it was dead then me asking the actual question did. Not exactly what I was going for but hey thanks for the bumps. Might get more real opinions on the question. I like the responses so far. Both provide very good points that I will make sure to present to my dm when we play next.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Since you're merely soliciting opinions ...

I tend to be a rules follower. Actual wording is important, but intent and logic usually win out in the long run, if poor or nonsensical wording in a spell or feat lead to complete ridiculousness.

So I'd say no: the dragon casts spells on itself alone, because nothing in the Monster Manual suggests otherwise (like an ability allowing dragons' spells to affect multiple targets when they usually shouldn't). You, the paladin, can choose when you cast a spell on yourself to also have it affect your mount, but only if you two are within 5 feet of each other. As the paladin, you also gain the ability to cast "you" spells with a target of your mount instead. These are unusual abilities, and I think the flow, as it were, should be one-way.

There's just not anything in the wording of special mount, nor in the MM dragon description, that suggests why a dragon should be able to cast a spell with a target of, say, dragon (or magical beast) upon you, the non-dragon paladin. If the link WERE two-way, your mount should be able to do this ... I suspect this is simply a situation where TPTB at WOTC never intended for a paladin to have a mount capable of casting.

 

[jefgorbach]

True. None of the original example Animal Companions, Familiar, or Special Mounts normally have any ability to use/cast magical effects, nor gained any such ability by virtue of becoming an Animal Companion, Familiar, or Special Mount so it wasnt neccessary for RAW to say they couldnt.

What it /DOES/ say is the Master/Creature "can communicate empathically" which Merriam Webster defines as "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another" -- and thus they are able to share knowledge/magical experiences via the link. Further, its states "A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type."


Therefore if we are going to allow expand the list of possible creatures to include those WITH such abilities, then we must likewise concide the creature is capable of using those abilities upon its Master, should it desire to.

BTW, I house-rule the creature's Intelligence does /NOT/ drop should it already have a higher score than shown on the Familiar's Ablity by Master's level table for any reason. This prevents Improved familiars from losing Intelligence. For example, a 7th level mage summons a pseudodragon using the Improved Familiar Feat. His familiar would normally have Int:9 per the Master:Familiar table, however the MM(pseuddragon) shows its racial norm is Int:10 and thus remains unchanged.


On a related unforessen consequence: the Familiar rules were cut/pasted from v1 which only allowed NPC/PCs to take class levels. Version 3.x changed this, allowing any sentitent creature to advance using class levels. The emapthic link shared by a mage/paladin and their respective creature boosts the creature's intelligence rendering it sentient ... and making it perfectly reasonable under RAW to begin following its own career path alongside its master!

 

[Dross]

True. None of the original example Animal Companions, Familiar, or Special Mounts normally have any ability to use/cast magical effects, nor gained any such ability by virtue of becoming an Animal Companion, Familiar, or Special Mount so it wasnt neccessary for RAW to say they couldnt.

I'm mostly happy with this part, but are there familiars or animal companions anywhere can casts spells?

What it /DOES/ say is the Master/Creature "can communicate empathically" which Merriam Webster defines as "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another" -- and thus they are able to share knowledge/magical experiences via the link. Further, its states "A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type."

In the 1st paragraph you state that no familiar CAN cast spells so it isn't necessary for RAW to point out it is not a two way street. Why do you not use the same argument in the quoted passage?
Using your argument in the first paragraph means that familiar to master sharing of spell is not possible.
Using your argument in the 2nd paragraph also requires you to note (PHB pg 52) "A familiar also grants special abilities to its master (a sorcerer or
wizard), as given on the table below." Nowhere does it say share spells with master.

Therefore if we are going to allow expand the list of possible creatures to include those WITH such abilities, then we must likewise concide the creature is capable of using those abilities upon its Master, should it desire to.

I don't feel that that conclusion is valid. Do any critters in the expanded list casts spells? Do any of the improved familiar versions state that the share spells is a two way street?
As for the dictionary meaning of emphatic in the emphatic link

PHB pg 53 states: Because of the limited nature of the link, only general emotional content (such as fear, hunger, happiness, curiosity) can be communicated.
and for a paladin mount pg 45: "but they can communicate empathically"
I would call communicating way different to sharing spells.

To me that is too large a limitation to conclude that two-way sharing is possible.

There are a couple of things the familiar does provide to the master, the Alertness feat (which the master does not provide the familiar), and familiarity with a place the familiar has seen (again, the master cannot provide this). A paly mount provides familiarity in a similar way.

It looks like the share spells for both wizard and paly use the same wording as well.


I would call allowing two-way sharing of spells a house rule (which is something that may fit in the OP's game).

I also would think seriously of a PrC or a couple of feats to allow two-way sharing of spells.

Or (being ) the dragon could try to take the paly as it's improved familiar