Bonded objects

[Rogar Valertis]

A simple (and maybe noobish) question: if a wizard chooses a wand as a bonded item, does it have any charges or is it just a wand with no charges in anything?
I ask because it seems it makes little sense to choose anything but a weapon at first level (it's masterwork quality, but that's a factor for weapons only), yet giving a wizard a free magic item at first level seems a bit much.
Another question I have is this: under arcane bond the ruling says

At 1st level, wizards form a powerful bond with an object or a creature. This bond can take one of two forms: a familiar or a bonded object. A familiar is a magical pet that enhances the wizard's skills and senses and can aid him in magic, while a bonded object is an item a wizard can use to cast additional spells or to serve as a magical item. Once a wizard makes this choice, it is permanent and cannot be changed.

My question is this: is this about the familiar or bonded object choice OR is it also means once you choose a type of bonded object that's it? I think it's onloy the former but I want to be sure.

Thanks for the help.

[Happler]

For the bonded wand. Until you craft it into a full magic wand, it is merely a masterwork stick that you wave about to cast. You must still craft (with craft wand) it to add charges.

for the second question, the permanent choice (from my understanding) is the choice between a familiar or a bonded object.

Once you have a bonded object instead of a pet, you must always have a bonded object. I assume that you can swap bonded objects, just like you swap familiars, but you cannot swap between bonded objects and familiars.

[Cheapy]

You can change your bonded object to another object, but you cannot change your bonded object to a familiar.

Remember that you can enchant your bonded object as if you had the item creation feat it would use. So once you hit level 5, you can put a spell in that wand without actually taking Craft Wand.

[Kantrip]

I would suggest having an amulet as a bonded item. You will get to the level for "Craft Wondrous Items" quicker than craft wands, weapons, staff, etc. and can add something to it pretty cheaply, such as a skill bonus.
A skill bonus costs 100 GP per point squared, so it's a cheap magic item and could be helpful on a skill you want to use often.

[LazarX]

Any bonded item is essentially just a masterwork item with the bonded item power i.e. 1/day pull a spell out of your books's rear end. (which is NOT a trivial ability)

You basically however can enchant it appropriately as if you had the feat that corresponded to it's form, in this case, Craft Wand. Which is not a bad move for those situational spells, that come in handy once in a blue moon but very needed when that happens. Mount, Endure Elements, although you might have to wait until you made it to the appropriate caster level to otherwise qualify for the feat.

My wizard is using an amulet at this point, he plans on switching to staff once he's got a nice kit of resources to enchant the staff the way he wants it.

I see no reason for a wizard to choose a weapon unless he's one of those suicidal types who wants to engage in melee.

[Rogar Valertis]

Thanks everyone it's all clear now.
The wizard I'm building is a dwarven trasmuter I plan to specialize in item creation, so an hammer as a starting bonded item seemed a fine idea from a thematic point of view although I agree sending a wizard in melee is just suicidal.
I'll probably go with an amulet then.

[Happler]

Rogar Valertis wrote:

Thanks everyone it's all clear now.

The wizard I'm building is a dwarven trasmuter I plan to specialize in item creation, so an hammer as a starting bonded item seemed a fine idea from a thematic point of view although I agree sending a wizard in melee is just suicidal.
I'll probably go with an amulet then.

the issue with the hammer, is that you have to have it readied for combat to cast. So, with a 1 handed weapon, you would have to have it in hand. For a 2 handed weapon, you suddenly do not have a free hand for somatic components (as the correct way to wield a 2-handed weapon is in both hands).

[Kantrip]

With a dwarven wizard I'd consider going Universalist and take the hammer as a bonded item. You would get "Hand of the Apprentice" which allows you to throw a weapon and have it return instantly to you 3 + your Int bonus times/day. What dwarf wouldn't want a dwarven thrower variation?
That way, you'd never have to go into melee, plus you'd always have your bonded item out and get dual use from it.

[blackbloodtroll]

Can a bonded object be a golem, like a animated object? What happens when you make your bonded object a intelligent item?

[Jiggy]

Happler wrote:

For a 2 handed weapon, you suddenly do not have a free hand for somatic components (as the correct way to wield a 2-handed weapon is in both hands).

It's been clarified by SKR (unfortunately I don't have a link) that a bonded weapon wasn't meant to be "wielded" in that sense - you just need to have it out and in-hand. So a 2H weapon could simply be held in one hand to let you cast.

[Happler]

Jiggy wrote:

Happler wrote:

For a 2 handed weapon, you suddenly do not have a free hand for somatic components (as the correct way to wield a 2-handed weapon is in both hands).

It's been clarified by SKR (unfortunately I don't have a link) that a bonded weapon wasn't meant to be "wielded" in that sense - you just need to have it out and in-hand. So a 2H weapon could simply be held in one hand to let you cast.

That is good to hear, (and I would love to see the link). This makes an arcane archer who wants a bonded bow better.

[OldManAlexi]

Jiggy wrote:

It's been clarified by SKR (unfortunately I don't have a link) that a bonded weapon wasn't meant to be "wielded" in that sense - you just need to have it out and in-hand. So a 2H weapon could simply be held in one hand to let you cast.

Really? I thought someone made a statement saying that the bonded weapon had to be properly wielded for it to work properly, making 2H weapons a poor choice. I could be wrong though so don't quote me on it.

[Heaven's Agent]

I noticed this when I answered a similar question elsewhere on the boards, so I might as well post the replay here as well. I did not find the clarification by SKR that Jiggy mentioned. If it actually exists I would love the link. Unless it turns up, though, I believe the only clarification we have is from James Jacobs (link):

James Jacobs wrote:

An arcane bonded weapon must be wielded in order for it to have effect. This, unfortunately, does mean that two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components. Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object.

[Freaky Liar]

It was not really a clarification as much as "oh wait let's not do that because it's dumb."

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?

It means "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'" :)

link

[Heaven's Agent]

Freaky Liar wrote:

It was not really a clarification as much as "oh wait let's not do that because it's dumb."

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?

It means "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'" :)

link

Yuck, that's a facepalm post if ever I saw one. He essentially confirms JJ's earlier clarification, but then goes on to indicate it will be changed. In the future. When they get around to changing the text. Which hasn't happened yet. Thanks for the link, even if it won't necessarily be valid as a ruling until the text is changed. At which point it will no longer be needed.

It's worse than an MMORPG developer saying they'll add something "soon".

[Jiggy]

On the bright side, that's the post I was thinking of. On the less-bright side, I guess I misremembered the level of finality/rulingness in it. :P