Familiars, alter self, and other personal spells.

[H_H_F_F]

So, when yo ucast a spell on yourself, your familiar gets to share that spell, correct?

So, 1: Any spell with "personal" as its target can effect the familiar, correct? Bladeweave, for example, would give both the caster and their familiar a dazing touch attack as they strike?

2. What happens with alter self? Do I get to pick a small to diminutive magical beast? Foes the spell turn the familiar into a humanoid? Does it fail to effect it?

Thanks!

[Venger]

As long as your familiar is within 5 feet of you when you cast it, and (if the duration isn't instantaneous) doesn't move more than 5 feet away from you while the spell's up, yes.

1: Yes, but your familiar would need to remain within 5 feet of you as normal.
2: You could pick a magical beast within 1 size category in either direction of your familiar's normal size, yes.

While share spells allows you to share spells with your familiar where it would not normally be a valid target, such as construct essence, for spells with variable effects depending on a target's type (such as alter self,) you do not treat your familiar as though it were you for the purpose of adjudicating effects.

Hope that clears things up.

[H_H_F_F]

Thank you, Venger.

[NigelWalmsley]

2: You could pick a magical beast within 1 size category in either direction of your familiar's normal size, yes.

I don't think that's correct. Unlike Polymorph, Alter Self's size and type restrictions refer to "you", not "the subject". So if you happen to cast it on something else, it still keys off of your attributes in that respect, not those of the target.

[liquidformat]

I don't think that's correct. Unlike Polymorph, Alter Self's size and type restrictions refer to "you", not "the subject". So if you happen to cast it on something else, it still keys off of your attributes in that respect, not those of the target.

I actually think Venger has this one correct, especially given the first line of alter self it appears to me that the way Venger explains it is the intended effect.

"You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form (such as humanoid or magical beast). The new form must be within one size category of your normal size."

Also if you are wanting to go down the road of pumping up your familiar for battle bonded familiar is a great feat to take it lets spells effect your familiar as long as you are within 30' of each other.

[Venger]

I don't think that's correct. Unlike Polymorph, Alter Self's size and type restrictions refer to "you", not "the subject". So if you happen to cast it on something else, it still keys off of your attributes in that respect, not those of the target.

All personal spells say "you" rather than "the subject" or "the target." Your familiar uses his own type for alter self.

I actually think Venger has this one correct, especially given the first line of alter self it appears to me that the way Venger explains it is the intended effect.

"You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form (such as humanoid or magical beast). The new form must be within one size category of your normal size."

Also if you are wanting to go down the road of pumping up your familiar for battle bonded familiar is a great feat to take it lets spells effect your familiar as long as you are within 30' of each other.

I'm not familiar with that feat. What book is it in?

[liquidformat]

I'm not familiar with that feat. What book is it in?

PHBII

you might also take a look at Dictum's Familiar handbook it gives a lot of great info about optimizing your familiar.

[Jay R]

I don't think that's correct. Unlike Polymorph, Alter Self's size and type restrictions refer to "you", not "the subject". So if you happen to cast it on something else, it still keys off of your attributes in that respect, not those of the target.

We now have two different interpretations. It follows that the person to ask is your DM. He or she will make the final ruling in that game.

[Venger]

I thought you might be talking about bonded familiar, but it doesn't do what you're describing.

[tyckspoon]

I thought you might be talking about bonded familiar, but it doesn't do what you're describing.

Companion Spellbond does this (can Share Spells up to 30 feet away, plus you can cast Touch spells at your companion from up to Close range instead) but as the name implies it's for Animal Companions. I don't think it would especially hurt anything to let it apply to anything that has the Share Spells feature, but RAW it's just Animal Companion, not Familiars or Special Mounts.

[Venger]

Oh, balancewise I agree entirely. I was just curious if there was some similar feature for familiars I didn't know about.

[NigelWalmsley]

All personal spells say "you" rather than "the subject" or "the target." Your familiar uses his own type for alter self.

Do you have a rule citation for that? Because the plain reading of the spell is that "you" continues to refer to the caster even if it effects someone else. It's not like this is some weird interaction, Alter Self and Share Spells are in the same book.

[Venger]

Do you have a rule citation for that? Because the plain reading of the spell is that "you" continues to refer to the caster even if it effects someone else. It's not like this is some weird interaction, Alter Self and Share Spells are in the same book.

Share Spells
At the master’s option, he may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) he casts on himself also affect his familiar. The familiar must be within 5 feet at the time of casting to receive the benefit.

If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the familiar if it moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the familiar again even if it returns to the master before the duration expires. Additionally, the master may cast a spell with a target of "You" on his familiar (as a touch range spell) instead of on himself.

A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast).

caster has copy 1 of alter self running on himself
you = caster
familiar has copy 2 of alter self
you = familiar
each of you uses his own type

[Remuko]

Throw me in camp "you = caster".

You cast alter self to turn into a goblin. The alter self being cast = "turn into goblin". turn into goblin is cast on you, and your familiar since you can share spells. the familiar is being affected by your spell cast on you, it shouldnt get a different effect. the only question (which im undecided on) is whether it successfully turns them into a goblin like you were, or if it fails since theyre not a valid form.

[Batcathat]

I feel like it would make more sense from an in-universe perspective for the transformation to be limited by the transformed being's type (because of conservation of mass or something like that, maybe?) than the caster's. Though I could see Remuko's second suggestion (the spell failing since it's trying to turn the familiar into an invalid form) being true, for similar reasons.

[Jay R]

This is ambiguous in the rules, which means that the DM must make a ruling.

I would rule that a familiar could only be altered into a magical beast, and therefore the wizard could become a goblin while the familiar became a pseudodragon. My current DM has made a similar ruling.

I'm aware different DMs would make different rulings, which doesn't bother me at all. That's (part of) what we have a DM for.

[liquidformat]

I would rule that a familiar could only be altered into a magical beast, and therefore the wizard could become a goblin while the familiar became a pseudodragon.

But a pseudodragon is a dragon not a magical beast...

[Jay R]

This is ambiguous in the rules, which means that the DM must make a ruling.

I would rule that a familiar could only be altered into a magical beast, and therefore the wizard could become a goblin while the familiar became a pseudodragon. My current DM has made a similar ruling.

I'm aware different DMs would make different rulings, which doesn't bother me at all. That's (part of) what we have a DM for.

But a pseudodragon is a dragon not a magical beast...

Ah. Right. My mistake. The wizard would become a goblin while the familiar became a red herring.

[liquidformat]

Ah. Right. My mistake. The wizard would become a goblin while the familiar became a red herring.

I got excited there for a second that maybe Red Herring was once an april fools monster but sadly if it was my google foo failed me. This was the closest match I was able to pull:

https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/C...verseid=476192