Recent Posts
Does it really matter?
IMO it's pretty obvious this isn't what was intended by the designers with arcane bond but quite honestly though why does it matter?
Further, the class is significantly less useful to a wizard than it is to a sorcerer. Sorcerers progress their bloodline powers which significantly boosts the classes usefulness to them.
You drop a caster level right off the bat and the BAB is medium so it's not like this is all kinds of powerful. So you have a prestige class which isn't extremely powerful to begin with and the wizard class benefits from the PrC even less than sorcerer does...
It doesn't really fit thematically but if he has some character concept that he feels works with it why not?
Whether this opens up a whole can of worms with non-Core stuff is a whole other issue which I don't worry about much because as far as I'm concerned non-core stuff is buyer beware anyhow.
It matters because its not written clearly, and while I dont agree that its for wizards I can definitely understand.
I really would not care if a wizard took it. I would have to adjust the fluff, but I dont think it was the intent. Part of my annoyance about how restrictive it is for a sorcerer, which is better explained in an earlier post,is part of it.
The issue is you can not cast all your 1st level spells without prep, you can cast 1...once per day. It never improves, it can't get more with a high score , the item is storing, the power for it,your not.
Hince you fail to meet the required "can cast 1st level spells without preparing them" You simply do not have the ability to do so, your item can just as a scroll can or a wand can or a staff can. It even stats it's treated like a wizard spell. So on all level it fails the requirements
Where did you get a "per day" requirement from that?
The plural in "Spells" refers to one of two things:
1) You have more than one spell to choose from (ie: Spells)
2) You can cast more than once (ie: Spells)
If it is the first, the Wizard qualifies as long as he has more than one spell in his spellbook.
If it is the second, the Wizard qualifies as long as they don't put a "per day" requirement in (Because the Wizard can cast every day, thus can cast 7 spontaneous spells per week, 365 spontaneous spells per year, etc)
It matters because its not written clearly, and while I dont agree that its for wizards I can definitely understand.
Now there is a post I can agree with.
I don't think DD is supposed to be for Wizards either.
The arguments presented in this post regarding "RAW proof" that it's not for Wizards involves a lot of word twisting and (IMO) intentional misinterpretation so that RAW can match up with what we imagine RAI is.
I think it's telling that midknight does not seem to argue RAI being against it, but instead is arguing RAW, which I think he's making the more convincing arguments...
If the replies had been, "It may work, but it's obviously a loophole and DM's shouldn't allow it." I probably would've agreed.
Yup. Thanks for the support... I was starting to think I was the only one who saw this 'hole' in the rules.
And yes, my question was mainly about rules... I understand flavour of this prc fits more to sorcerers (in fact, only to sorcerers... bard DD, IMO, are even worse than wizard DDs).
It has to be noticed nevertheless that the class has changed noticeably. In 3.5 it was designed for a warrior type with a sorcerer dip with just some bonus spell slots and now it grants 7 levels out of 10 of full spellcasting which could suit a melee-ish arcane caster.
Also in the new fluff (completely changed) for Dragon Disciple there is a mention to wizards that was not there before. Those are the points that made me not to discard completely that this could have been intended by the designers.
Aside from that, going on with the argument, some people claim using the arcane bond class feature is the same as using a magic item (i.e. a staff) to cast the spell.
It's not so, as
a) casting a spell and activating a magic item are two different kind of standard actions which may lead to similar results, but are definitely not the same.
b) the arcane bonded item does not even need to be magical, according to the rules, a masterwork dagger will do well enough.
So, now that I made my point, I must agree this is mainly because the designers forgot to add in the description of the arcane bond feature the words 'as a spell like ability', as they do, for example in the rogue's 'minor/major magic' talent. That would have made them unelegible.
Looking carefully at the feature description, I noticed it says: 'Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp)' though doesn't explain when is it Ex and when Sp. One could argue that the 'cast a spell without preparation' is the Sp part, and that would ban them for the prc, as casting a spell-like ability is not the same as casting a spell.
Sadly that would open new holes in the rules, as spell-like abilities have other benefits as they don't need components of any kind (free stoneskin anyone?).
I think this thread is pretty silly, and no amount of rules-lawyering would get this by me or any DM I've played with.
If the replies had been, "It may work, but it's obviously a loophole and DM's shouldn't allow it." I probably would've agreed.
I think that's what everybody posting here wanted to say, but arguments like that in the face of somebody so clearly set on interpreting a specific way rarely work.
To me, the Arcane Bond is either an Ex or a Sp ability. They don't specify which is which and where, but there are only two possibilities for the bonded item, and neither of them qualifies you.
From PFRPG
A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. The bonded object cannot be used to cast spells from the wizard's opposition schools (see arcane school).
Bards: He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time.
Sorcerer She can cast any spell she knows without preparing it ahead of time.
DD PrC: Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells without preparation.
Emphasis mine.
The spell cast from a Bonded Item is treated as a prepared spell not a spontaneous casting and therefore a Wizard can't take DD as a PrC. A Wizard can not cast *any* spell he knows without preparing it but just the one.
From PFRPG
A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. The bonded object cannot be used to cast spells from the wizard's opposition schools (see arcane school).Bards: He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time.
Sorcerer She can cast any spell she knows without preparing it ahead of time.
DD PrC: Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells without preparation.
Emphasis mine.
The spell cast from a Bonded Item is treated as a prepared spell not a spontaneous casting and therefore a Wizard can't take DD as a PrC. A Wizard can not cast *any* spell he knows without preparing it but just the one.
Emphasis... well 50%-50%.
Do you realize you are saying the wizard can't do what the text you just quoted says he can?
'just the one'? Once per day he can cast any spell in his spellbook without preparation, I thought how this works is understood by everyone.
If the replies had been, "It may work, but it's obviously a loophole and DM's shouldn't allow it." I probably would've agreed.I think that's what everybody posting here wanted to say, but arguments like that in the face of somebody so clearly set on interpreting a specific way rarely work.
What do you mean "work"?
It really doesn't make any difference to anyone who's posting here whether the OP wants to use it in his game or not.
A Wizard can not cast *any* spell he knows without preparing it but just the one.
What??? You know the difference between the words "any" and "all" right?
A Wizard can not cast *any* spell he knows without preparing it but just the one.What??? You know the difference between the words "any" and "all" right?
A Wizard can cast a single spell from his Bonded Item and that spell is where the conflict begins. Some are saying it is classed as being spontaneously being cast. The Wizard can not SC any other spell so he can't cast *all* spells spontaneously like a Sorcerer. To do that the Wizard would have to spend his time filling his Bonded Item with a different spell each day. That means he can cast all his spells "spontaneously" but not in the same manner as a Sorcerer or Bard. Today the Sorcerer can cast *any* of his spells "spontaneously", the Wizard can not he can cast one.
If say you had a Wizard/Sorcerer who then took DD as a PrC where would you put the +1 Level of Arcane Spell Casting?
A Wizard can cast a single spell from his Bonded Item
You of course mean "per day".
Also, It's important to note that your definition of "single" here means castings per day only, and is not referring to spell selection, which it could easily be misinterpreted to mean.
It would be far more clear to say,
"The Wizard can cast any of his spells in his spellbook (that aren't from prohibited schools) without preparation using a bonded item at a rate of once per day."
This makes all aspects clear.
Some are saying it is classed as being spontaneously being cast.
Yes, as "spontaneous casting" for the purposes of the game is casting a spell you have not prepared ahead of time. This is what Sorcerers and Bards do, it's what Clerics and Druids do (on a more limited basis, but it is spontaneous casting), it's what a Wizard can do once/day with a bonded item.
The Wizard can not SC any other spell so he can't cast *all* spells spontaneously like a Sorcerer.
This sounds like admission that the one spell per day IS spontaneously cast...
I certainly agree that a Wizard does not cast ALL his spells spontaneously, just one per day.
That means he can cast all his spells "spontaneously" but not in the same manner as a Sorcerer or Bard.
By your Definition a Sorcerer 10/Wizard 1 would also not qualify since they also cannot cast ALL their spells sponteneously. That's absurd.
Today the Sorcerer can cast *any* of his spells "spontaneously", the Wizard can not he can cast one.
The Sorcerer/Wizard again does not qualify by your example. Nor does the Cleric (as not every level spell has a "cure" spell that can be cast spontaneously) so are the rules in error when they label his cure ability "Spontaneous"?
If say you had a Wizard/Sorcerer who then took DD as a PrC where would you put the +1 Level of Arcane Spell Casting?
Your reasoning of course PROHIBITS a Sorcerer who dips a level of wizard from becoming a DD because he has some spell castings he cannot cast spontaneously.
However, assuming sanity ensues, and being able to cast prepared spells as well as sponanteous spells does not by definition mean you can't call the spontaneous spells "spontaneous" anymore (my head hurts from your "logic"), then, by the rules:
If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class before becoming a dragon disciple, he must decide to which class he adds the new level for purposes of determining spells per day.
So a Sorcerer/Wizard could choose to increase his Wizard casting progression with DD, even without an arcane Bonded Item.
To do that the Wizard would have to spend his time filling his Bonded Item with a different spell each day.
Sigh... But where on earth have you read that the wizard has to 'fill' his bonded item with a spell??? There is no such reference in the feature description...
If say you had a Wizard/Sorcerer who then took DD as a PrC where would you put the +1 Level of Arcane Spell Casting?
That's easy, and it admits no discussion rules-wise. I'd put the level exactly where I wanted.
So. If I were wiz 4/sor 1, probably on wizard. If I were wiz 1/sor 4, probably on sorcerer. If I were in the middle... nah, I'd never do such a thing :-P
While you do not fill it ahead of time your still over looking a few things
1. the items holds the slot, you do not
2. It casts as a wizard
3. you still can not cast 1st level spells without prep as ya have a 1/day ablity granted to you by an item ,not a spontaneous spell slot spell.
it says you must be able to cast 1st level spells without prep. You can not. The wording is clear as to you must be a spontaneous caster. You still lack that ablity
Under your rules a wizard or a rogue with a scroll can cast a spell without prep. Same thing.
Under your rules a wizard or a rogue with a scroll can cast a spell without prep. Same thing.
Ok, I understand, this has only been repeated like three times in the thread...
Now, seekerofshadowlight, repeat with me:
"Activating a magic item (scroll, ring, staff, wand, whatever!) and casting a spell are two different kind of standard actions. I can check the list on page 183 just to make sure"
1. the items holds the slot, you do not
2. It casts as a wizard
Okay, one more time, with me:
"A bonded item need not be a magical item, just a masterwork"
Now, you are saying that the wizard's standard non-magical masterwork dagger (yes, the one he waves around when casting his bonus unprepared spell) is the one holding/casting the spell? Does that really make any sense to you?
Is the cleric's holy symbol (which is as magic as the bonded item) the one doing the channeling when the cleric damages undead? does the holy symbol grant the cleric the ability to channel energy?
No. The answer is easy. They are just tools they need for a specific task.
You do not have the slot. If you did it would say you did(see specialist wizard) as it does not and does say "A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting' where to slot come from? you do not have it, so the item stores your slot for you
From PFRPG
Spells per Day: At the indicated levels, a dragon disciple gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in an arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before adding the prestige class. He does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained, except for additional spells per day, spells known (if he is a spontaneous spellcaster), and an increased effective level of spellcasting. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class before becoming a dragon disciple, he must decide to which class he adds the new level for purposes of determining spells per day.
Emphasis mine
Hmmm...how else could he qualify for this PrC if you are not a spontaneous caster?
That line lends something to your argument.
Emphasis mine
Hmmm...how else could he qualify for this PrC if you are not a spontaneous caster?
That line lends something to your argument.
Yup, thanks, this was discussed earlier anyway.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/wizardDragonDisciplesAreNowPossible&page=1#28That line implies you may not be a spontaneous caster and still elegible for the prestige class.
At present, and without errata that adds 'as a spell-like ability' on the description, I hold on to my conclussion that wizards with a bonded item are capable of casting a spell without preparation and elegible for prcs with that requisite.
Besides, as it may be a small powerup, drawbacks of having a bonded item are very severe. A wizard who loses her familiar, is a sad wizard for a week. A wizard who loses her bonded object has like a 75% chance of spell failure with her best spells for a week.
Again look above, all PRC's that cast spells use the same wording. It has nothing to do with this thread but it always pops up with PRC's that have spells
Edit: Not getting back into the augment here, I am just saying ya can't base anything off that paragraph, as it's just a standard spells per day paragraph.
The intent here is clear -- while the writing might be murky. The list of arcane casters in the core rulebook that prepare spells without preparation consists of sorcerer and bard. The *intent* of the Dragon Disciple prestige class is to require you to take a level in one of those classes (discounting other prestige classes). Regardless of the writing quality or word usage, that's the intent throughout 3.5 and PF.
Note that RAW and RAI do not always sync up *clearly*. Sometimes a community consensus is required to resolve an issue that isn't addressed officially. In this case, I think most people would not allow the wizard to be considered a spontaneous caster -- even if he has an ability that would make him a spontaneous caster.
I think on the other hand that designers should be coherent with what they change. Giving someone a spontaneus casting ability (even a limited one) should have been well thought over.
I insist, the arcane bond item needs errata/clarification. My opinion is that it either:
a) Is in all respects a spontaneous casting of a spell, with all its benefits (i.e. qualifying for prc, feats or items that may benefit or require spontaneous casting) and drawbacks (requires concentration, components, is subject to failure due to armor).
b) Is in all respects a spell-like ability, with all its benefits (i.e. no components, no penalty from armor, subject to feats, prcs or items that may benefit or require spell like abilities) and drawbacks (doesn't qualify for prc's... er... hum... can't think of any drawback of a spell-like now... :-P)
Edit, about:
However, if a wizard is set on Dragon Disciple then he can take the Spell Mastery feat. I think that would qualify him.
Nope, that feat allows preparing spells without a spellbook, not casting without preparation. There were some feats in 3.5 that may have allowed it, though: Alacritous Cogitation (complete mage) and Signature Spell (FRCS).
...
Edit, about:
However, if a wizard is set on Dragon Disciple then he can take the Spell Mastery feat. I think that would qualify him.Nope, that feat allows preparing spells without a spellbook, not casting without preparation. There were some feats in 3.5 that may have allowed it, though: Alacritous Cogitation (complete mage) and Signature Spell (FRCS).
A fine distinction, well spotted. Point taken.
I think on the other hand that designers should be coherent with what they change. Giving someone a spontaneus casting ability (even a limited one) should have been well thought over.
I on the other other hand think you should just play the game and have fun. If you want wizard dragon disciples, go for it!
It's pretty clear that's not where the designers were going but screw it.
If you want to criticize clarity issues why not find things that are actually unclear and affect game play rather than this bit of silliness.
I on the other other hand think you should just play the game and have fun. If you want wizard dragon disciples, go for it!It's pretty clear that's not where the designers were going but screw it.
If you want to criticize clarity issues why not find things that are actually unclear and affect game play rather than this bit of silliness.
I propose the Wyveryn Apostle prestige class!
It is the DD class but for any arcane spellcaster!
DM do you approve?
*puts on a fake moustache*
Yes Pirate Devon, that looks like a fantastic prestige class!
*takes off fake moustache*
Go team Venture!
where to slot come from?
From a "Class Ability".
It is not unheard of for Class Abilities to grant spontaneous casting ability. Certainly there is a precedence with Cleric and Druid that both are prepared casters who have limited Spontaneous Casting ability granted as a Class Ability.
There is also precedence for needing to hold an object to activate a class ability. That precedence is the Holy Symbol needed to channel energy as a Cleric.
As MidKnight already mentioned (I think more than once), there is no more reason to think that the spell is "stored in the bonded object" than to think that the chanelled energy is "stored in the holy symbol" There is just no reason to believe that one class ability is generated by the character, and the other is generated by a (non-magical?) item.
In both cases it is the Class Ability that grants the power to the character, and the item is a tool required to use that power. The Class ability grants the Cleric the ability to channel, and the Class Ability grants the wizard the extra slot. If either loses the item, they can't use the ability.
Maybe if this thread was regarding a Cleric's channel energy ability, you would say that the Cleric does not channel energy, the holy symbol holds the channelled energy. If that wouldn't be your argument, explain the difference.
We know that the Bonded Item does not "hold" the spell the same way we know the Clerics holy symbol does not "hold" the channelled positive/negative energy. Because if they did, they would need to be categorized as magic items. If a Holy Symbol used to channel energy doesn't need to be magical, then it can't have a magic power. The same is true for the Bonded item.
The way the rules currently are written, the Bonded Item no more holds the spell than the Holy Symbol holds the chanelled energy.
Not only is there is no precedence for your interpretation, also it does not work with the way the rules work.
Meabolex Fine post, that I can agree with.
I think this thread is pretty silly, and no amount of rules-lawyering would get this by me or any DM I've played with.
If the replies had been, "It may work, but it's obviously a loophole and DM's shouldn't allow it." I probably would've agreed.I think that's what everybody posting here wanted to say, but arguments like that in the face of somebody so clearly set on interpreting a specific way rarely work.
To me, the Arcane Bond is either an Ex or a Sp ability. They don't specify which is which and where, but there are only two possibilities for the bonded item, and neither of them qualifies you.
Yep. It's not a spell, it's either an extraordinary or spell-like ability. Says it right there in the PRD: Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp).
So all of this arguing over plural vs singular or if it's the item or the wizard doing the casting is pointless, since it's not even a spell.
Now where were those rules for expensive material components? I need to see if a wizard can use an arcane bond to make free wishes.
Found it!
Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spell-like abilities and actual spellcasting power.
Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.
Since Ex abilities work in anti-magic fields and I personally don't want wizards to be able to overcome THAT hardship so easily, I'd say the bond's basic function is EX. The basic function being: without the item in hand, a wizard has to make a special check just to cast a spell at all.
That makes the 1/day effect SP. Nice! No verbal, somatic or material components! It's stilled. It's silent. And it's free!
Of course, abusing wishes causes ripples in the fabric of the universe and attracts the unwanted attention of genie-kind, but that's an RP in-character reason not to abuse the system, not a rules reason.
I am confused as to the crux of this argument.
If the argument is that the wording is unclear, then perhaps you would prefer they detail it out and we can have a Core Rulebook that reads like a law book or goverment contract? If they said sorcerer and bard only, then it might block out some other spontaneous class down the line. If they wanted wizards to also be DD's as RAW, then they would have phrased it the ability to cast arcane spells and not have taken the time and energy to put in the descriptor spontaneous. If you want to house rule that wizards can be DDs, its not like you are going to break the game, go for it.
If the argument is that wizards arcane bond makes them a spontaneous arcane caster, okay great, in your world this is the case. Why the need to make everyone agree that your view is how the RAW was intended? The only reason to argue RAW is if you are attempting to make a wizard a DD in a pathfinder society game, otherwise the DM and player can decide whatever the heck they want.
I am confused as to the crux of this argument.If the argument is that the wording is unclear, then perhaps you would prefer they detail it out and we can have a Core Rulebook that reads like a law book or goverment contract? If they said sorcerer and bard only, then it might block out some other spontaneous class down the line. If they wanted wizards to also be DD's as RAW, then they would have phrased it the ability to cast arcane spells and not have taken the time and energy to put in the descriptor spontaneous. If you want to house rule that wizards can be DDs, its not like you are going to break the game, go for it.
If the argument is that wizards arcane bond makes them a spontaneous arcane caster, okay great, in your world this is the case. Why the need to make everyone agree that your view is how the RAW was intended? The only reason to argue RAW is if you are attempting to make a wizard a DD in a pathfinder society game, otherwise the DM and player can decide whatever the heck they want.
The discussion is partly because by saying spontaneous caster(3.5)it was clear that certain classes were excluded. Maybe they worded it in the current way(without preparation) because of plans for another class down the line.
As to why we argue RAW:
When you come online you are looking for the correct interpretation most of the time so that is what we are arguing(debating). Everyone knows that what happens in Tom's game in New York, wont affect Billy in Texas so its not because it wont affect us, but by clearing rules up we make sure we are all playing the same game. I might end up in one of Midknight's games one day and I would like to know he knows what he is doing, and if is a player for me he would rather for me to know what I am doing. I look at it as helping the community out.
Yep. It's not a spell, it's either an extraordinary or spell-like ability. Says it right there in the PRD: Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp).
Notice that having a familiar is another option for the Arcane Bond. I'd say the intention was arcane bond (Ex) -> familiar; arcane bond (Sp) -> cast spell without preparation [as a spell like ability].
Anyway I still think that a 'any spell once/day as a spell like ability' is a (much, much, much) greater loophole than saying the wizard casts spontaneously now...
Think of this as free permamency, wish, true seeing, stoneskin... :-P
Yep. It's not a spell, it's either an extraordinary or spell-like ability. Says it right there in the PRD: Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp).Notice that having a familiar is another option for the Arcane Bond. I'd say the intention was arcane bond (Ex) -> familiar; arcane bond (Sp) -> cast spell without preparation [as a spell like ability].
Anyway I still think that a 'any spell once/day as a spell like ability' is a (much, much, much) greater loophole than saying the wizard casts spontaneously now...
Think of this as free permamency, wish, true seeing, stoneskin... :-P
A spell-like ability is by definition something that is cast, at best I'd argue that the familiar is Su or that the act of summoning is Sp but the familiar is not, otherwise the familiar would poof from dispelling and anti-magic.
I'd say that the Arcane Bond likely is Ex (the ability to store a little power for later, essentially) and that SUMMONING a familiar is Sp. This prevents exploitation and points out that the arcane bond's type is separate from casting action's type. In other words, the ability to store some energy for later is an extraordinary thing that builds off the casting experience, but the cast itself is just a spell.
From the book:
This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities.
I think it works like the factotum in that its a spell-like ability that cast like a spell. The purpose for that clause, which is seems close to the wizard's was so the factotum could not get around the XP or material component cost. The difference with the arcane bond is that it does not allow metamagic feats to be applied or the feats that empower spell like abilities. I think its a nice way to say "Mr.Wizard you should have prepped this spell", and that one spell lets them make up for that error, hopefully the wizard does not need that spell more than once.
I don't think the SP applies to the familiar because that would make the familiar an ordinary animal inside of anti-magic field since, from my interpretation, the wizard-familiar connection would be purely magical in nature.
Yep. It's not a spell, it's either an extraordinary or spell-like ability. Says it right there in the PRD: Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp).Notice that having a familiar is another option for the Arcane Bond. I'd say the intention was arcane bond (Ex) -> familiar; arcane bond (Sp) -> cast spell without preparation [as a spell like ability].
Anyway I still think that a 'any spell once/day as a spell like ability' is a (much, much, much) greater loophole than saying the wizard casts spontaneously now...
Think of this as free permamency, wish, true seeing, stoneskin... :-P
A spell-like ability is by definition something that is cast, at best I'd argue that the familiar is Su or that the act of summoning is Sp but the familiar is not, otherwise the familiar would poof from dispelling and anti-magic.
I'd say that the Arcane Bond likely is Ex (the ability to store a little power for later, essentially) and that SUMMONING a familiar is Sp. This prevents exploitation and points out that the arcane bond's type is separate from casting action's type. In other words, the ability to store some energy for later is an extraordinary thing that builds off the casting experience, but the cast itself is just a spell.
The only other classes with special animal buddies are druids and rangers, and those are listed as EX. Both casters(wizards and druids) require rituals to replace them so I don't there is much difference other than the familiar being smarter, and the animal companion usually being a better fighter.
The only other classes with special animal buddies are druids and rangers, and those are listed as EX. Both casters(wizards and druids) require rituals to replace them so I don't there is much difference other than the familiar being smarter, and the animal companion usually being a better fighter.
With that in mind the familiar would have to be Ex, and as a DM myself I would also say that the spell is intended to be treated as a normal spell not a spell-like (note that there is no "this is just a regular spell" type for class abilities, only Ex, Su and Sp). I would probably tell my players that the Sp part is charging the item in the morning, but the use of it was still a spell.
I would probably tell my players that the Sp part is charging the item in the morning, but the use of it was still a spell.
Fine, except that there's no 'charging in the morning' ;-)
You don't need to do anything special with your bonded item, aside from wearing or wielding it.Maybe you could rule the Sp part is creating the bond with the item (or even with the familiar).
Anyway, I'd appreciate some more official input on this issue... :-m
With that in mind the familiar would have to be Ex, and as a DM myself I would also say that the spell is intended to be treated as a normal spell not a spell-like (note that there is no "this is just a regular spell" type for class abilities, only Ex, Su and Sp). I would probably tell my players that the Sp part is charging the item in the morning, but the use of it was still a spell.
The only other classes with special animal buddies are druids and rangers, and those are listed as EX. Both casters(wizards and druids) require rituals to replace them so I don't there is much difference other than the familiar being smarter, and the animal companion usually being a better fighter.
I did not see anything about charging it. It simply allows you to use a spell. I dont see it as a spontaneous spell because you can't adapt it on the fly with metamagic, and they did not call it out as an exception to the rule by saying "unlike most spontaneous spells......". It's definitely not a prepared spell. The only I am seeing that is left is spell-like ability.
I would probably tell my players that the Sp part is charging the item in the morning, but the use of it was still a spell.Fine, except that there's no 'charging in the morning' ;-)
You don't need to do anything special with your bonded item, aside from wearing or wielding it.Maybe you could rule the Sp part is creating the bond with the item (or even with the familiar).
Anyway, I'd appreciate some more official input on this issue... :-m
I think that would make the druid's an SP also, but I would also like something official. If the wizard was intended to have it in the beginning then that is ok, but I, as a house rule, will then open it up for sorcerers, or at least the arcane ones.
So if the extra spell granted by the Bonded Object is a Spell Like ability (and I'm now thinking it is, and the Familiar, if chosen, is (Ex) ),
and we assume that this:
This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities.
means that the various goodies that Spell Like abilities usually provide are not provided by the Bonded Item, since by this statement we can also assume that the Spell Like Ability is treated like any other spell cast by the Wizard in terms of Verbal, Somantic and Material component...
Then Dragon Disciple is not available to Wizards, as Spell Like Abilities do not qualify as spellcasting for the purpose of qualifying for Prestige Classes (I remember this from the Warlock)
OK...I've just found an argument that I do find convincing that under the RAW, Wizards do not qualify for the DD PrC because the spell they get through their Arcane Bond is a spell like ability.
Maybe you could rule the Sp part is creating the bond with the item (or even with the familiar).
The Spell Like ability would be the ability to use the spell itself, not the item (which doesn't need to be magical).
The benefits of Spell Like abilities for the purpose of casting the spell would be lost, for the reasons I've mentioned above.
I think that would make the druid's an SP also, but I would also like something official.
It would, and since the Druid's familiar is (ex), and we know that for certain, it would therefore stand to reason that the Familiar is also (ex), which would mean, by elimination, the ability to cast one extra spell per day granted by the Bonded Item is a (sp).
The only I am seeing that is left is spell-like ability.
Agreed.
The only I am seeing that is left is spell-like ability.Agreed.
Still, it's just a supposition and based on too many assumptions. A spell like ability that is not worded like one, and does not work as a spell-like rules-wise (components,etc.) is a bit weird.
Why haven't they worded it like, for example, the rogue's minor/major magic, which leaves no doubt?
Btw, druids have companions, not familiars, so you can't base your point on that either, as companions are truly little more than friendly animals.
The only I am seeing that is left is spell-like ability.Agreed.Still, it's just a supposition and based on too many assumptions. A spell like ability that is not worded like one, and does not work as a spell-like rules-wise (components,etc.) is a bit weird.
Why haven't they worded it like, for example, the rogue's minor/major magic, which leaves no doubt?
Btw, druids have companions, not familiars, so you can't base your point on that either, as companions are truly little more than friendly animals.
A druid's animal companion is not a regular animal. It is just as special as the familiar, and they(both caster types) have the same types of bonds(connections), and require similar rituals to get one back.
As for why they worded it(rogue vs wizards) differently I dont know, but with all the restrictions it does not fit the spontaneous spell description, but its not a prepared spell. The only options are that it's an unnamed type of spell or its a spell-like ability. If the familiar were was (SP) the bond between the familiar and the caster would most likely be broken in areas of anti-magic fields, and I would hope that would be mentioned. The item is the only thing that would not work in an antimagic field so its more likely given the line of reasoning the I am presenting along with others that the item is the SP and the familiar is the EX. Of course the rules are very unclear so nobody can say so as a fact, but I think that is a more legitimate argument.
A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell...
The object is used to cast the spell. The wizard uses the item but he is not casting the spell, he is activating the item that casts the spell.
Then the spell is treated like a spell cast by the wizard for DCs and all that jazz.
That is RAW and RAI and it doesn't allow the Wizard access to the DD PrC.