Can you share spells from wands/staves?

[Dwarmaj]

I'm curious as to whether a mage or druid could cast a personal spell from a wand or staff and have it affect their familiar/companion instead of themselves.

 

[shilsen]

I'd say "No". The person isn't actually casting the spell, which is required for any aspect of the Share Spells ability to kick in.

 

[Dingleberry]

According to Tome and Blood (page 11), yes, you can share a spell from a magic item with a familiar - provided you can target the spell on yourself.

 

[Caliban]

According to Tome and Blood (page 11), yes, you can share a spell from a magic item with a familiar - provided you can target the spell on yourself.

They changed the wording on that ability in 3.5, but I'm not sure if it affects this application of it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

They changed the wording on that ability in 3.5, but I'm not sure if it affects this application of it.

Tome and Blood said you could share SLAs; 3.5 specifically prohibits sharing SLAs. 3.5 just says "spells you cast on yourself", while T&B allowed spells, SLAs, Su abilities, and magic items that provided spells or SLAs.

Based on that, I'd say no to Sharing from a wand in 3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[Dingleberry]

Tome and Blood said you could share SLAs; 3.5 specifically prohibits sharing SLAs. 3.5 just says "spells you cast on yourself", while T&B allowed spells, SLAs, Su abilities, and magic items that provided spells or SLAs.

Didn't the 3.0 PHB wording also just say "spells you cast on yourself"? I'd certainly agree that SLAs don't apply if they're expressly excluded in 3.5, but I wouldn't necessarily remove the rest of the T&B clarifications based solely on that SLA exclusion.

(Hyp, I also recall that you have an issue or two with the way "share spells" was described in T&B, so I understand your inclination to eliminate as much of it as possible. )

 

[Hypersmurf]

(Hyp, I also recall that you have an issue or two with the way "share spells" was described in T&B, so I understand your inclination to eliminate as much of it as possible. )

Actually, I really liked the inclusion of Su abilities - it made the Divine feats from DotF even more kickass for a Paladin with a Mount. A Dire Lion or Dragon mount sharing your Divine Might - and Divine Shield as well, if you bought it an Animated shield - was very cool.

But the whole deal with Cure spells and Stat buffs was just silly.

I'm perfectly willing to toss the whole T&B section now that 3.5 has contradicted it

The way I see it, "spells (but not SLAs)" is a way of saying "spells (and we really mean 'spells', not just anything that behaves vaguely like a spell)". T&B threw in everything including the kitchen sink... Su abilities aren't very much like spells at all, a lot of the time. 3.5 seems to be saying "keep it simple".

And I'm happy with that.

-Hyp.

 

[MerakSpielman]

People almost always want to do this with a Wand of True Strike. They have a henchman-wizard use the wand on them every round, and they always get +20 to hit... I'd say nope, can't be done.

 

[Hypersmurf]

People almost always want to do this with a Wand of True Strike. They have a henchman-wizard use the wand on them every round, and they always get +20 to hit... I'd say nope, can't be done.

Well, of course not. You don't have a Share Spells [Ex] connection to a henchman-wizard.

We're talking familiars, animal companions, or paladin's mounts - the creatures you specifically can affect with a Personal spell.

The question is whether a Personal spell cast on yourself via a wand behaves the same as a Personal spell cast on yourself normally.

-Hyp.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

So the real question is:

Is a spell cast from a spell completion or spell trigger item the same as a spell cast by a caster?

There are differences ... save DCs, for example ... but otherwise, woiuldn't it be mechanically simpler to have them work exactly the same?