Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
That sounds awesome until your AC has barding on it and you want to toss a blanket over it to keep it warm.. it can't wear both items on the same "slot".
That sounds pedantic. I agree. But so does saying my AC can't wear a *non magical* item because of *magical item slot* restrictions.
I don't believe I said mean what you seem to think I said so I don't really have anything to add.
|
So now the magical item slots apply to non-magical items in PFS?You can wear a ring, magical or otherwise, where ever you'd like. If you want to wear a ring of protection as a hat decoration, no problem.
If you want to gain magical benefits which are associated with an item which belongs in the ring slot then you must wear it on a finger.
That sounds awesome until your AC has barding on it and you want to toss a blanket over it to keep it warm.. it can't wear both items on the same "slot".
That sounds pedantic. I agree. But so does saying my AC can't wear a *non magical* item because of *magical item slot* restrictions.
Which is exactly what ruling was just pronounced. By RAW your AC can not have any item on it that isn't in one of those two slots mentioned. Period, end of story.
The item in question in this thread isn't a ring of protection or a ring of the ram. Its a completely 100% non magical 50 gold platinum ring.
This ruling says that in PFS I can't take an appropriately sized platinum ring and slide it onto the tail of a trained AC, or my familiar, or anything else.
Not talking about magic. Talking about a circle of metal here.
Does it impact me? not one bit. Am I trying to be rude to the guy who made the ruling? Not one bit. The guy does a *ton* of hard work and I respect him for it. But I do find myself hard pressed to agree with this particular ruling.
Animal Companion and Familiar owners beware- magical item slots also now apply to non-magical items.-S
If that is how it is viewed, then so be it. Just like I wouldn't want a player at my tabletop let their tiger or horse wear mundane leather boots on each paw or hoof, you don't get to put a metal ring on a cat's tail, or head, or paw, or anywhere else.
If someone's cat can have a metal band on its tail, why can't their horse, or any other animal companion, have footwear to get the +2 to AC versus caltrops? A horse with leather boots would surely follow if we allow ACs or familiars to don every piece of mundane equipment out there, including "just a metal band or ring."
Sorry, but it is a slippery, crazy slope we aren't going down.
|
... my AC can't wear a *non magical* item because of *magical item slot* restrictions.
Which is exactly what ruling was just pronounced. ... Animal Companion and Familiar owners beware- magical item slots also now apply to non-magical items.
Well, you're saying that you're not trying to be rude, but it sure does read as if you are. That's not at all what "the ruling just pronounced". First, the rules for animal companion item slots have been there for a while and aren't recent. Second, what you're purporting isn't at all what he said. He siad that when we say "ring" it's understood that it's an item that goes on a finger. It hasn't anything to do whether it's in a slot, or magical or mundane ... it's a ring. And just like your can't wear an earring on your finger (and vice versa) it's not the same thing as trying to put a ring on a cats paw. It just doesn't work that way.
Beyond that ... there's a lot of magical traditions in the world in which the hand and fingers are important for the transfer of interpersonal magical energies. When one performs a ritual, the is drawn in the left hand (if memory serves) and goes out through the right. I would bet if you tried to explain to those who practice those religious rites that it should work precisely the same way on a cat's butt (tail?), I'd expect them to not agree with you. <chuckling in light humour>
That's just one theory of why it shouldn't work on an animal companion. But, I have a feeling that you're more bound up on the idea of indignation because someone had the audacity to clearly and concisely say "no", rather than the RP of it.
... my AC can't wear a *non magical* item because of *magical item slot* restrictions.
Which is exactly what ruling was just pronounced. ... Animal Companion and Familiar owners beware- magical item slots also now apply to non-magical items.
Well, you're saying that you're not trying to be rude, but it sure does read as if you are. That's not at all what "the ruling just pronounced". First, the rules for animal companion item slots have been there for a while and aren't recent. Second, what you're purporting isn't at all what he said. He siad that when we say "ring" it's understood that it's an item that goes on a finger. It hasn't anything to do whether it's in a slot, or magical or mundane ... it's a ring. And just like your can't wear an earring on your finger (and vice versa) it's not the same thing as trying to put a ring on a cats paw. It just doesn't work that way.
Beyond that ... there's a lot of magical traditions in the world in which the hand and fingers are important for the transfer of interpersonal magical energies. When one performs a ritual, the is drawn in the left hand (if memory serves) and goes out through the right. I would bet if you tried to explain to those who practice those religious rites that it should work precisely the same way on a cat's butt (tail?), I'd expect them to not agree with you. <chuckling in light humour>
That's just one theory of why it shouldn't work on an animal companion. But, I have a feeling that you're more bound up on the idea of indignation because someone had the audacity to clearly and concisely say "no", rather than the RP of it.
Actually- here's my problem.
The ruling means you can't put a blanket around your familiar to keep it warm. It has no slot for that.
It means you can't put little fuzzy mittens on your familiar to keep it warm. It has no slots for that either.
It means I can't have a cat with a ring on its tail just because it looks neat, and I can't have one with a pierced ear either- just because it looks neat.
His ruling, and his further clarification of that ruling, is that animal companions and familiars can only wear items- mundane or magical- that go on one of two slots. Period, end of story.
If it was "For the purposes of our rule that ring is considered magical" then it wouldn't have such a far reaching impact- but that isn't what was said.
What was said is- they have two slots, magical or otherwise, period.
It does avoid the slippery slope. It also avoids your familiar from wearing a blanket if you have to go somewhere cold and don't want to use a spell to protect it from said cold.
Now, did I misread it? Did I misunderstand him? I hope so.
I hope that I'm just tired and reading too much into it, and that he didn't say- twice- what it looked like he said.
HE said:
he FAQ addresses the original post.
the FAQ references two item slots.
there was some conversation on it and he said:
If that is how it is viewed, then so be it. Just like I wouldn't want a player at my tabletop let their tiger or horse wear mundane leather boots on each paw or hoof, you don't get to put a metal ring on a cat's tail, or head, or paw, or anywhere else.
If someone's cat can have a metal band on its tail, why can't their horse, or any other animal companion, have footwear to get the +2 to AC versus caltrops? A horse with leather boots would surely follow if we allow ACs or familiars to don every piece of mundane equipment out there, including "just a metal band or ring."
Sorry, but it is a slippery, crazy slope we aren't going down.
So if I misunderstood it- please point it out. I'm more than willing to apologize and concede that I made a mistake.
-S
|
|
Okay ... sure. It doesn't mean any of those things.
He didn't say those things.
And you're tired and reading too much into it.
He said that animals without appropriate anatomy cannot use items that require said anatomy. A ring goes on fingers. That's all. Quadrupeds (and in this case to make it uniformly fair, all animal companions) don't have the fingers that are required to wear a ring.
All the other vitriol and venom that you're spewing about horse blankets is simply excessive rhetoric, and I'll not go into it more than that.
View it how you like, but, Mike didn't say any of the stuff you're purporting. But, otherwise, feel free to have some good gaming, and smile and enjoy the game for the fun entertainment that it is intended to be - instead of a flame-war and rules debate.
[Edit: Wait ... you've precisely *one* PFS character, and it's a 1st level oracle, and you're debating the topic *this* intensely? ... yeah, okay NVM. ]
Thanks! 'kay, g'night!
Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman
|
I'm just amazed this thread has gone on so long. I would think as soon as the person who wanted to cast shield other would look at the rules the matter would have been settled.
No ring slot = no being able to put the ring on = no shield other.
You know somebody is letting their rules lawyering get out of hand when we have to have a thread in the forum about something so simple to apply common sense to.
Let us suppose *some* animals could have a ring placed on them, such as a lion having a ring on its tail. I urge you to consider what dogs and cats do when you place something around their tail (who would have thought childhood pranks would come into play). They immediately try to take it off. Animal companions are going to do the same thing! Come on peoples!
|
|
Well ... there are special exceptions made in the FAQ itself for any "brownie, imp, lyrakien azata, or quasit familiar gained with the Improved Familiar feat", and it refers to using hand-held items and a head-slot item, though it doesn't say that those are the only two exceptions, it says simply that "All other slots aren't really appropriate for animals (or even magical beasts). The only exception to this would be ..." the ones mentioned.
I don't think that it impacts the two-ring rule for PCs. The FAQ simply says that creatures without fingers can't wear rings. Presumably, creatures with fingers can wear rings. Thus, the exception for those listed?
Meh, I'm just musing aloud.
|
|
But the ring that you put in a pig's nose is not the same kind of ring that one puts on their spouse's hand at a wedding.
And despite our ability to debate it, it's similar to an Implied Subject in an imperative sentence in English. When someone says, "Jump!", the subject is understood as "you". When someone says "ring", it's understood that it means a finger-ring. Not something for a pig's nose. ... Or anyone else's nose, for that matter.
I'm just wondering why only Imp. Familars and not any of the few humanoid Animal companions get extra slots, I guess it could be do to having a higher INT though.
As an off question can a horse use the various horseshoes since they require a slot that the animal can't use? (being serious here)
Just had to ask since the wording of the FAQ says that outside the listed exceptions its Barding and Neck only.
EDIT: But that brings us right back around to a Gorilla not being able to use several items he has the anatomy for but doesn't have the slots for.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman
|
But that brings us right back around to a Gorilla not being able to use several items he has the anatomy for but doesn't have the slots for.
Things gorillas technically have the anatomy for; Heavy machinery, Surgical tools, cars, Planes, Stoves. I don't know about you... I don't want them operating any of those things.
Once again I agree which is why I asked since we have both a specific list and specific exceptions, I assume that you cannnot give your horse magic horseshoes at this time.
I'm fine with this if its how it is honestly and in fact without making a specific list of items and what uses them it would get out of hand simply basing it off of the whole "it has the proper anaotmy" arguement.
Anything on my question anyone?
I figure at best they might be a specific exceptions since they are horse shoes but simply using anaotmy for they reasoning would be too much of a slippery slope.
I agree but it calls out a slot which horses won't have. Its one of those things I would prefer to just have clarification on.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree but it calls out a slot which horses won't have. Its one of those things I would prefer to just have clarification on.
Yes, horses, and only horses may wear horseshoes. Pigs, or any other hoofed animal, may not wear horseshoes.
|
I agree but it calls out a slot which horses won't have. Its one of those things I would prefer to just have clarification on.Yes, horses, and only horses may wear horseshoes. Pigs, or any other hoofed animal, may not wear horseshoes.
FAQ'd because people use the horseshoe thing to justify that the AC slot rule makes no sense. Maybe a semi-broad statement to include future/existing magic items like saddles, bridles, etc.
|
|
The Shield Other spell specifies that the ring has to be worn by both you and the target. But it doesn't say it has to be worn on a finger. So thread that ring onto the animal companion's collar. It would then take up the neck slot since the animal companion is gaining a magical benefit. And there you go.
I suggest you re-read the thread.
|
|
The Shield Other spell specifies that the ring has to be worn by both you and the target. But it doesn't say it has to be worn on a finger. So thread that ring onto the animal companion's collar. It would then take up the neck slot since the animal companion is gaining a magical benefit. And there you go.I suggest you re-read the thread.
+1. Seriously.
|
And since noone has brought it up yet and I'm a completest.
Companions and most familiars do not have ring slots but they do have neck slots.
buy your <insert critter type> one of these Hand of Glory and convert the neck slot to a ring slot. Done, problem resolved.
edit: Wrong severed hand item.
|
My lord people, pets are broken enough in PFS. They already provide trouble for the writers to know how hard to make these scenarios. Let's see, shall we write the scenarios for groups with summoners and druids or not?
Having a pet is already the best "class feature" (it's more akin to a 2nd PC imo) in the game, and now there is whining because it can't be shield othered? How about you cast the spell on an actual PC? Oh, I know the answer: you are using the pet to tank everything and getting away with because there is no way to make static scenarios take pets into account.
|
|
I'm not entirely certain what you are getting at. To me, shield other is designed to assist glass cannons in the group, or anyone else that might need some additional protection for an encounter.
I've seen pets roll way too many PFS scenarios, and putting in a mechanism that let's them take half damage is way too much, imo.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Having a pet is already the best "class feature" (it's more akin to a 2nd PC imo) in the game, and now there is whining because it can't be shield othered? How about you cast the spell on an actual PC? Oh, I know the answer: you are using the pet to tank everything and getting away with because there is no way to make static scenarios take pets into account.
Alright, I've been mostly quiet about all this "pets break games" discussing going on. But it's kinda been irking me, so I thought I'd break down some games where having a pet isn't the best idea, or doesn't really change a dang thing.
Spoiler'd cause there are spoilers...
2. Hydra's Fang -- unless it's aquatic... also I hear climbing up anchor ropes is hard for wolves.
3. Murder on the Silken Caravan -- cause wolves can trip harpies, and climb sheer cliff face
6. Black Waters -- cause your pets don't mind submerging underwater, going through a valve and entering a necropolis -- also lots of unnatural undead. I'm sure that wolf will make all his fort saves.
7. Among the Living -- they let cougars into operas now
8. Slave Pits of Absalom -- take your tiger through the streets of absalom, into an office building, and then onto a boat. Good luck with those hatches / ladders
16. To Scale the Dragon -- enjoy taking your pet on this sled race down a mountain, hope he doesn't fall off!
17. Perils of the Pirate Pact -- pets are super useful at 1) navigating from ship to ship 2) escaping spider webs 3) detecting traps
20. King Xeros of Old Azlant -- constructs > pets, go go flesh golem!
22. Fingerprints -- climbing up 500 feet of sheer cliff face, while fighting off some flying demons. Yea, your wolf is so op here.
Season 1
30. Devil We Know 2 -- cause pets have darkvision?
31. Sniper in the Deep -- wolves underwater! good luck forcing that cat to swim too.
32. Drow of the Darklands -- Pets in antigravity...well played druids, well played.
33. Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible -- GM tiger > your pet
35. Voice in the Void -- cause plants know how to attack plants and not fail all them saves at the BBEG fight
37. The Beggar's Pearl -- cause pets have darkvision?
39. The Citadel of Flame -- please bring your doggie into my magma fortress, it'll last a long time.
41. Devil We Know 3 -- cause pets have darkvision?
43. Pallid Plague -- more disease for you to remove, waste that gold!
45. Delirium's Tangle -- cause pets can solve traps and mazes and climb up giant, metallic robo-bosses
47. Darkest Vengeance -- cause pets have darkvision? and can climb down a chain into a dark chasm?
48. Devil We Know 4 -- cause pets have darkvision? (Devil we know series is all about the darkness!)
49. Among the Dead -- enjoy those traps. all those traps
Season 2
2-2. Before the Dawn 2 -- giant ape > pets, charging horses+riders > pets
2-3. Rebels Ransom -- this scenario > pets
2-6. Heresy of Man 1 -- cause pets can defeat haunts + see in darkness
2-7. Heresy of Man 2 -- oh man, so many things here to eat your pets. greater invis on the BBEG = nom nom tastic
2-9. Heresy of Man 3 -- better hope your pet is a fire elemental, or else he's gonna get cooked real quick
2-13. Murder on the Throaty Mermaid -- cause pets help you solve RP encounters
2-14. Chasm of Screams -- pets fare well in vast, icy chambers against incorporeal, blinking witches, as well as the hordes of merlocks.
2-18. Forbidden Furnace -- a smothering construct, a flying carpet ride, a fight against a greater invis, heroism, inspired, hasted, fighter? yea, you're pets gonna be fine in front!
2-21. Dalsine Affair -- pretty sure your pet can get 1 shot too...
2-25. You Only Die Twice -- GL healing that undead dog when the BBEG decides to attack him. I think undead are destroyed when they hit zero... ;)
Season 3
3-1. Frostfur Captives -- goblins LOVE dogs
3-3. Ghenett Manor Gauntlet -- cause a snatch and grab with traps and nasty monsters screams bring fluffy along
3-4. Kortos Envoy -- you wish you'd picked that eagle pet...until the harpies rip it apart... :(
3-6. Song of the Sea Witch -- only aquatic pets will break this one.
3-7. Echoes of the Overwatched -- getting up places without stairs is tough for canines or other furry friends. Thumbs rock.
3-9. Quest for Perfection 1. -- all your pet will do is soak the first hit that would have killed you...
3-10. Immortal Conundrum -- pets at fancy dinner parties? GL convincing your GM to let that happen.
3-11. Quest for Perfection 2. -- more pets on boats!
3-13. Quest for Perfection 3. -- axebeak cavalier > your pet
3-15. Haunting of Hinojai -- haunts > pets, illusionist wizards > pets, BBEG > pets.
3-20. Rats part 1. -- no pet will help you in the last two fights here, enjoy watching mittens die
3-22. Rats part 2. -- equally rough for your pets. hope you don't mind rezzing em again. :(
3-25. Storming the Diamond Gate -- final fight = your pet never hits the BBEG. Enjoy.
3-26. Portal of the Sacred Rune -- final fight = your pet never hits the BBEG. Enjoy.
TLDR: WalterGM doesn't care about your awesome pet-centered build -- in the end it's still a dog wearing a sweater. And dogs are just dogs.
EDIT: Realized I'm fairly snarky at points there -- not directed at anyone in particular, just at the general complaint of one class being better than another, when in the end we're all still playing a game. If someone is doing something to impair your fun, then encourage them to change, if they don't -- they're probably jerks. The game isn't to blame for that.
|
|
I'm not entirely certain what you are getting at. To me, shield other is designed to assist glass cannons in the group, or anyone else that might need some additional protection for an encounter.
I've seen pets roll way too many PFS scenarios, and putting in a mechanism that let's them take half damage is way too much, imo.
Pets are only really useful at low levels. The only "pet class" that holds up through the levels is the Summoner, and that is a whole different ball of wax.
|
|
So what do we do about GMs won't enforce your (good, admittedly) points? Yes, that lays out what *should* happen. But I haven't been with a DM that doesn't let the pet classes slide in *every case*.
Cliffs? They let the pet be hauled up with a rope.
Cities? People never complain.
I could go on, but in practice, these pets are almost always a good idea for the PC bringing them.
I've thought about bringing up the points you bring up, but it's not worth the fuss trying to get a GM to do their job. Bickering in the kiss of death in a timed event. Even though we get back a lot of time at accelerated slaughter rate.
|
|
Pets are only really useful at low levels. The only "pet class" that holds up through the levels is the Summoner, and that is a whole different ball of wax.I'm not entirely certain what you are getting at. To me, shield other is designed to assist glass cannons in the group, or anyone else that might need some additional protection for an encounter.
I've seen pets roll way too many PFS scenarios, and putting in a mechanism that let's them take half damage is way too much, imo.
Last time I checked, animal companions scale. And many of them have some pretty nice stat lines, especially compared to PFS characters. I've been in a level 6 adventure where the ape companion outdamaged everyone by a crazy amount. Given that PFS only goes to 12, when do they stop being useful again?
|
|
Last time I checked, animal companions scale. And many of them have some pretty nice stat lines, especially compared to PFS characters. I've been in a level 6 adventure where the ape companion outdamaged everyone by a crazy amount. Given that PFS only goes to 12, when do they stop being useful again?Pets are only really useful at low levels. The only "pet class" that holds up through the levels is the Summoner, and that is a whole different ball of wax.I'm not entirely certain what you are getting at. To me, shield other is designed to assist glass cannons in the group, or anyone else that might need some additional protection for an encounter.
I've seen pets roll way too many PFS scenarios, and putting in a mechanism that let's them take half damage is way too much, imo.
Alright. So, 3d6 + 15 a round at level 6 is too much? A fighter can do far *far* more damage than that at level 6, and should be.
And it will have 39 hit points. And AC 19.
A fighter should have 52 hit points, and AC in the mid 20s. And a whole mess of feats.