Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Can animal companions wear rings?


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

151 to 167 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Taldor *****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules Subscriber
nosig wrote:

Anyone EVER seen a PFS game where shield other was cast on anything besides a PC/NPC?

anyone?

I'd never seen a game with it done, nor heard of anyone trying to do so until I'd seen this thread.

Silver Crusade **

I've seen it done on an ape AC by a cleric with animal domain. I figured the ape could wear the ring, so I didn't even think to question the focus requirement.

Qadira ****

O.O wow.. ok,
thanks Howie.
thanks David.


Walter Sheppard wrote:
You can shield an ally wearing a ring, if you too are wearing a ring

If the ally is 25' away, how are you manipulating the focus he's wearing?

Silver Crusade **

I think the ring just symbolizes the link, you are not manipulating the other ring in anyway. It just has to be worn, which has been decreed a no-go by the PFS ruling bodies.

Silver Crusade **

Walter Sheppard wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

I think Walter is the 4-star GM for this reason :)

Only for GMing over 100 games, nothing more.

I was just pointing out that your reaction from above was probably the most reasonable one possible.


Okay, here is a question -- Isn't the purpose of the ring slot to limit how many magic rings a person can wear? The fact that a person typically has 2 ring slots means that, while he can wear as many rings as his fingers can hold, no more than two of them can be magic rings -- any beyond that fail to function. Furthermore, the Pathfinder Society has decreed that animal companions have no ring slots, so they cannot benefit from magic rings at all. Correct so far?

However -- the rings used as a focus for the Shield Other spell are not magic rings, but mundane rings of at least a certain minimum value. Thus, there is no reason that a character who is already wearing two magic rings could not benefit from this spell, since a non-magic ring does not take up a ring slot.

So -- since no magic item slots are involved, why shouldn't somebody who wants to cast Shield Other on an animal or other non-humanoid creature be able to attach the ring however he pleases?

Furthermore -- the Shield Other spell as written can target any creature. If it were meant to be limited to creatures with fingers or ring slots, wouldn't that be mentioned in the spell listing? Either this ruling is faulty, or the spell description as written is.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

David knott 242 wrote:

Furthermore -- the Shield Other spell as written can target any creature. If it were meant to be limited to creatures with fingers or ring slots, wouldn't that be mentioned in the spell listing? Either this ruling is faulty, or the spell description as written is.

Grick wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
You can shield an ally wearing a ring, if you too are wearing a ring

If the ally is 25' away, how are you manipulating the focus he's wearing?

Both are sound points.

And both belong on the rules questions forums, since they are not PFS specific.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Only for GMing over 100 games, nothing more.

This. ;-)

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If Micahel Brock is still reading this thread, I would be interested in finding out why so many Improved Familiars with hands and human-like features were excluded from the list. Is a sprite unable to use a wand, despite having hands, because it is not specifically called out? What about an arbiter, who can hold a short sword?

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mergy wrote:
If Micahel Brock is still reading this thread, I would be interested in finding out why so many Improved Familiars with hands and human-like features were excluded from the list. Is a sprite unable to use a wand, despite having hands, because it is not specifically called out? What about an arbiter, who can hold a short sword?

There isn't any answer I can give that is going to make everyone happy so just suffice to say that I made a decision and it is what it is.


Michael Brock wrote:
Mergy wrote:
If Micahel Brock is still reading this thread, I would be interested in finding out why so many Improved Familiars with hands and human-like features were excluded from the list. Is a sprite unable to use a wand, despite having hands, because it is not specifically called out? What about an arbiter, who can hold a short sword?
There isn't any answer I can give that is going to make everyone happy so just suffice to say that I made a decision and it is what it is.

My vote is "Game balance"

It seems that while a lot of 5th level Improved familiars COULD use stuff (Mephits, etc) it was limited to a small group of the level 7s

Personally, I'm good with it.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Michael Brock wrote:
Mergy wrote:
If Micahel Brock is still reading this thread, I would be interested in finding out why so many Improved Familiars with hands and human-like features were excluded from the list. Is a sprite unable to use a wand, despite having hands, because it is not specifically called out? What about an arbiter, who can hold a short sword?
There isn't any answer I can give that is going to make everyone happy so just suffice to say that I made a decision and it is what it is.

"GM's decision" is a fine response, although I hope it will be revisited from time to time. Thanks! :)


The ruling specifically mentions slots which only relate to magic items. Non-magical items are not listed anywhere as taking up a slot. I am sure nobody is going to argue that if I have 4 diamond rings, that my RoP +2 does not work.

Qadira ****

wraithstrike wrote:
The ruling specifically mentions slots which only relate to magic items. Non-magical items are not listed anywhere as taking up a slot. I am sure nobody is going to argue that if I have 4 diamond rings, that my RoP +2 does not work.

you can bet that any sentence starting "you can be sure...." or "I can be sure..." will run into YMMV at some point.

IMHO.


nosig wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The ruling specifically mentions slots which only relate to magic items. Non-magical items are not listed anywhere as taking up a slot. I am sure nobody is going to argue that if I have 4 diamond rings, that my RoP +2 does not work.

you can bet that any sentence starting "you can be sure...." or "I can be sure..." will run into YMMV at some point.

IMHO.

I will put it this way, unless the person is just trying to prove a point for a particular debate like this one, I doubt they will do it. :)

PS:I am in no way advocating this idea, but the errata should be on the "shield other" spell.

151 to 167 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Can animal companions wear rings? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.