Take the 2-minute tour ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've been looking into ways to boost my save DCs, and I came across Harmonic Chorus. There seems to be a bit of inconsistency in the description, which makes me think it may be possible to cast it on yourself.

  • The "Target" line says that it has to be cast on "One Living Creature", with no special restriction that it has to be cast on someone else.
  • The description says that the spell "lets you improve the spellcasting ability of another spellcaster". However, this line sounds a lot more like the text that lets you know basically what the spell does, and not an outright restriction.
  • The spell requires concentration, which means that under normal circumstances, you cannot cast another spell while using it. However, with something like Extraordinary Concentration or Sonorous Hum, a caster could be able to cast it on themselves and maintain concentration while being able to cast other spells.

I feel that the intent of the spell is to cast it on another character and use your own actions to buff their spells by concentration. I feel that the text saying that it is used on other spellcasters is a logical implication of the spell requiring concentration, and not an outright ban on casting it on yourself.

Does this interpretation hold water?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

NO.

d20SRD has an opinion on descriptive texts:

Descriptive Text

This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description included "see text," this is where the explanation is found.

Rules Compendium states the same.

It doesn't state that you can ignore any part of spell description. And since it is not even a contradiction, the target must be living creature AND another spellcaster.

share|improve this answer
1  
The reason that I find that ruling to be ambiguous is that the line the the spell description is not restrictive. If it said "You can only use this spell to improve the spellcasting ability of another spellcaster" then it wouldn't be ambiguous. It doesn't say you can't use it on yourself, just that you can use it on others. –  DuckTapeal Apr 17 at 15:41
    
This line of reasoning is understandable, but dangerous. Would you really follow the "what is not prohibited is allowed" way in your D&D? And maybe my English is not good enough, but I can't see how "another spellcaster" is an ambiguous designator. –  Jeor Mattan Apr 19 at 20:02
    
"Another spellcaster" is plenty clear. The part that's ambiguous is where it says "lets", which isn't restrictive, rather than using language that restricts you to "another spellcaster". –  DuckTapeal Apr 19 at 20:09
add comment

Yes, that seems like the correct interpretation.

There are numerous clarifications that abilities that target any ally can target yourself as well. This seems completely in line with that concept.

And it would generally be much more powerful to use it on a full caster, with their correspondingly higher base DCs. So there's not going to be any sort of balance issue; you get a neat effect by combining several abilities that you paid for. (By learning the spell and taking the feat.)

share|improve this answer
    
My plan is to use this with a Master Specialist Enchantment Wizard, so balance issues may come into play. :) –  DuckTapeal Feb 2 '13 at 8:35
    
@DuckTapeal Master Specialist doesn't let you add Bard spells to your spellbook, and I'm not aware of any particularly useful bard/wizard multiclasses, so not quite sure what you're getting at. –  starwed Feb 2 '13 at 9:32
    
He could always cast Harmonic Chorus from an eternal wand. As long as he's an arcane spellcaster he doesn't need to roll umd checks IIRC. –  Zachiel Feb 2 '13 at 11:47
    
@Zachiel Grr, can't find the compendium, but I'm 99% that eternal wands worked just like regular wands in that respect. Still, the UMD check would actually be pretty easy, so a valid point. –  starwed Feb 2 '13 at 18:05
add comment

protected by Brian Ballsun-Stanton Jun 8 '13 at 1:16

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.