Recent Posts
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.
I just realized it works pretty similar to the way a pearl of power does, since both the item and the pearl store the power for the spell.
My question is, assuming this is possible, does the wizard retain any of the benefits of the dragon disciple class if he loses his bonded object?At most, he'd lose the benefits if he lost the class feature. Though that'd fall in the realm of house ruling.
Your whole argument falls under the category of house rules. Look, its clear you obviously want this, so just do it. If you need to convince your DM by agreement on the boards, that sadly is not going to happen. This case is cut and dry.
By any reasonable understanding of English syntax & sentence structure, it is clear by the word 'USED' that the item allows the wizard to cast ONE spell without preperation. The class demands the ability to cast "SPELLS" without preparation. This has been used as shorthand for spontaneous caster since the advent of 3.5 ed. You can argue this if you want, but your using smoke and mirrors. Point to one official ruling in the 3.5 FAQ or Paizo's posts that would support this interpretation in the least. I don't believe you can.
game. match. point.
Still, it's just a supposition and based on too many assumptions.
Let's look at each assumption in turn then.
A spell like ability that is not worded like one
All that's required for a spell like ability to be a spell like ability is the (sp) notation, which is there under Arcane Bond. And for the ability to require some form of casting, which the Bonded Item granted ability does. No other special wording is required.
and does not work as a spell-like rules-wise (components,etc.) is a bit weird.
Yet a precedence exists. See the Factotum...
Why haven't they worded it like, for example, the rogue's minor/major magic, which leaves no doubt?
Can't say. You are asking for the designers intentions, and we both know that neither of us know them for certain.
My guess would be "poor judgement"...
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.
Check the animal companions class ability. This isn't the 3.5 animal companion you remember.
Most notably, an Animal Companion can increase it's INT score. It can also share spells with the Druid.
Really, the differences between a Familiar and Animal companion are quite small (Familiar grants feats, Animal Companion is tougher, Wizard can share senses with familiar - that's about it)
If the Wizard's familiar bond was considered magical in nature, as an "always on" effect it still wouldn't be a (sp), it would be a (su), since no "casting" is involved to activate the ability.
Since either the familiar or the extra spell per day must be a (sp) ability, only the extra spell can qualify, since it is the only ability that requires casting.
Still - I can't say for CERTAIN that the spell granted through the Bonded Item is a (sp) that functions as a regular spell. However, it seems the most likely explanation - certainly more likely than a Familiar being a (sp), which REALLy makes no sense at all.
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.
This has already been discussed, but, once again. So you say he is activating a masterwork dagger that casts a spell?
This thread is repeating itself.
There is a case that a bonded object is spontaneous spellcasting.
There is also a case that it's a special ability similar to a staff, and isn't proper spontaneous spellcasting.
It's pretty obvious that wizards are not intended to be allowed to take dragon disciple.
Nonetheless, it's hardly overpowered if they do.
Despite the fact that I made this post, we'll have 200 more posts of mindless gainsaying repeating these points, including multiquotes from people who should know better, people repeating posts in order to point out the fact that someone is repeating themselves, and lots of people gabbing on about "Your interpretation is a houserule!"
True. Until the argument starts to go the other way with new evidence I am content to let this one die or let others argue a point that seems to have a lot more weight on one side than the other.
Still, it's just a supposition and based on too many assumptions.Let's look at each assumption in turn then.
I won't quote them all to save some space but, they are all assumptions as well and all have arguments both for and agains it. I understand your points, but all of them can be argued as:
- When casting a spell is like a spell-like ability it has always been named as such.
- Factotums ain't PFRPG (and honestly, I don't remember them and can't read them righ now).
- Animal companions retain animal type, and all it's granted abilities are (Ex). Familiars are treated as magical beasts, and grant (Su) and (Sp) abilities (see scrying). That'd be enough for me to consider animal companion (Ex) and familiars alone (Ex or Su or Sp).
One more point against your argument is that Druids can choose as well between a companion and extra (domain) slots. And yet, their nature bond is only Ex. So why Druid slots are Ex and Wizard slots are Sp?
Of course not saying that the opposite (i.e. spontaneous spell slot or not-thought-over spell like ability) are certain to be the answer, but that they are as plausible as any other explanation and should be officially clarified/errata.
Let's look at each assumption in turn then.
When casting a spell is like a spell-like ability it has always been named as such.
A familiar is not a spell like ability even though it may have spell like abilities. It is an NPC. The only casting is from the item so it(SP assignment) can't go to the familiar.
- Factotums ain't PFRPG (and honestly, I don't remember them and can't read them righ now).
The class is in dungeonscape and it fits the closer to what the wizard is doing by casting spells as spell like abilities
Animal companions retain animal type, and all it's granted abilities are (Ex). Familiars are treated as magical beasts, and grant (Su) and (Sp) abilities (see scrying).
That'd be enough for me to consider animal companion (Ex) and familiars alone (Ex or Su or Sp).
See my first comment
One more point against your argument is that Druids can choose as well between a companion and extra (domain) slots. And yet, their nature bond is only Ex. So why Druid slots are Ex and Wizard slots are Sp?
Domains are not SP or SU for clerics either.
Edit: The Druid is using actual spells gained through a domain. The wizard is not using a spell slot. The only spell slots a wizard has are through memorized/prepared spells.
Edit 2: Typos Typos. I think I am done with this post now.
This thread is repeating itself.
Agree.
Except:I'd say it's pretty obvious that DD were(in 3.5) not meant for wizards. Now with the strong 'restyling' the class has undergone, and the fact that wizards are indeed mentioned in the class' fluff text I wouldn't deem it obvious.
True. Until the argument starts to go the other way with new evidence I am content to let this one die or let others argue a point that seems to have a lot more weight on one side than the other.
Yup. How much noise do we have to make or who could we ask to have an official statement about the issue? ;-)
To be honest, I am more concerned now that someone claims it a full-fledged spell-like ability than wheter it qualifies for DD or not... :-m
This thread is repeating itself.
Agree.
Except:
It's pretty obvious that wizards are not intended to be allowed to take dragon disciple.
I'd say it's pretty obvious that DD were(in 3.5) not meant for wizards. Now with the strong 'restyling' the class has undergone, and the fact that wizards are indeed mentioned in the class' fluff text I wouldn't deem it obvious.
True. Until the argument starts to go the other way with new evidence I am content to let this one die or let others argue a point that seems to have a lot more weight on one side than the other.
Yup. How much noise do we have to make or who could we ask to have an official statement about the issue? ;-)
To be honest, I am more concerned now that someone claims it a full-fledged spell-like ability than wheter it qualifies for DD or not... :-m
I think its Jason, but he has no set schedule as far as I know. I say we keep making noise until we get an answer. :)
He might be off somewhere in which case we try to draw his attention when he gets back. I am really interested in any response that makes the familiar into an SLA. I would also like to know why they did not just say spontaneous arcane caster. I would also like to know why it was never clarified as to which one was the SP and which was the EX.I think that would be all of my questions.
I won't respond to any more posts, new ideas or not, until this afternoon. Yes that may make the thread longer, but I want it to stay close to the top so it gets some attention.
A familiar is not a spell like ability even though it may have spell like abilities. It is an NPC. The only casting is from the item so it(SP assignment) can't go to the familiar.
Read carefully. A familiar could be deemed a spell like because having a familiar grants a spell-like to the owner. Having a familiar allows the caster to Scry on them as a spell-like ability.
A familiar is not a spell like ability even though it may have spell like abilities. It is an NPC. The only casting is from the item so it(SP assignment) can't go to the familiar.Read carefully. A familiar could be deemed a spell like because having a familiar grants a spell-like to the owner. Having a familiar allows the caster to Scry on them as a spell-like ability.
I dont buy that because the empathic link is also SU.
And even if I did what is the familiar until then. Some games never see 13th level.
If the descriptors could change, which would be the only way your idea would work it would have to be EX for the bonded item and at the least, SU and SP for the familiar.
PS: Ok, so I posted. Next time I will make my will save.
I dont buy that because the empathic link is also SU.PS: Ok, so I posted. Next time I will make my will save.
Hehe... you don't have to buy it, a familiar's scrying is clearly labeled as (Sp) and 'casted' by the owner ;-).
will save again, then? ^_^
Ok. I'll begin refraining myself too... not really much point in keeping on asking 'what if...' without some official answer...
Thanks everyone for the ideas/opinions/suggestions.
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
Just to clarify, I didn't say "I believe you have to charge it in the morning" I said "i'd probably tell my players that..". I don't think it does need charging, it's just a b&&!&&@% explanation so that the players would shut up and go on with their lives and not lead to large arguments :P
Also, I agree that unless we get an official ruling or someone says something new, this is a pretty much dead argument.
This has already been discussed, but, once again. So you say he is activating a masterwork dagger that casts a spell?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.
No, what I am saying is that the bonded item rules state that the item is used to cast the spell. If the DD prestige class accepted that then it would also accept anyone wearing a Ring of Feather Fall.
No, what I am saying is that the bonded item rules state that the item is used to cast the spell. If the DD prestige class accepted that then it would also accept anyone wearing a Ring of Feather Fall.
Round and Round we go:
Consider this statement:
"A microphone can be used to sing any song that the musician knows and have it heard by everyone in the audience."
So who is singing, the microphone or the musician?
Or
"A keyboard can be used to write any post that Treantmonk wants to write to destroy Fake-healer's point."
Don't blame me, blame the keyboard.
Deja vu anyone?
OK using that argument.
Can you sing that song without the microphone and have it do what it's supposed to do....be heard by everyone in the audience? Probably not unless it's a very small venue.
Can you write a post to destroy my point without your keyboard? No. Not one that anyone could see anyway.
These are not comparisons that equal the action being done with a bonded item.
How about this...
I am on a bus and I have a program in my Iphone that allows me to access the PRD spells list. I also have memorized certain spells' info that is usually pertinent to me (like my daily spells). I need to know immediately what glitterdust does. I have read the text for glitterdust but haven't currently memorized the text of the spell because I haven't used it much recently. I can use my Iphone to look up the info I am needing. The Iphone is the item that facilitates my being able to find that spell. I cannot access that info on my own without first memorizing it. I did not and could not spontaneously produce that info. The caster must have the ability to spontaneously produce a spell. He doesn't if an item is the primary facilitator.
OK using that argument.
Can you sing that song without the microphone and have it do what it's supposed to do....be heard by everyone in the audience? Probably not unless it's a very small venue.
Can you write a post to destroy my point without your keyboard? No. Not one that anyone could see anyway.
These are not comparisons that equal the action being done with a bonded item.
How about this...
I am on a bus and I have a program in my Iphone that allows me to access the PRD spells list. I also have memorized certain spells' info that is usually pertinent to me (like my daily spells). I need to know immediately what glitterdust does. I have read the text for glitterdust but haven't currently memorized the text of the spell because I haven't used it much recently. I can use my Iphone to look up the info I am needing. The Iphone is the item that facilitates my being able to find that spell. I cannot access that info on my own without first memorizing it. I did not and could not spontaneously produce that info. The caster must have the ability to spontaneously produce a spell. He doesn't if an item is the primary facilitator.
If a PrC had the entry requirement "Must be able to channel positive energy" would you allow a Good Cleric to take the PrC? After all, they can't do it without their holy symbol.
If a PrC had the entry requirement "Must be able to channel positive energy" would you allow a Good Cleric to take the PrC? After all, they can't do it without their holy symbol.
And here we go again :-)
I guess the only solution would be a rewording of the feature, similar to how Alacritous Cogitation was made. That feat allowed to leave a spell slot open and prepare and cast a spell as a full-round action.
I think most of people would agree in that:
- It's not a spell-like ability (as that would be a huge loophole for component-free spells)
- It's not an spontanous open slot (as that would make the wizard both a prepared/spontanous caster, which beats the intent of the feature)
- It's not activating a magic item (as the item is, indeed, not a magic item)
So maybe the solution would be to say that the feature allows the wizard to 'prepare and cast' any spell in his spell book once per day. This whole preparation+casting would be the same kind of action (swift, immediate, standard, etc...) as the original casting time of the spell.
What do you say? Would that please all points of view?
The magic properties of a bonded object, including
any magic abilities added to the object, only function for
the wizard who owns it.
The rules themselves state that the magic abilities (including the spell per day) are properties of the bonded object.
A wizard with a bonded object is not a sort of spontaneous caster who does not need to prepare his spells in advance.
If a PrC had the entry requirement "Must be able to channel positive energy" would you allow a Good Cleric to take the PrC? After all, they can't do it without their holy symbol.And here we go again :-)
I guess the only solution would be a rewording of the feature, similar to how Alacritous Cogitation was made. That feat allowed to leave a spell slot open and prepare and cast a spell as a full-round action.
I think most of people would agree in that:
- It's not a spell-like ability (as that would be a huge loophole for component-free spells)
- It's not an spontanous open slot (as that would make the wizard both a prepared/spontanous caster, which beats the intent of the feature)
- It's not activating a magic item (as the item is, indeed, not a magic item)So maybe the solution would be to say that the feature allows the wizard to 'prepare and cast' any spell in his spell book once per day. This whole preparation+casting would be the same kind of action (swift, immediate, standard, etc...) as the original casting time of the spell.
What do you say? Would that please all points of view?
Any solution that says wizards cant take the DD is fine, or if someone officially says they can then explain what type of spell this is that is being cast since it does not follow the rules for prepped spells spontaneous spells or SLA's to a tee. I would also ask why sorcerers with arcane bond can't take DD other than because they said so.
Any solution that says wizards cant take the DD is fine, or if someone officially says they can then explain what type of spell this is that is being cast since it does not follow the rules for prepped spells spontaneous spells or SLA's to a tee. I would also ask why sorcerers with arcane bond can't take DD other than because they said so.
If the character has sorcerer levels,
he must have the draconic bloodline.
Draconic bloodline does not allow sorcerers to have an arcane bond.
DD/sorcerers can therefore not have an arcane bond.
The magic properties of a bonded object, including
any magic abilities added to the object, only function for
the wizard who owns it.The rules themselves state that the magic abilities (including the spell per day) are properties of the bonded object.
Well, the '(including the spell per day)' is your wording.
One could read the previous paragraph as well as referring to the previous magical properties (i.e the ones not added by the wizard).
Btw, thanks for the cross-posting, very nice of you! ;-P
Any solution that says wizards cant take the DD is fine, or if someone officially says they can then explain what type of spell this is that is being cast since it does not follow the rules for prepped spells spontaneous spells or SLA's to a tee. I would also ask why sorcerers with arcane bond can't take DD other than because they said so.
If the character has sorcerer levels,
he must have the draconic bloodline.Draconic bloodline does not allow sorcerers to have an arcane bond.
DD/sorcerers can therefore not have an arcane bond.
I knew about that rule, and it was the reason for my statement. If they say the wizard can what is the logic behind saying a sorcerer with the arcane bond cant. I dont think that is what they will say, just in case though.
The magic properties of a bonded object, including
any magic abilities added to the object, only function for
the wizard who owns it.The rules themselves state that the magic abilities (including the spell per day) are properties of the bonded object.
A wizard with a bonded object is not a sort of spontaneous caster who does not need to prepare his spells in advance.
I think you should have bolded the word "including", and whatever came after it.
I appearantly did not get your point. Sorry.
I knew about that rule, and it was the reason for my statement. If they say the wizard can what is the logic behind saying a sorcerer with the arcane bond cant. I dont think that is what they will say, just in case though.
It's ok, and it seems Jason shows up around 2ish EST pm. If I am awake I will bump the threads. To bad this site does not have PM's
It's ok, and it seems Jason shows up around 2ish EST pm. If I am awake I will bump the threads. To bad this site does not have PM'sI appearantly did not get your point. Sorry.
I knew about that rule, and it was the reason for my statement. If they say the wizard can what is the logic behind saying a sorcerer with the arcane bond cant. I dont think that is what they will say, just in case though.
Actually, this thread is a pretty good advert for WHY this site doesn't have PMs. If it did, Jason would currently be drowning in suggestions and complaints, especially as there's a playtest going on as well. Poor guy has to get SOME work done.
The magic properties of a bonded object, including
any magic abilities added to the object, only function for
the wizard who owns it.The rules themselves state that the magic abilities (including the spell per day) are properties of the bonded object.
Well, the '(including the spell per day)' is your wording.
One could read the previous paragraph as well as referring to the previous magical properties (i.e the ones not added by the wizard).
Actually not really. I am only stating the implicity of the paragraph.
The PRPG says: "The magic properties of a bonded object, including
any magic abilities added to the object, only function for
the wizard who owns it."
If the magic ablities added by the wizard are an inclusion, then what are they in addition to? The spell per day of course; what other magical abilities does a bonded item hold?
So I might actually be adding words, but I am only verbalizing what lies implicit in the text.
You cannot possibly disagree with this. If so I would like you to state exactly what magical properties a bonded item has that are not added by the wizard.
Actually, this thread is a pretty good advert for WHY this site doesn't have PMs. If it did, Jason would currently be drowning in suggestions and complaints, especially as there's a playtest going on as well. Poor guy has to get SOME work done.It's ok, and it seems Jason shows up around 2ish EST pm. If I am awake I will bump the threads. To bad this site does not have PM'sI appearantly did not get your point. Sorry.
I knew about that rule, and it was the reason for my statement. If they say the wizard can what is the logic behind saying a sorcerer with the arcane bond cant. I dont think that is what they will say, just in case though.
Slams beer down
Us core classes aint got time to be waiting on some rookies to get made up. We was here first and aint fo splitten time with no newbs. We demands it or we be flippen over ary table in the bar. Tell them rookies te wait their turn and if they dont get a turn what does it matter. We dont needs em anyhows.edit: On a more serious note I guess I can wait. It's not something that has to be looked at right now anyway. I just want him to check this thread before it gets too big.
You cannot possibly disagree with this. If so I would like you to state exactly what magical properties a bonded item has that are not added by the wizard.
I'm afraid I can.
It could perfectly refer to the magical properties a bonded item had before becoming a bonded item.The sentence you quoted could (and I'm not saying it says so for sure, but it's indeed possible) refer to the properties it had before bonding + the properties added by the wizard.
Losing also the previous properties and even those being usable only for the wizard who bonded it makes sense as it later mentions 'the drawbacks of becoming a bonded item'.
I have been staying out of this but ..thats kinda silly as it states that under"including any magic abilities added to the object". As you like to point out they all start as masterwork items.
It could perfectly refer to the magical properties a bonded item had before becoming a bonded item.
Not true. They can be added later if the bonded object is lost. The later levels could be a magic item. I don't think that's what it deos mean, but it's certainly a viable interpretation.
You cannot possibly disagree with this. If so I would like you to state exactly what magical properties a bonded item has that are not added by the wizard.I'm afraid I can.
It could perfectly refer to the magical properties a bonded item had before becoming a bonded item.The sentence you quoted could (and I'm not saying it says so for sure, but it's indeed possible) refer to the properties it had before bonding + the properties added by the wizard.
Losing also the previous properties and even those being usable only for the wizard who bonded it makes sense as it later mentions 'the drawbacks of becoming a bonded item'.
That is plain nonsense.
Please state just 1 magical ability that a bonded item has, which the wizard does not add to the item! (1 spell per day?)
An originally magical item designated as a bonded item retain all its normal functions regardless of bonded or non-bonded status.
But if that was your best argument I feel I can rest my case now.
And that is covered under "including any magic abilities added to the object"
I don't agree. That paragraph begins talking about how you can add properties as if you had the feat. Tough it's as ambiguous as in the other parts...
This is the full paragraph (exluding the caster level example and the expended wand not being destroyed).
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat. [...]. The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it. If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.
One could take it as if you die or 'unbind' the item, it loses all it's properties. The ones you added as if you had the feat and the ones it had before, and thus is then just masterwork.
This is the full paragraph (exluding the caster level example and the expended wand not being destroyed).
One could take it as if you die or 'unbind' the item, it loses all it's properties. The ones you added as if you had the feat and the ones it had before, and thus is then just masterwork.
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat. [...]. The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it. If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.
No. Because the rule says: "the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type
Revert is defined as: "To return to a former condition, practice, subject, or belief."
The item will in other words return to its unbound condition. It does not become disenchanted.
No. Because the rule says: "the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate typeRevert is defined as: "To return to a former condition, practice, subject, or belief."
The item will in other words return to its unbound condition. It does not become disenchanted.
Then why say so clearly it reverts to masterwork instead of saying that it loses all the properties that the wizard has added to it or any other phrase that makes clear it retains previous enchantments?
Then why say so clearly it reverts to masterwork instead of saying that it loses all the properties that the wizard has added to it or any other phrase that makes clear it retains previous enchantments?
No. Because the rule says: "the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate typeRevert is defined as: "To return to a former condition, practice, subject, or belief."
The item will in other words return to its unbound condition. It does not become disenchanted.
Because the primary assumption governing the statement is that it is a masterwork item to begin with.
If your interpretation was correct a 1st lvl wiz could bond with the Sword of Kas or any other artifact fitting the bill for a bonded item and render it powerless by cancelling the bond.
Then why say so clearly it reverts to masterwork instead of saying that it loses all the properties that the wizard has added to it or any other phrase that makes clear it retains previous enchantments?
No. Because the rule says: "the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate typeRevert is defined as: "To return to a former condition, practice, subject, or belief."
The item will in other words return to its unbound condition. It does not become disenchanted.
The Full quote:
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat. For example, a wizard with a bonded dagger must be at least 5th level to add magic abilities to the dagger (see the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat in Feats). If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its wand abilities when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties and can be used to craft a new wand. The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it. If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.Empasis mine.
The use of the words "as if" implies that the enchanment is non-permanent and go when the Wizard dies.
If however the additional enchanments have been placed on the Bonded Object using via a Feat then I would say that the enchantment is treated like any other magical item and permanent.
If the Bonded Object from the off was say a +1 Dagger* and additional bits added over time when the venerable mage dies it reverts back to a +1 Dagger* again.
*or the Sword of Kas
Because the primary assumption governing the statement is that it is a masterwork item to begin with.
Except when it says it may be not:
A wizard can designate an existing magic item as his bonded item. This functions in the same way as replacing a lost or destroyed item except that the new magic item retains its abilities while gaining the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a bonded item.
The benefit of becoming a bonded item are clear (its hitpoints are restored and it's more easily enchanted) but else, what are 'the drawbacks of becoming a bonded item'? (and don't tell me it's that the wizard needs it for casting, as that is a drawback of choosing to have that kind of item and it's a drawback for the wizard, not for the item, as the benefit is the extra spell)
And yup, if you consider artifacts to be magic items (and this could be argued), if the GM gives a sword of kas to the 1st level wizard, he could. As he could cast a mage's disjunction from a scroll or wand and do the same (if he has a sword of kas, I guess he has the cash for such a wand or scroll as well).
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.
Is not every other spell cast by the wizard treated like a prepared spell?
Would that not also be the line of reasoning that makes the author state no metamagic spell can be added to it on the fly. If it were not truly treated like a prepared spell then there would be no reason to deny the metamagic feat being added to it.
For all intents and purposes it seems the spell is a prepared spell.
A spell is either spontaneous or prepared. There is no third category.
They allow druid and clerics to add metamagic feats when they convert spells to healing or summon nature's ally. Clearly if the wizard was intended to have the same benefit of spontaneous magic they would simply let it be spontaneous.
Because the primary assumption governing the statement is that it is a masterwork item to begin with.
Except when it says it may be not:
A wizard can designate an existing magic item as his bonded item. This functions in the same way as replacing a lost or destroyed item except that the new magic item retains its abilities while gaining the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a bonded item.
No. That would be the secondary assumption.
The benefit of becoming a bonded item are clear (its hitpoints are restored and it's more easily enchanted) but else, what are 'the drawbacks of becoming a bonded item'? (and don't tell me it's that the wizard needs it for casting, as that is a drawback of choosing to have that kind of item and it's a drawback for the wizard, not for the item, as the benefit is the extra spell)
Those are in deed benefits. But they are NOT magic properties.
And yup, if you consider artifacts to be magic items (and this could be argued), if the GM gives a sword of kas to the 1st level wizard, he could. As he could cast a mage's disjunction from a scroll or wand and do the same (if he has a sword of kas, I guess he has the cash for such a wand or scroll as well).
Ludicrous.