If the familiar cannot wear the focus (platinum rings) then it cannot cast the spell.
- Gauss
That PFS ruling is answering a question on magic items, not items in general.
The platinum ring is not magical.
Can my animal companion or familiar wear or use magic items?
The intent is that animal companions or familiars can not activate magic items that require activation. Something like an amulet of natural armor does not require activation; it's always on (unless it's in an antimagic field or someone dispels it or whatever).
That said, a creature is limited by its anatomy. Something without shoulders can't wear a cloak, and something without fingers can't wear a ring. For the sake of PFS, animal companions can wear barding and neck-slot items. All other slots aren't really appropriate for animals (or even magical beasts). The only exception to this would be an brownie, imp, lyrakien azata, or quasit familiar gained with the Improved Familiar feat. One could reasonably face either of these wielding a wand or wearing a circlet of persuasion in combat, and after investing a feat to gain their service, they are not limited by the same restrictions as normal bonded creatures like animals (whether treated like animals or magical beasts and regardless of Int scores).
I bolded "neck slot" to show that the conversation is on magical items. Nonmagical items never take up slots.
Good point. Even birds of prey can wear rings on thier talons.
- Gauss
There was a big elaborate thread involving fluffing the focus ring into a tail-ring for a lion or whatnot and the consensus/ruling (don't remember) was that it was reskinning and illegal, and that if you can't wear a magic ring at all you can't wear a regular one, either.
Either way, it's enough room for a PFS table GM to disallow this particular bit of cheese.
That's what I figured Take Boat. However, if they ever update the PFS improved familiars to include Bestiary 2 and 3 familiars then it will become available. The Arbiter has hands, it should be able to wear rings just like the other improved familiars that have hands.
And just a reminder: I am not advocating that anyone use this bit of cheese. It is rank cheese imo. This was a thought experiment.
- Gauss
There was a big elaborate thread involving fluffing the focus ring into a tail-ring for a lion or whatnot and the consensus/ruling (don't remember) was that it was reskinning and illegal, and that if you can't wear a magic ring at all you can't wear a regular one, either.
Either way, it's enough room for a PFS table GM to disallow this particular bit of cheese.
That reskinning is not really reskinning. That is trying to use reskinning to get around the rules.
Mergy, SLA's don't require components, but the spell is not called imbue with spell-like ability. It is actually allowing the familiar to cast a spell.
You transfer some of your currently prepared spells, and the ability to cast them, to another creature.
I don't know which familiars are PFS legal though, so that may stop the combo.
There was a big elaborate thread involving fluffing the focus ring into a tail-ring for a lion or whatnot and the consensus/ruling (don't remember) was that it was reskinning and illegal, and that if you can't wear a magic ring at all you can't wear a regular one, either.
Either way, it's enough room for a PFS table GM to disallow this particular bit of cheese.
While I know reskinning is illegal in PFS, I can't find anything that says a nonmagical ring (which does not take up a magic item slot) must be worn on the finger that does have a magic item slot to serve as a focus. It certainly isn't in the rules for magic. I can understand perhaps if people in this thread thought a normally sized ring could not fit on a bird's tail and allow proper flight maybe, but but an across the board rejection for focus items without slots doesn't seem supported by the rules.
Timothy Hansen:
I am partially in error.
First: The familiar is being carried inside an object. Thus, if the spell cannot penetrate the object then it does not affect the familiar.
Second: A fireball would not damage a backpack being carried by a person. Reason: unless the person rolls a 1 on a saving throw none of his equipment is damaged (CRB p216).
Third (my error) is this: A bag is not thick enough to stop a fireball or a Chaos Hammer.
Correction to fix my error: A metal box in a backpack is thick enough to stop a fireball. According to CRB p215 you need a 1foot square hole to allow line of effect through a solid object.
My apologies for the error.
- Gauss
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/gear/adventuringGear.h tml#_familiar-satchel
Forget the down time inbetween castings. Just realized that shield other has a 1h/level duration...
On a side note, can a Alchemist take the improved familiar? It says you need to have X arcane caster levels. I do not know if that precludes the alchemist or not. anyone?
I tried looking for this for hours and couldn't find a definitive answer. If anyone has seen the answer to this I would very much appreciate it.
To continue the necro:
You could also get a mephit as Improved Familiar with (circumstantial) fast healing--not as "broken" as with regen, but maybe still worth it (and they're PFS legal for using wands).
Ruyan.
The inevitable is a PFS legal improved familiar. It's listed in the update of new Improved Familiars in Ultimate Magic, which is mentioned on the Additional Resources page.
So:
1) Get Improved Familiar, pick inevitable
2) Trade Weapon Finesse for Extra Item Slot: Ring
3) Use imbue spell
So does a player wearing two magic rings have to take one off to use this spell? I so no reason you need a ring "slot".