Yesterday my druid used Share Spell to cast Primal Form (Spell Compendium, p. 161) on her brown bear companion for the nice earth form damage reduction.

But after re-reading the spell, we started to have some doubts whether that is actually possible. Primal Form states:

You cannot cast spells, and you lose any spell-like, supernatural, and extraordinary abilities of your own form.

As Share Spells is an extraordinary ability, wouldn't using it for Primal Form immediately result in Primal Form getting deactivated because Share Spells is suppressed?

This is for using the second paragraph of Share Spell:

Additionally, the druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a touch range spell) instead of on herself. A druid and her animal companion can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion’s type (animal).

...but I think it applies for the first paragraph (having a spell affect both the druid and her companion) as well.

My DM allowed it yesterday and will allow it in the future, but RAW it should be forbidden, RAI we are not sure. Is this interpretation correct?


The issue of constant targeting—that is, if an effect present on a creature, object, or area is always confirming or denying if the target is valid and, if denied, something happening (dispelling, suppressing, exploding, etc.) to that target or effect—is unmentioned, so far as I'm aware, anywhere as a general rule. (Specific effects may mention constant targeting, but, for example, a familiar's share spells ability doesn't nor does the 3rd-level Sor/Wiz spell primal form [trans] (Spell Compendium 161).)

The D&D Main FAQ—with which some folks take issue—addresses this idea, albeit obliquely:

If, while under the effect of a spell that depends on type (such as hold person), my character is transformed into a different creature type by polymorph, does the spell’s effect remain?

Yes. A spell only checks to see if you are a legal target when it is cast. If you become an illegal target later (such as via the polymorph spell), the spell remains in effect. (87)

(I am unaware of this question's provenance.) With nothing from the rules saying constant targeting is a thing and this ruling that—for this specific case, anyway—it isn't a thing, this DM feels comfortable ruling that if an effect's target was legal when the effect was activated, then the effect continues even if the target later becomes illegal.

In short, this DM—like yours—would also rule that the familiar continues to benefit from the shared spell, even if the familiar no longer possessed the ability share spells after having received the shared spell.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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