Random Loot tables are ok... however if you were attacking a bunch of goblins that had a potion of levitate, scroll of hydraulic torrent, and a scroll of mass cure light wounds potion of bull’s strength, and a scroll of flaming sphere you are going to have a heck of a fight since they will use the potions to increase their big guys strength and if they have a shaman he will levitate and scroll you to death. Random loot charts need to be less magic filled and more mundane and crap filled. Does this book have random mundane charts that include rusty weapons and beat up patch work armor which is what the vast majority of the loot from creatures would be?
Im not trying to be a downer here but a charts like these only encourage more Monty Cook style playing where the adventure is magic heavy and gold heavy. I will like this if only they have charts made for low magic and low gold settings. I dont play the cookie cutter version of D&D that has come about because of 3.5, where rolls and loot matter like its an MMO. I prefer games that have magic being extremly rare and 1 gold equavalent to a years salary for the average commoner.
I would disagree that a ranger is better than a monk. break down just the feats specials for archery if playing Human:
And flurry for a monk uses BAB = to the Characters level so at level 6 when flurry your BA is treated as +6 then its -2 because of extra attacks as if using rapid shot.For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level.
ALL of this makes the Monk the best choice hands down. Just look at what all you get. The Point Blank Master is a 11+ level feat that makes you get NO AOO for using bow in melee combat. That is the best feat ever.
One option I think might be nice... suppose that the number of buffs you can have, from magic items or from spells, would be limited. Furthermore, suppose that it is primarily limited for spellcasters. Say you can have something like 12 - N such effects at a time, where N is the highest spell level you can use. If you go beyond that, your higher-than-allowed spell levels either become unavailable, or you do not gain the buff effects. This could be explained by the buffs interfering, preventing you from shaping your aura enough to shape spells - like a chakra or something metaphysically occupied by each magical field.
the only option I would ever agree too to limit the magic is if the GM removed all item creation feats and limited magic to be rare in the world.. to play a spellcaster would be harder because there is no magic. The issue most people have especially since crafting is so easy and now that in PF there is no exp cost its gotten worse.. I miss 2e's magic creation. You needed to cast permanacy on any magic item you wanted to create or it wouldnt work and the cost to cast was like 20000gp. so it made crafting extremly expensive and less of an issue in game. Magic meant something and was better controlled. 3e, 3.5 and PF should never have made crafting so easy.
Easy to make this item and here is how and the cost.
To make this item your cleric would need Craft Wonderous and the Spellcraft roll would be a (5+9CL+5(dont have spell)+5(if not 9thlvl)=24 (possible another +5 since its arane spell and not arcane but thats GM move).
Now you could make this item with permancy on the item castable itself which would be alot higher. Since Permancy requires a 9th level caster and is 5th level its (5x9x1800)/(5/3) x2 = 50625gp and then add the other spell 3375(not similar spells) grand total of 54000gp to cast Sanctify corpse 3/day and Permancy 3/day. No GM would ever allow a permancy charged item so dont even bother going this route.
alot of those items state so in description. The description of dex Belt in PF states Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the belt is worn. this is not the same as the ring of sustenance which states The ring must be worn for a full week before it begins to work. If it is removed, the owner must wear it for another week to reattune it to himself. The description of the item is what is key. since it is temporary on the belt it would work immediatly no issues... but untill you left it on for at least 24hours the first time it would be counted as temporary after that you could remove it and p0ut it back on as many times as you want.
yes, you meet the req. However if you loose your gauntlets and or not wearing them you no longer have access to the feat. which if that feat is a requirement for a PRC that can be a huge issue. who wants to loose your class abilities because you lost the reuirement feat because some thief took you gloves.
This game should never be like an MMO... limits to buffs just makes it feel so.
from a few posts are you also considering continous magic items as buffs? it almost appears that way in your comments.
Just keep track of the duration, your group may be abusing it too much.. alot of spells in PF are no longer minutes or hours/level they are now rounds/level... this is a huge impact.
I would say evil alignment only, because evil subtype while normally is always evil a GM may have made a reformed evil character so while still Evil subtype because of race the Alignment is not evil and so at least in any game I have played would not be affected by Protection from evil.
King of Vrock wrote:
What you're asking for is pretty powerful. I think you'd be better off with a variant of the Bracers of Archery, but for thrown weapons. These bonuses would stack with weapon enhancement bonuses and effect any improvised weapon you pick up and hurl.
To what are you committing on?. The other comments, my first thoughts I posted, or my most recent the "Giants Satchel"?. I have decided to forgo getting an item to work for both, I just want to see if my new idea is not overpowered or too much to ask. By adding all the stipulations I want to make this item work the way I want but not be game breaking in any way. This is further reduced by making drawing the items out of the satchel a move action, this cuts anyone from any more than 1 attack a round with it.
Ok here is what I have decided to craft. Is this reasonable priced item?
-This sack acts as a small bag of holding I, This bag also has a magical enchantment on it that when any nonmagical item is placed inside and drawn out it gains the magical enchancement listed. This Bag can be enchanted with Same enchantments as those on Thrown Range weapons. This bag however will only enchant items that are the same size and shape as small to large rocks/boulders. (A weapon placed in the bag will not gain the enchantment nor will other objects not similar to size and shape rocks/boulders). This enchantment acts only upon the last item drawn so 2 items drawn only the last is effected. Once the item is thrown and hits it looses its enchantment (except for returning which will allow the item to reappear inside the sack). Drawing from the sack is a move equivalent action, that does provoke.
my pricing, I used the item craft feature of multiple different abilities (normal price for highest cost feature and 1.5 cost of lowest) and also since there are restrictions to what the item does and who uses it I reduced the cost by 20% (though rules state 30% for the penalties - I think that was too much).
Would you allow this item?
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
but again there is nothing official against using a +1 bow as an improvised melee weapon. And I will go ahead and ignore this for another thread because its not what I really want.
As for what I want to know is what to calculate the cost on my magical hand to allow me to transfer its magic into the items I through. Should I stipulate that I want it to only apply to "Ammunition, IE rocks,and other improvised items not weapons"to cut this inflated cost that everyone keeps trying to justify even though I dont see any reason for thrown ammunition to be double or triple enchantment cost as a sling bullet or bow. Remember I am not trying to create a character who picks up swords, daggers, etc.. he picks up rocks, tables, and other improvised items. So if I placed that stipulation could I get this price reduced.
Also what if I added the stipulation This weapons enchancment and magical effects work when it is used in melee and when throwing "Ammunition and improvised items, not other melee weapons". what would the cost be?
Last time I checked, undead (barring a few specific cases) are created based on the base creature's racial hit dice, class levels had nothing to do with it. A ghoul from a level 1 human commoner and a ghoul from a level 20 elf Paladin are one and the same (though it's possible I could be mistaken.)
may be that he is asking when its an intteligent undead and they keep class levels. because that does make a difference.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
again so can wielding 2 magical reloading hand crossbows, or using magical arrows made from other materials. A sling as well.
Because of the rules on stacking. If I have Magical +1 bane gloves that give all items I throw the bonus of +1 and bane and I throw a +1 dagger it doesnt become a +2 bane dagger. It would be a +1 bane dagger. I dont mind stipulating or tacking on a added line that states :only apply to non magical items thrown. to curb the possibilty of people breaking it. I just dont see why it would cost more to make an item to confer magic on thrown when bows/slings/guns get to confer to their ammunition and they even can do it on magic ammunition though the enchancment in pathfinder no longer stacks.
Feral Combat Training (Combat) allows monk to use natural attack with his flurry, so yes They can. also I forgot to mention that the Amulet for a monk means any part of his body is magical (head, arm, leg, foot, hand, etc) whatever he decides to use for his unarmed attack.
I agree but in the case of the AoMF it confers on all Unarmed and Natural attacks so I think its a little more powerful. since a Monk with Natural attack gets to apply to his normal attacks and that natural attack.
master arminas wrote:
But a bow doesnt cost double? or a Magical sling?. So why would a thrown item be treated differently? Its still Ammunition especially if the thrown item is rocks. The issue I have is my Base attack is going to be a +5 untill level 16. the nonpathfinder Prestige class I am taking has 10levels of progression with no Base attach increase, it stays a +0 the entire time. So its not like Im trying to break anything, I just would like to be able to enchant items I throw. My concept will is going to have me picking up tables, barrels, wagons, rocks, and anything else not tied down and tossing them on enemyies. But I am hindering myself in my amount of attacks a round.
Silent Saturn wrote:
The only reason I brought in spiked gauntlets is my character has a Battlefist (3.5 warforge component added to construct graft Mighty Arms) my DM is allowing 3.5 books. The Battlefist has a +1 enchancement and increases slam attacks. The description alone states that it appears to be a Spiked Guantlet but it itself is not and does not have a melee attack, it only increases the damage that a natural slam attack would do. The problem I have is It takes up hand slot, since it confers its +1 to my slam attack, I am just curious if I can make it work for thrown ammunition as well.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
I like these however what is your justification in the price?. Magical weapon price is +1 2000, +2 8000, +3 18000, +4 32000 and +5 50000 so what makes these gloves be double? I checked and you made these gloves similar to the Amulet of Mighty Fists. Is this how you based your price?. And if so do you think that may be too much, the amulet confers its bonus on ALL unarmed AND natural attacks by wearer. The item I want will confer only on the item being tossed (much like an arrow or sling bullet).
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
But I cant find a rule stating that an improvised +1 bow being used in melee would not be magical. Most descriptions of magical range weapons state that the magic will impart on the ammunition making them magical but no rule on weather the item if used differently than intended would be. I mean the idea of firing an arrow then having to use the bow to smack a creature in melee or the same with firearm having to use the stock of the gun to smash into the enemy. There are no rules indicating that it would need a seperate enchantment. At least none that dont require a homebrew or houserule.
The issue is when it comes to thrown items (not thrown weapons) rocks, tables etc. I want to be able to have them enchanted like ammunition. I am bringing in grafts to the game and my character has the construct graft Mighty arm with a battlefist (description is it increases natural slam to 1d8 for medium creature, it has a +1 enchancement bonus and looks like a spiked guantlet). I just want to find a way to enchant my battlefist so that I can use it when I throw boulders etc. because its attached to the body I can not take off the battlefist and it replaces the hand location so I cannot wear gloves etc..
as for the frostfell that is a 3.5book There is a few other 3.5 books that have range weapons that can be used in melee. Its an open game so 3.5 is allowed.
Ok, I am trying to find out how to create gauntlets that give thrown ammunition their bonus (+1, bane etc much like a bow).if it would be possible to create gauntlets similar to the MIC Gauntlets of Throwing (they added the Throwing and Returning feature to any melee weapon) but instead of melee be for any item.
The reason is I want to create a rock hurler and would like to be able to have the thrown rocks/etc to be enchanted much like a bow/slings/guns enchant their ammunition and or a melee weapon that is magical and thrown still has its affects. I was wondering could Spiked Gauntlets be able to be enchanted with melee/range weapon enchantments to apply them to the (thrown ammunition).
And if the spiked gauntlets can affect ammunition thrown then will its enchantment still count in melee? There are some weapons that set a precident for being able to be used range and to be used also in melee and have both enchants work. IE Weapons like the Bonebow from Frostfell that is a Bow and can be used as a Longsword have their enchantments work in regard to ammunition and the weapon itself. No need to double up on the enchantments and the ammunition is enchanted. Same with using a +1 bow as a improvised quarterstaff to hit a creature if out of ammo. So could gauntlets be made to enchant ammunition and be magical themselves for use in melee?
Get by this easyily. Make whatever your lich have 1 level of Oracle (JUJU mystery) this gives you 6+hd instead of 4+HD of undead you can control. and then the JUJU zombie is highly Intelligent
JUJU Zombie An Int of 8 people. This is average Human InT. They can easily do what is needed.
Ok me and my GM got into a discussion on this and want everyones opinion.
Entropic Shield states Each ranged attack directed at you for which the attacker must make an attack roll has a 20% miss chance (similar to the effects of concealment).
Improved Precise Shot states that you ignore miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment.
would improved precise shot negate the concealment of entropic shield? My argument is yes because the spell creates a magical field that is providing the concealment and that the feat removes the concealment since it is not total concealment. My gm states that its a spell effect and so not actual concealment. The issue I have is it states that the effects is similar to concealment and Imp Prec Shot works against all forms of concealment like a Blur spell and similar magic. So if that is the case then shouldnt it work for Entropic shield as well?.
OK. simple fix, stop casting spells with saves and SR. there are a ton of spells that do not rely on saves, Magic Missle, Acid Arrow, Stone Call, Interposing Hand and Clenched Fist, Polar Ray, Create Undead, Wall of Lava, the list goes on and on.
First step in being a good caster is realizing that save or die spells are junk. Do not fall into the misconception that a spell that does a massive amount of damage is great if they can save for half. Choose a spell like those I have posted and the many others that exist that have no save and make your GM cry.
Also, I've often considered dropping the relationship between undead and evil. I ponder such concepts as "allowing fallen heroes to rise up and defend the faith" or similar things. Why can't you have a good priest at the battlefront, animating his fallen comrades so they can perform one last stand against the forces of evil, before finally finding rest? Why can't you animate a murder victim, so he can go confess his sins or tell his family he loves them before departing? Howabout a paladin who swears that, even beyond death, he will protect his church, and is animated for the task?
The reason I dont think the spell is evil is the fact that the risen body has no soul. It is a powered corpse that acts and moves on command. Unless using a more powerful spell that calls the soul the normal means to animate a dead body would not give the family any closure, they would need to cast speak with dead spell to find out what happened. The dead on Battlefield, again this is a time of need argument that would never be counted as an evil act. its all about intentions in my games.
This seems like a solid build. But may I suggest, if you already have a group of Min/Maxers then why not become the master Manipulator?. Take 3 Levels Rogue (Charlatan) with Cunning Lie Talent and then Bard (Demagogue), A character who can make anyone believe anything, can cause a city to follow his every word and do as he pleases even if that means causing all citizens to attack people you wish or incite revolutions. And with the Cunning Lie you cement your control and lies.
Though that is just what I would do.
Eberron had alot of great arguments for undead. The nation of Karrnath used undead to keep their army strong the the nation was Lawful they had Lawful Good/Neurtal and Evil people within the society. The people saw Undead as neccesarry for the nation to survive the wars. Same goes for Aerenal the home of the Elves and the Undying Court. A purely Lawful Neurtal enviroment. It really comes down to intent that realy defines when the act of creating Undead is evil or not. In Faerun there were Elven Undead Liches that were good alinged there are many ways that undead can be good.
JUJU oracle if you really want to just get rid of evil all together.
I Create characters Based on Themes even if that means being subpar to a normal character. I can Min/Max if I want and create a powerful character but those get really boring. I think creating a acharacter with flaws or issues and or going with a theme that while not that powerful has a great story is fun.
I have also dumbed down or hidden my true powers. Back in 2nd edition because of luck of rolls and a gracious DM I rolled a Necro/Cleric with wild Psioncis and over 300 Powerpoints. It was hugely overpowered. i could probally take on at level 1 level 10's and win. But I never did, I hid my powers from even the group (we rolled alone with Gm so no one knew the others characters other than through roleplay and the game). I didnt use powers untill almost 5 seccions in. I wanted to play him as a ChessMaster. Powerful but not wanting to show his trumps up front.
By the way there is another magic item allowing Metamagic Feats. Its a wonderous Magic Item
Now yes it is a one time use item but it Maximizes all spells for the day. So there is another item that exists that adds a Meta Effect. Because you now have 2 different craft items (rod and Wonderous) shows to me that it could be for any item its just has not been made yet. Still DM approval.
Once your Cohort gains the leadership feat he is a free to follow his own path. he no longer looks at you as his mentor and will follow his own accord. This means that you will need to make rolls to gain a new cohort. That cohort may come back as NPC for other encounters.. maby he will be a freindly contact in a city you need to be in or he may provide shelter and or help when needed. (as long as he was treated well). but he no longer gains exp and or levels according to you. this is why you will need to find a new cohort.
3.5 Arms and Equipment guide for D&D has the rules needed to add Feats to any Magic Items. The cost is 5000gp per requierment. So the Metamagic Feats which most do not have a Pre. would cost 5000gp base. This will be to add it to any item, now this will let you have the feat however it will still cost you to increase the spells with feats.
Now to make it like a rod I would say would have the same costs accociated with it. I wouldnt change anything I see nothing in rules to say otherwise and rules that do not exist do not exist. therfore there is no Unwritten rule, thats just BS from people who dont want to think. It is up to your GM but there is no rule against making the item.
Im curious to see how and if I could make a Bard like Loki (in Thor movie) I'm not looking to make an exact conversion. Just the bard aspect. And its a 20 pt buy. Thanks for any assist.
Take Rogue for 3 levels (taking the Charlatan Rogue archtype) this will give you the Rumormonger (Ex) Adv rogue talent and can also pick up the Rogue Talent Convincing Lie (Ex) these 2 talents will be key to any Liar. Then take Bard (Demagogue archtype) this gives you abilty to draw crowds and have then incite violence.
using this build you will want to max Cha. That stat is key, all other stats are what you want. I would go
Get Cha enhancing items as soon as you can and then lie away. the idea is to never need to fight because you can talk a giant into beliving you are his mom.
Gus J Badnell wrote:
But you miss the other print.. let me post it for you.
Cohort Level: You can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than yourself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level (see Creating NPCs).
From Creating NPC's
I hate to point out that all Cohorts should follow the rule that they are created by the GM not the player. These are suppose to be already viable NPC characters and not fresh blank slates that the player gets to create and min/max. Now the player gets to control this Cohort but I would never allow a Player to ever again MAKE his Cohort. It leads to too much trouble much like the above OP's idea.
Never never let your player create his Cohort. I prefer the 2nd edition tried and true leadership. These cohorts follow you because they have heard your greatness and because of your keep have flocked to serve you. You get what comes, typically it is a guy who is exactly like the player who is using the player as his mentor, and will try to be just like him but thats up to the GM.
Denim N Leather wrote:
DR #/- is better... because it works against everything.. therfore it is more powerful... it works against adamantine, coldiron, magical weapons, slashing, piercing, blunt.. etc. This makes DR /- so much more powerful than DR /slashing or others.
But since you have 2 sources of DR here is what happens. The DR 10/slashing is used first since the 10 is higher than the 5. since the paladin is hitting with a sword this bypasses the DR so the next DR the creature has the 5/- applies.
Now if the paladin hits with a Blunt howerver the DR 10/slashing applies.. basically the DR 5/- would only apply when slashing is used.
We went up against a Lich once that had the best hiding place ever. It was Located inside the Temple of Pelor right in plain view. You may ask how? How can it be within the temple of a god that takes out undead. Well here is how.
The Phylactery was created to look like a beautiful Reliquery. The design was set up with holy symbols and markings of Pelor. The Lich of course made the box undectable as magical, and then had 1 small human bone placed inside. Then using a really really high check he was able to start a rumor that an actual bone of Pelor before he ascended had been found but stolen by heathern followers of Nerull, Adventuerers found and took the Reliquery to the Temple where it was placed in display as a Holy Item and guarded by the temple Paladins themselves. All the while with the Lich In no worries whatsoever that his Phylactery would come to any harm.
And in the case that the Lich would be destroyed and would need to rejuvinate he had that planned as well. The Rules state that the Phylactery rejuvinates and rebuilds the Lich nearby. That Nearby is key. He doesnt have to form right next to it. For our Lich he instead had paid a hefty sum of money to the Church to have a Coffin placed in the catacombs below the church (it was suppose to be the body of a prince that had died saving a city from undead that requested to lie in the church of his god= another great story that fooled the church). This sarcofigis had several nondetection wards on it that allowed whatever was inside to not be detected from the outside. The Lich could reform within then teleport out. Safe and sound underneath the Paladins very feet
We dealt with this Lich at least 4 times in the game. In fact we were to adventures who had brought the dang Phylactery to the church (in a previous game = we used the same campaign world, when we created new characters so many years would pass between the last game in this last case it was 150 years). We never discovered his hiding place. I dont think we ever would have. Without direct God intervention (which is very unlikely) the darn things are hard to find.
And for those who say wait hold on why does Pelor allow it to happen. Well first off the Gods of EQ dont always directly interact, and second with the Lich as a constant threat, more people flocked to the church, and if the church had found out what it was, there is always a high probability that a high ranking offical may use it to help bring in followers and use it for his own purpose of feeding the churchs coffers with donations.
OK here is the argument. Ring is the best. Hands down period it is the best. First off untill enchanted the ring is a mundane (though masterwork) item, so it will not detect magic.I simply do not plan on making mine magical at all and here is why.
There is a rule that states you are limited to wearing 2 magical rings. but there is no rule that states that you cant wear 2 magical rings and your non magical bonded ring. So why would theif take that non magical when you have those 2 magical ones.
Now if you are lucky you can get a GM to decree that you can wear 2 rings only that function but one that doesnt mind Toe Rings or (if you read Book of Erotica) other places. heck I had a Half Orc with a huge Magical Giant's Ring that I used as a nose ring. If you are lucky your GM will be fine with you wearing that nonmagical ring on your toe hidden far away inside that boot away from looters.
any familiar with templates is insane.
My friend right now is developing one for a crossover 3.5/PF games that has templates. His familiar is a Parrot (which can speak common) that has the Legendary, and Ghost Template added. With ghost template the parrot can possess creatures and since can speak common can pretend to be that person. Its a fun concept.
I think this is just another example of bad proof reading of the material before final write up. It would appear a mistake, but since most are RAW junkies it doesnt matter if it was not intended to be the way it is. I really wish they would get some better people to review all the material before release and one that takes into account previous books. Then some of these issues might not occur.
Tharg, you realize you just got a direct ruling from the creative director right? It doesn't get a whole lot more "official" than that. I just want to make sure you know who your arguing with...
Hehe I never noticed the tag.. hehe... ok..I edited my post to reflect that, well what of combing the two traits? would that be ok? I can see what was meant when the trait was made RAI (rules as intended) but The clarity of it still goes against what I think RAW would agree with me. and I think my argument was just. But I will bow my head and see if my GM will decided if its RAW or RAI, I will just make 2 characters instead of 1.
This trait is not useless, can't I combine it with the trait Rich Parents and have 1800gp at 1st level so a 6th level character with both those traits if say was a warrior would have 17500gp instead of 1600gp (Normal max gold for fighter is 300gp at first, you have 1800gp so 1800-300=1500gp extra that you start with +16000gp for 6th level =17500gp)
Also all starting equipment is reduced by 10% in price when purchasing because of the trait (everything bought within the guild) so technically you actually have 19250gp equivalent, To start with. I would not call the trait useless.
I respect that but my DM stated RAW, his descion is based on RAW, I beleive that this follows that criteria for RAW rule, what I am wanting is confirmation that I am correct and by RAW this would be legal, regardless of weather or not a GM would allow this who is not following RAW 100%.
The trait states :You start with twice the normal amount of starting gold. Core Rulebook page 140 has the chart you referenced but it states that if above 1st level to use the chart on page 399 which shows the Character Wealth by level and the paragraph on page 400 3rd one it states that the chart can be used to Budget the gear of characters that start above first level. It appears that since this is a character starting above first he does not have the standard first level chart he uses the chart on page 399 instead of the chart on 140 so wouldnt the trait allow for double on the 399chart since it states to use that chart if above first?
Ok we use RAW. And we plan on starting a game using the Pathfinder Companions, and will be starting at level 6. My question is the Trait Agent of Dusk. This trait states that you get to start with Twice the normal starting gold. Will that apply to the Normal starting gold for starting at above 1st? The rules state that a character that starts at level 6 starts with 16000gp Normally. So would this trait apply and make the starting gold 32000gp? Going by RAW only. I do not want personal opinions on what you would allow, this is for a strict RAW game.
Where I live we have several different types of GM's. We have oldshool Gm's who have played since 2nd and are more story driven and do not follow RAW when it does not fit into the story. We have strict Raw GM's who can see nothing past the rules in the book and usally cant stand roleplayers because they want a game that if full of Roll players. And the last GM's the ones I stay away from are the ones that believe that D&D/PF are contests between GM's NPC's VS the PC. they create encounters to try and kill the players every single time. There is no fun because you know that you will eventually die, its just a matter of how much can you min/max to survive long enough. The idea of a hard encounter is great, it makes the game excited, but if you have hard after hard after hard encounter and then you will have a lack of enjoyment. I prefer good story arc's that pull me into the game, exciting heroic battles where 1 may need to save a girl who is going to die during some battle, or one that takes place during a storm on a ship or hanging onto a ledge of a cliff. These types of battles make your characters feel heroic and make for some great memories. But there is nothing wrong with also haveing a group of 6 characters that are high level 5+ be asked while stopping in a town to rid the locals of some goblin tribes, and then have the players litterally walk through hordes of low level goblins that pose no immediate threat just to get some loot and a little exp. This breaks up the battles and the game and makes for some fun hack n slash.
Well I dont see why they would loose ability to cast spells? The Sword that is bonded is still being worn. The description clearly states that a wizard must either have his bonded item held or worn to be able to cast without a check. So what is the problem? Do not read too much into the situation where a persons sword that is on them and being worn is not somehow actually being worn. It is and therfore satisfies the requirements for the caster. Break down the rule first, and you see it.
If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. There is a period at the end of a line, this means that this part is different then the rest. It applies to using the item to cast that 1 additional spell.
If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is equal to 20 + the spell's level. If the object is a ring or amulet, it occupies the ring or neck slot accordingly. this is for the casting part and as you see the object can be held or worn .
So while they can not cast their 1 additional spell they can still cast spells.
Wow, I hate when people read way too much into something. Its pretty clear what happens, the pouch is stolen and the person is invisible after success. Dont try to justify that somehow this is going to somehow become an attack when it is not. Even if it causes harm the invisibility description states that indirect harm is ok (stealing bag is not harmful, not being able to cast after stolen may be harmful but was indirect). Touching is not an attack, unless actuall dice are rolled to hit. A skill check is never an attack.
This whole argument seems to have been designed by someone who lost their item and want to find a way to see the person. well if perception failed then tough.
I just wish we could get an official ruling on wether they meant blindsense and or if it is a typo and they were suppose to be blindsight. and or if blindsense in this instance works different than normal because of wording?... something official would be nice.. but never seem to get that