Sharing spells with a familiar (concentration duration)

[Quasqueton]

The sorcerer in my campaign needed to dispel a magical effect he couldn’t see without detect magic. Since it might take multiple dispel magic attempts, he needed to use detect magic after each attempt to see if the dispel worked.

He asked if he could use his familiar. Cast detect magic shared with his familiar, then let the familiar keep up the spell with concentration while he cast dispel magic. Could the familiar then keep up the concentration while the sorcerer cast dispel magic until the familiar said the effect was dispelled?

I allowed this use, with the option to change my mind after thinking/checking on it before next game session.

What say you rules gurus? Is there some rule or suggestion somewhere that could answer this? If allowed, is there some problems that could come up with other spells?

Quasqueton

 

[Infiniti2000]

At the point you start casting dispel magic, the detect magic is no longer functioning. So, if you require multiple detect magic attempts, you're already being inconsistent.

If you rule that you have to "see" the spell to target it (reasonable per the targeting rules), then you cannot target such spells that would require detect magic or the like unless you can keep up such sight while casting. An example of this would be arcane sight.

However, an alternative is to not require continual "sighting" to dispel an effect. This may seem contrary to the targeting rules, but note that the targeting rules are for creatures and objects, not spell effects. It's arguable that dispel magic creatures a new targeting rule and thus is undefined. So, in that case, any definition is allowable per the rules.

I've used both methods and my personal suggestion is to go with the latter. I really doubt that the designers included visible effects when considering the balancing aspects of spells.

 

[kayn99]

new feat

I think there is a new feat in the PHBII that allows familiars to keep a concentration spell going while a so a mage can cast other spells.

Kayn

 

[Quasqueton]

At the point you start casting dispel magic, the detect magic is no longer functioning. So, if you require multiple detect magic attempts, you're already being inconsistent.

If you rule that you have to "see" the spell to target it (reasonable per the targeting rules), then you cannot target such spells that would require detect magic or the like unless you can keep up such sight while casting. An example of this would be arcane sight.

However, an alternative is to not require continual "sighting" to dispel an effect. This may seem contrary to the targeting rules, but note that the targeting rules are for creatures and objects, not spell effects. It's arguable that dispel magic creatures a new targeting rule and thus is undefined. So, in that case, any definition is allowable per the rules.

I've used both methods and my personal suggestion is to go with the latter. I really doubt that the designers included visible effects when considering the balancing aspects of spells.

I don’t understand what is inconsistent.

The sorcerer can see the object the spell effect is on (a portcullis, in this case), but just can’t see the abjuration aura of the spell he’s trying to dispel without a detect magic. (Think alarm spell, although that’s not what the actually spell effect is in this case.) He can cast the dispel magic on the object, but can’t tell if the spell effect is gone or still in effect until another he looks at the object with detect magic. That’s why he wanted to let his familiar concentrate on the detect magic spell while he cast dispel magic.

[Now, thinking a bit more about my particular situation, perhaps a mage should know when he/she successfully dispels a spell – mages know when a target passes/fails a save against their spells.]

Quasqueton

 

[Infiniti2000]

Ah, I missed something important about your question and responded to a different point.

The answer to your question is yes. The sorcerer need merely share the spell with the familiar, who keeps concentrating on his "copy" while the sorcerers stops concentrating on his.

The point I responded to is whether or not the sorcerer can even target a spell effect that he cannot see.

My apologies for the confusion. Maybe I should just stop posting in your threads.

 

[Quasqueton]

Maybe I should just stop posting in your threads.

Please don't stop.

Quasqueton

 

[Hypersmurf]

The answer to your question is yes. The sorcerer need merely share the spell with the familiar...

Er... how?

Detect Magic is an Area spell, not a spell cast on yourself...

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Detect Magic is an Area spell, ...

So?

...not a spell cast on yourself...

Sure it is. It is certainly not a spell you don't cast on yourself. It's not a Targeted spell, true, but it's effect is on you because it emanates from you.

Note that Share Spells does not require Targeted spells.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is certainly not a spell you don't cast on yourself.

It's not targeted on you, and you aren't in the area of effect. How is it cast on yourself?

It's not a Targeted spell, true, but it's effect is on you because it emanates from you.

That's like saying Tenser's Floating Disk is cast on yourself, because you're the one it follows.

Tenser's Floating Disk isn't cast on anyone. It creates an effect. Detect Magic isn't cast on anyone. It affects an area.

Note that Share Spells does not require Targeted spells.

It requires the spell to be cast on yourself, and Detect Magic isn't.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It's not targeted on you, and you aren't in the area of effect. How is it cast on yourself?

It need not be Targeted on you. A fireball is also not Targeted on a person, but surely a wizard could cast it on himself?

That's like saying Tenser's Floating Disk is cast on yourself, because you're the one it follows.

It's actually nothing like saying that because Floating Disk (who's this Tenser fellow?) is not an emanation.

Detect Magic isn't cast on anyone. It affects an area.

Specifically, an emanation from . . .?

It requires the spell to be cast on yourself, and Detect Magic isn't.

Agreed, disagreed.