Arcane Bond (Su): At 1st level, wizards forge a powerful
bond with an object or creature. This bond can take one of
two forms: The first is a familiar, following the standard
rules for such creatures (see Familiars) and the second is a
bond with an object, using it to cast spells and enchanting
it with even greater powers.
Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must
fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring,
staff, wand, or weapon. If the object is an amulet or ring,
it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and
weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a
spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must
make a Spellcraft check or lose the spell. The DC for this
check is equal to 20 + the spell’s level.
Dies this mean that the bond is optional; that the wizard has EITHER a familiar or a bonded object? Or does it mean he has both, and MIST have a bonded object to cast spells?
I think the intent is that the bonded object is mandatory and the familiar optional. This means you can disarm a wizard by taking away their bonded object, which is good from a story perspective. But its not very clear on this point.
|
I think that the bonded creature/bonded object is something wholly optional.
Having a familiar or a bonded object gives some advantages to the character, but it also creates some specific weaknesses; this also means that a character can choose not to have a bonded whatever, thus dismissing both the advantages and the possible disadvantages involved in them.
|
One of my favorite Dragon articles in recent years is the Staffing Issues by Ben Vandgrift in issue #338!
I hope these rules follow this kind of flavor!
As I read it, the Wizard won´t have both (...can take one of two forms...). The rules are not crystal clear written here, but I would guess that you don´t have to take one or the other, as is the case with the familiar from the 3.5 rules.
But this point needs to be adressed. As written currently, you can interpret this as mandatory. I´m not sure if this is intended.
Stefan
|
Hmmm... seeing as how Arcane Bond is a first level wizard feature, and based one the wording "wizards form a powerful bond with an object or a creature", my interpretation is that a wizard must form a bond with either an object, or a creature/familiar. They would not be able to do both.
I suppose that a wizard could choose to bind with a creature, but then subsequently never summon a familiar (which can be done currently in 3.5), so effectively they could choose neither option. However if they chose to be bonded with an object it seems like they would always need that object in order to cast spells. It doesn't seem like choosing the familiar and then never summoning it imposes the same kind of penalties.
From the current rules as written, it seems summoning a familiar is free, as is bonding with an object, and that it can only be done at first level.
There also seems to be no explanation as to what happens if a bonded item or familiar is destroyed or killed. This lack of explanation, combined with the "at first level" restriction, leads me to believe that if your familiar is killed or your bonded item is destroyed, there is no way to replace it. You're sol.
Is this the designer's intention?
|
From the current rules as written, it seems summoning a familiar is free, as is bonding with an object, and that it can only be done at first level.
There also seems to be no explanation as to what happens if a bonded item or familiar is destroyed or killed. This lack of explanation, combined with the "at first level" restriction, leads me to believe that if your familiar is killed or your bonded item is destroyed, there is no way to replace it. You're sol.
Is this the designer's intention?
Last paragraph of the ability description:
If a bonded object is damaged, it is restored to full hit points the next time the wizard prepares his spells. If the subject of an arcane bond is lost or destroyed, it can be replaced after a week's time in a special ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level. This ritual takes 8 hours to complete.
Not that, despite the first sentence's specific reference to the bonded object, the rest of the paragraph talks about "the subject of an arcane bond" - thus it means either the bonded object or the familiar.
Last paragraph of the ability description:
If a bonded object is damaged, it is restored to full hit points the next time the wizard prepares his spells. If the subject of an arcane bond is lost or destroyed, it can be replaced after a week's time in a special ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level. This ritual takes 8 hours to complete.Not that, despite the first sentence's specific reference to the bonded object, the rest of the paragraph talks about "the subject of an arcane bond" - thus it means either the bonded object or the familiar.
Thanks, Shisumo, obviously I missed that.
My last question is whether a bonded object is masterwork, and if it must be purchased. My reading of the passage makes me think "no" on both counts, since there is never any clear indication how much a masterwork wand, amulet or ring costs. But if the object isn't masterwork, that also suggests a wizard could enchant her bonded weapon and ignore the standard "must be masterwork" restriction on enchantments.
Okay, that wasn't my last question. What happens to an enchanted bonded object when a wizard is killed? There doesn't seem to be any strict prohibition on someone else using an enchanted bonded object, and when the party wizard dies it might be useful to pick up his enchanted bonded sword/staff/whatever.
|
|
I'm hoping to see some feats to increase the power of your bonded item, like more uses of the "cast any spell I know, regardless of preparation" ability or even new abilities. I'm just glad they included the flavor of a staff/wand casting wizard into D&D, something that has been missing for a long time. (IMHO)
|
|
I'm hoping to see some feats to increase the power of your bonded item, like more uses of the "cast any spell I know, regardless of preparation" ability or even new abilities. I'm just glad they included the flavor of a staff/wand casting wizard into D&D, something that has been missing for a long time. (IMHO)
Oh, me too! I'd love to have some Feats related to enhancing familiars or your bonded object (hope you're reading these threads, Jason, Erik, et al. ;). You know, the funny thing is that one of my PCs (wizard/fighter) has wanted to "bond" with his sword (i.e. make it his "familiar"), and we were just about to houserule it when PF came out. :)
|
|
And what about Item Familiar from Unearthed Arcana, or Improwed Familiar feat? Those were wery cool. In fact, the guy who will be playing wizard in my next adventure is pink and purple with delight because he can have BOTH item familiar (staff in his case) and regular familiar. I think that we should have more freedom considering familiars and familiar objects and that familiar creatures should get some boost in raw power that they give to their masters. Perhaps it's easier for a mage bonded to a familiar to create certain kinds of magic items, or maybe he has more raw power then unbonded one, etc. There are even roll-playing possibilities left unexplored if the wizard is limited to one or the other. For instance, the same wizard has a bonded staff and pseudodragon familiar, who is jealous and constantly gnaws the staff...
I'm hoping to see some feats to increase the power of your bonded item, like more uses of the "cast any spell I know, regardless of preparation" ability or even new abilities. I'm just glad they included the flavor of a staff/wand casting wizard into D&D, something that has been missing for a long time. (IMHO)Oh, me too! I'd love to have some Feats related to enhancing familiars or your bonded object (hope you're reading these threads, Jason, Erik, et al. ;). You know, the funny thing is that one of my PCs (wizard/fighter) has wanted to "bond" with his sword (i.e. make it his "familiar"), and we were just about to houserule it when PF came out. :)
I'm just using the rules on Item Familiars to fill in any gaps in the rules.