Why do you think the require it to be worn or wielded? Why do they have a penalty if you don't?But it is something, and the fact that it specifically must be exposed indicates the developers intended it to be exploitable.Where's it say it must be exposed?
And if we're speculating about developer intentions; the drawbacks are there. It takes a slot/hand to have with you. If you're imprisoned and stripped of all your posessions, you lose it.
There's no indication that the devs intended it to be identified and sundered.
Worn amulet or ring takes up your amulet or ring slot respectively. Wielded staff or wand takes up your hand. Like I said. That is the cost of having a bonded item.
While staff or wand is 'exposed', you don't need to wield it in particular way as to be recognized as a bonded item. Amulets and rings need not be exposed at all.
There is nothing to suggest this should be exploitable by enemies.
-EDIT-
Or wait! Do you mean from roleplaying aspect? It's actually quite irrelevant because you're calling for a rule mechanics way of identification. The book doesn't give reasons but I can give you some suggestions.
Self confidence. The wizard has always been practicing magic with his favourite wand. He feels comfortable casting with it and lost without it.
Superstition. Wizard cast his first spell while wearing his lucky amulet, so he believes he needs it to be effective.
There are even several similar well known cases in the real world. Fighter pilots taking a cigar with them, race car drivers attaching a gum to their dashboard, actor going to auditions always in their lucky underwear or something.
But I think that should really be up to the individual player.
Well, a critical smite can defeat most casters, if evil.
"Defeating" a class shouldn't come down to a simple roll.Or a charging Cavalier with a lance.
Or a Monk with Quivering Palm.
Or a caster with...well...a lot of different spells.
These are special attacks of different classes capable of devastating any character/monster on varying degrees.
We're talking about applying a weakness to a single class feature capable of devastating the character who picks that feature.
Totally. Different.
I guess if the wizard was helpless and had not memorized spells nor cast any buffs that might be the case. I operate with the idea there is some sort of intelligent game play going on, my apologies if my npc's aren't simpletons and stand there for smites, charges, quivering palms and anything else that might be thrown at them.
"Defeating" a class shouldn't come down to a simple roll..
Well, a critical smite can defeat most casters, if evil..
Or a charging Cavalier with a lance.
.
Or a Monk with Quivering Palm.
.
Or a caster with...well...a lot of different spells.Because your wizard always wins initiative and/or can resist fort save or die attacks?
I'm going to ask you to put away the Epeen and stop as it is just leading to a thread derail.
|
I'm going to ask you to put away the Epeen and stop as it is just leading to a thread derail.I guess if the wizard was helpless and had not memorized spells nor cast any buffs that might be the case. I operate with the idea there is some sort of intelligent game play going on, my apologies if my npc's aren't simpletons and stand there for smites, charges, quivering palms and anything else that might be thrown at them.
"Defeating" a class shouldn't come down to a simple roll..
Well, a critical smite can defeat most casters, if evil..
Or a charging Cavalier with a lance.
.
Or a Monk with Quivering Palm.
.
Or a caster with...well...a lot of different spells.Because your wizard always wins initiative and/or can resist fort save or die attacks?
Pot. Kettle.
Still no answer from you on how to identify the item. Which is on topic. I am pretty sure that I know the intent of the OP after all.
Knowledge checks still have to available from some source. If the wizard never told anyone except his party members the information is not available.
You're right, sometimes information simply is not avaliable. But, and this is a big but, it up to the GM to decide what is or it isn't.
It's included in the description of the skill.Thinking about this, even if you only tell something to you closest friends or associates, sometimes the truth may slip. For example: When in LOTR the hobbits are waiting for Gandalf in the Prancing Pony, one of the hobbits blows their cover in his alcoholic stupor...
"Baggins? I Know a Baggins. It's right there; Frodo Baggins, third cousin...Blah blah blah."
I like to think that characters, PCs and NPCs don't live in a vacuum and thus are subject to the same abstract rules. Micromanaging knowledge avaliable is not where I put my effort when GMing, If anyone wants to do it I won't object, my point being that the ruleset allows for both playstyles and interpretations.
As an example certain monsters are easier to identify because they are common, and easier to escape from, and defeat. High CR dragons on the other hand have abilities that are not known to many people because the chance of encountering one and surviving is very slim.
That's the reasoning behind the scaling DCs. We're on the same page here.
If the DM throws a monster at you that is one of a kind, and you are the first adventurers to go against it you might be able to figure you the creature type, but knowing it's abilities, barring magical divination is impossible because nobody has returned to record the information.
With all due respect, GMs don't "throw" monsters at you. Creatures exist in the campaign world before and sometimes after the encounter.
Lore should be avaliable about anything, even if it's inaccurate or even deliberately misleading.Knowledge local gives good general information, but it would be hard to find specific information.
Maybe here you are thinking on 3.5 gather information? A Knowledge check is as especific and precise as the roll allows it.
In ROTRL, most of the information about The BBEG is literally lost until some point in the adventure. But when the information becomes avaliable then it gets as specific as the roll increases.
Making info avaliable/not avaliable is thd GM's job.
If the wizard was low level he only has a few items on him so figuring out the bonded item may not be that hard. It is perfectly reasonable, and possible to switch the arcane item later in your career without anyone knowing.
I've always assumed that when your selection of familiar or arcane bond is made it's permanent. You choose a raven, it stays a raven throughout all your career, likewise with a ring or sword.
I could be wrong, though.EDIT:barring certain feats
I am not against knowledge local giving hints as to what it might be, but saying it is specifically the ring or sword, as an example would not work.
Well, quoting LOTR again, Gandalf bluffs wis way into bringing his staff with him into Theoden's throne room. Much to the dismay of Grima Wormtongue.
Here maybe the guard at the door failed to identificate the staff as a focus and item of power, thinking it was only the old man's walking aid but Grima specifically knew about it.
I know LOTR is not Pathfinder and Gandalf's staff could or could not be his arcane bond. But is sets a precedent IMO.
By the rules knowledge local is strained to single out an individual. Gather information, which was mentioned in the previous post is better for finding the answer. The knowledge local check could be used outside of combat, but if you are in combat, and have no idea who you are fighting other than he/she is a wizard I don't see how it could help.
Mmmm, very difficult yes, but not impossible. If the wizard you are confronting is a complete stranger that pops out of nowhere just to strike at you... Well then you're just out of luck.
As many have said before me sometimes you cannot "roll" your way out of a situation. And it's OK.
EDIT:a couple of typos
|
|
Why do you think the require it to be worn or wielded? Why do they have a penalty if you don't?But it is something, and the fact that it specifically must be exposed indicates the developers intended it to be exploitable.Where's it say it must be exposed?
And if we're speculating about developer intentions; the drawbacks are there. It takes a slot/hand to have with you. If you're imprisoned and stripped of all your posessions, you lose it.
There's no indication that the devs intended it to be identified and sundered.
Worn amulet or ring takes up your amulet or ring slot respectively. Wielded staff or wand takes up your hand. Like I said. That is the cost of having a bonded item.
While staff or wand is 'exposed', you don't need to wield it in particular way as to be recognized as a bonded item. Amulets and rings need not be exposed at all.
There is nothing to suggest this should be exploitable by enemies.
-EDIT-
Or wait! Do you mean from roleplaying aspect? It's actually quite irrelevant because you're calling for a rule mechanics way of identification. The book doesn't give reasons but I can give you some suggestions.
Self confidence. The wizard has always been practicing magic with his favourite wand. He feels comfortable casting with it and lost without it.
Superstition. Wizard cast his first spell while wearing his lucky amulet, so he believes he needs it to be effective.
There are even several similar well known cases in the real world. Fighter pilots taking a cigar with them, race car drivers attaching a gum to their dashboard, actor going to auditions always in their lucky underwear or something.
But I think that should really be up to the individual player.
I don't see it that way, personally, but at least you have a point of view and I respect that.
Thank you.
I think this thread stopped being about a rules question some time ago. It is locked. If you feel the topic still requires discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.