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?
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.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
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.
You can shield an ally wearing a ring, if you too are wearing a ringIf 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.
|
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?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
|
|
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.
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.