The feat Share Soulmeld (Magic of Incarnum 41) has as its prerequisite the "[a]bility to shape soulmelds and a familiar, animal companion, or mount with whom you can share spells." The feat's description says, "You can share a soulmeld with an ally with which you have a special bond." The feat's Benefit, in part, says, "At your option, any soulmeld shaped by you and currently affecting you can also affect your familiar, animal companion, or [presumably special] mount" like that of a paladin.

If a meldshaper that possesses the feat Share Soulmeld has an animal companion, familiar, and special mount, can the meldshaper share a soulmeld (or even multiple soulmelds) with all three different creatures? Likewise, if that same meldshaper has—instead or also—multiple animal companions, familiars, or special mounts, can he share a soulmeld or soulmelds with all of those similar creatures?

Example 1

Although his friends laughed at him for taking such a bizarre mix of classes, Illyano the druid 1/healer 8/incarnate 1/sorcerer 1/knight of the Blue Moon 1 also took the feat Share Soulmeld. Can Illyano share one or more of his soulmelds—like the soulmeld soulspark familiar (86-7) because who's laughing now, right?—with his wolf animal companion, celestial unicorn companion, ibis familiar, and heavy warhorse special mount simultaneously?1

Example 2

Jalas the incarnate/wizard takes the feat Share Soulmeld and takes twice the feat Extra Familiar (Dragon #280 62) to gain a total of three familiars. While they're perched on his shoulder, can Jalas share his soulmed dissolving spittle (64-5) with his chipmunk, ferret, and weasel familiars?2

Example 2 describes the plan of a character in a current campaign. Answers addressing that example in particular are most welcome.

Note: This is part 3 in a series of questions on the feat Share Soulmeld. The installment that asks if a buddy that's sharing a soulmeld benefits from its master having bound (and invested essentia in) the soulmeld is here, and the installment that asks about the broader functionality of the feat Share Soulmeld is here.

1 Yes, picking the soulmeld soulspark familiar is kind of a jerk move.
2 Jalas was really worried about his Reflex saving throw.


4 Answers 4


Unfortunately, the only precedence we have to go by is Share Spells. We run into a couple of problems doing this, however:

Share Spells is a feature of the companion/familiar/mount and not the master, which already makes it different from the feat Share Soulmeld. Because Share Soulmeld requires Share Spells, though, I think it is fair to see this as an extension of that ability but check with your DM.

If we do consider Share Soulmeld as an extension of Share Spells, and therefore work for each creature individually, the ruling becomes easy - you can share however much you want with everyone!

However, do keep in mind that the Soulspark Familiar is not a proper familiar as in it does not get Share Spells as a feature. This prevents infinite loops and is probably one of the better design choices in this book.


Even if we read it as “one at a time,” there is no limit on using the feat repeatedly.

There is just absolutely no basis for claiming that if you use this feat to share a soulmeld with a creature, you also stop sharing it with some other creature that you previously shared it with. The feat gives you an ability to share it, and you can just keep using that ability for every valid creature. In practice, it’s easier to just share it with all of them at once, which is arguably what the text says anyway.

But without anything about choosing a particular creature, only functioning with one creature at a time, or a subsequent use ending previous uses, there is no limit on the number of valid creatures you can share a soulmeld with. Even the flavor text at the top of the feat is consistent about it: you can share a soulmeld with an ally. That is an ability you have. You can use it on one ally, and then use it on another ally, and then use it on a third ally. There is, in fact, a distinct lack of evidence for any restriction to a single creature.


Depends on the the DM's reading of the word "or". There's no prompting in the feat's rules text that gives us a clue as to which definition of "or" to use, nor is there similar text to compare to that I'm aware of, off hand. I would say the only reason to choose one way or the other is a matter of game balance, and on that front, the choice between "1" and "arbitrarily high" swings to "1".

Admittedly, this interpretation is supported by a piece of text at the start of the feat, but not in the feat's benefit text. That makes it a strong contender for a RAI ruling.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I have no idea what your conclusion is. Examples 1 and 2 in the question aren’t mutually exclusive; you’re not supposed to be picking one, you’re supposed to be describing how either does or doesn’t work. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Commented Jun 9, 2017 at 13:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan It's a copypasta of a Comment on this answer. I assumed the answer was more of a placeholder, godskook planning to return to clean it up when more time becomes available. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 9, 2017 at 13:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan, HeyICanChan is right, that's copypasta I didn't have time to clean up until now. \$\endgroup\$
    – godskook
    Commented Jun 9, 2017 at 13:50

The feat speaks of soulmelds singularly...

The title is "Share Soulmeld" (singular rather than plural, in contrast with Share Spells, which otherwise shares extremely similar language, though not restrictions) the short description says "You can share a soulmeld..." rather than 'you can share soulmelds'. The benefit section says "any soulmeld" rather than "any soulmelds".

Thus, though not explicit, it could be reasonable, and possibly intended use, to limit the sharing to one soulmeld at a time.

However, as @KRyan notes, there's no listed action, targeting, or limiting gateway, merely "any soulmeld shaped by you and currently affecting you" which would permit multiple instances exactly as Share Spells does.

Regarding targets...

If you can share multiple soulmelds, you can share with multiple targets too. Otherwise, you can only share one, once.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I see no evidence whatsoever that 1. there is actually any such limit on the number of soulmelds shared, or 2. that there was intended to be one. Answer would be significantly improved if you could demonstrate either of those. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Commented Jun 10, 2017 at 16:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan The possibly reasonable limitation is not explicit, and the language I used shows that it's merely suggested by the naming of the ability. It bears mentioning, though, and I can't make it any less forceful without removing it. The evidence is in the answer; the ability is named singularly, and spoken of so. \$\endgroup\$
    – Chemus
    Commented Jun 10, 2017 at 16:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Except the singular does not matter in the least, not without something explicit about it. As is, it allows you to share one soulmeld with one creature, then share another soulmeld with the same creature, and then share one of those soulmelds again with a different creature, and so on, and at no point is there any indication that doing so should end one of the previous shares. And it’s not as though WotC didn’t know how to write this kind of thing; the game is full of feats that force you to choose just one thing. Share Soulmelds is distinctly not one of them. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Commented Jun 10, 2017 at 16:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan What I wrote says: "if you can share more than one soulmeld, then you can share with multiple bonded creatures without limit. The singular language of the ability might give a DM a handle on limiting the ability, but logically it then limits the feat to 'one at a time'". \$\endgroup\$
    – Chemus
    Commented Jun 10, 2017 at 19:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .