Find Familiar lets you cast touch spells through your familiar. Warding Bond is a Touch spell, that creates a connection between "you and the target". I can't find anything against it, but would it be possible to have my Wizard make his familiar cast Warding Bond on the Wizard himself, so that the Wizard gets the +1 to AC and saving throws and resistance to damage?
I realized after I wrote this much that Wizards don't get Warding Bond, but I think the question is still valid for multiclassers.
So to start with, it's worth pointing out that you can cast Warding Bond on yourself. Touch range spells are described as:
Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch.
Further, under the Targeting Yourself section, it says:
If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you.
You can cast touch spells on yourself unless they specifically say you can't, and Warding Bond doesn't specify that. This is actually not a bad idea - you'll get the +1 to AC and saving throws, and the double damage you'll take will be canceled out by the resistance to damage.
Find Familiar says that:
when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell.
Your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell. This is the only way in which the familiar acts as the caster of the spell. It can certainly deliver Warding Bond for you, but you will still be the caster of the spell, and the "you" in Warding Bond will still be you, not your familiar. This is effectively equivalent to casting it on yourself directly, except that it took your familiar's reaction.
If you can cast Warding Bond on yourself, via touch, then Yes, your familiar can do it.
If you can't cast Warding Bond on yourself, via touch, then No, your familiar cannot do it.
"Can you cast Warding Bond on yourself?"
Miniman's answer suggests that you can.
The following RAW-based analysis suggests "No, You Can't" based on the specifics in the spell description rather than the general rules cited in the "Yes" answer. The spell relies on there being two creatures (plural) for this magical bond to form and protect one of them. From the spell description:
The spell ends if you drop to 0 hit points or if you and the target become separated by more than 60 feet. It also ends if the spell is cast again on either of the connected creatures.
A tweet by Jeremy Crawford suggests that you can't:
Sean @Lord_Sicarious · 6 Oct 2016
@JeremyECrawford can you cast Warding Bond on yourself? Its rules seem to assume two people, but no explicit limitation.Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford · 6 Oct 2016
Warding bond—you can't target yourself with it. #DnD
"Specific over General" supports No over Yes.
Each DM will rule on what makes most sense to that DM. Since the impact isn't game breaking, it probably doesn't matter. A "Yes" ruling provides a one-hour period where a cleric gets +1 AC and +1 to saves for the price of a level 2 spell after touching him / her self while wearing two platinum rings. A "No" ruling means the cleric uses the 2d level slot on something else.
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a pairof platinum rings worth at least 50 gp each, which you and the target must wear for the duration)
The italicized text implies two creatures -- a caster and a target -- each wearing a platinum ring, but it does not state that explicitly in this part of the spell description.
This spell wards a willing creature you touch and creates a mystic connection between you and the target until the spell ends.
"A willing creature" isn't necessarily only "another willing creature," so one can argue that the caster is "a willing creature" who can touch his/her self. That said, the second half of the sentence implies two parties being involved: the caster and a target. this spell
... creates a mystic connection between you and the target until the spell ends.
is not the same statement as
The "general rule" arguments about spell targets, self spells, and touch spells seems to have raised its head again. (See a previous discussion on Paladin Smite spells).
Two parties being involved is the common sense / common usage reading of this spell description.
While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has resistance to all damage.
We see a second and a third person usage, implying the presence of another creature other than the caster.
Also, each time it takes damage, you take the same amount of damage.
"You take damage" and "it" takes damage: second person and third person references. Two different persons, to different creatures are damaged.
The spell ends if you drop to 0 hit points or if you and the target become separated by more than 60 feet.
The caster reaching a zero-hit-point condition ending a spell is common result. Neither a pro nor con element for this question. Outside edge case magical effects, you can't be separated from yourself so this makes no sense in a case other than two creatures being involved.
It also ends if the spell is cast again on either of the connected creatures. You can also dismiss the spell as an action.
Creatures, plural. Two creatures, a caster and a target who needs to be touched while wearing the appropriate platinum ring.
What was implied in previous language is specified at the end of the spell description. "Either" obviously refers to more than one party/creature.
By reading the specifics of the spell description, the spell requires two creatures, each wearing the appropriate platinum ring, one touching the other, and both staying within 60' of each other for up to an hour for the spell to provide the damage reduction to recipient of this spell, as well as the AC and Saving throw bonuses.
No, you can't cast this spell on yourself because it requires two creatures, each wearing that platinum ring, to create the spell effect.
