This is an amusing conversation. I'm in.

My current wizard has a familiar because, due to roleplaying stuff, I would have had to take a weapon as my arcane bond. Out in the open as an easy target for disarming or sundering, and obviously problematic for the "No weapons in the throne room" scenario, that was right out. If I could have taken a ring, there's a good chance I would have.

The familiar I do have has been invaluable in espionage and boosting/rerolling pretty much every skill check I make. Once I get Use Magic Device (have to wait for upgrading my headband), she'll have plenty to do in combat as well.

To answer to the original question, I don't find familiars vulnerable. If you send them to deliver touch attacks, yes, they are a 200 gp/level Spectral Hand. If they are just using wands or spell-like abilities, it's a desperate/crazy/spiteful DM indeed that would go after them - the PCs should be causing many more problems. They are somewhat vulnerable to area effects, sure, but they do have Improved Evasion and a generally good reflex save. Worst comes to worst, go with what others have said. Keep them in some sort of familiar hidey-place and enjoy Improved Initiative x2.

Well, my point is that if you're ruling that things like Rings can't be sundered, you are GREATLY diminishing the power of Sunder. Sunder lets you attack ANY item being wielded or WORN. I could sunder your clothes if I wanted (Kinda like a cartoon ninja or something, leaving you standing in your underwear).

If all you let someone target with a sunder action is weapons and armor, you're greatly reducing the utility and I don't think that's fair.

You shouldn't take penalties for trying to pickpocket a sleeping person, you should get bonuses.

Why yes clearly that is exactly what I was advocating wait a minute no it wasn't did you read my post at all stop making nonsense up.

Elamdri wrote:

You shouldn't take penalties for trying to pickpocket a sleeping person, you should get bonuses.

Why yes clearly that is exactly what I was advocating wait a minute no it wasn't did you read my post at all stop making nonsense up.

Well you keep going back to this weird notion that someone is just going to walk up to someone in broad daylight and try to pickpocket their ring, and that's emphatically not what I was talking about all thread.

I have used both. If I go the familiar route it is so it can use wands with UMD plus any special abilities it may have.

The bonded item is nice also:

You need a 2nd casting of ____, and you only prepped it once. Bonded item FTW.

My main temptation for a familiar would be for the +4 initiative dinosaur. Tho I guess it depends on the rest of my build. I guess on an EK I might go with a ring and hide it under gloves or something. Bleh. Hate it tho. :) Makes me nervous.

That dino is nice. :)

Any sane GM is going to impose massive circumstance penalties (or inflated DC's) for trying to steal a ring from a finger.

Any sane GM is going to laugh at you if you say you're going to smash a ring on someone's finger with your greataxe.

I can't imagine its any harder than taking clothes off a sleeping person and I've done that plenty of times.

Roberta Yang wrote:

Any sane GM is going to impose massive circumstance penalties (or inflated DC's) for trying to steal a ring from a finger.

Any sane GM is going to laugh at you if you say you're going to smash a ring on someone's finger with your greataxe.

I can't imagine its any harder than taking clothes off a sleeping person and I've done that plenty of times.

In game or real life? And were they drunk at the time?

I also think it would be much harder to take a ring off then someones clothes to be honest. An amulet not so much.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Roberta Yang wrote:

Any sane GM is going to impose massive circumstance penalties (or inflated DC's) for trying to steal a ring from a finger.

Any sane GM is going to laugh at you if you say you're going to smash a ring on someone's finger with your greataxe.

I can't imagine its any harder than taking clothes off a sleeping person and I've done that plenty of times.

In game or real life? And were they drunk at the time?

I also think it would be much harder to take a ring off then someones clothes to be honest. An amulet not so much.

Real life and some were sober while others weren't(my kids and a few ex's after a hard night of partying... other times before a good night of partying).

Rings really are that hard unless they are too small for the person wearing them (not a problem with magic rings).

Well, my point is that if you're ruling that things like Rings can't be sundered, you are GREATLY diminishing the power of Sunder. Sunder lets you attack ANY item being wielded or WORN. I could sunder your clothes if I wanted (Kinda like a cartoon ninja or something, leaving you standing in your underwear).

If all you let someone target with a sunder action is weapons and armor, you're greatly reducing the utility and I don't think that's fair.

Even if rings can be sundered, the situations you're describing are fairly unlikely, and require the kind of spiteful GM who would find a way to screw you regardless of class feature.

Honestly I do not find it to be a liability, but rather I take bonded item for basically a super-pearl of power, and the ability to make a master ring by adding enchantments without having forge ring. For a wiz that is not an item craftier, its a great little thing to use.

At the end of the day I like the familiar more because I (personally) can do more with than the item and enjoy it more. This doesn't mean I wouldn't ever take the item or that the item is a horrible choice. But it does come with more drawbacks and you do need to be at least slightly careful with it.

Both options have drawbacks when they are not available anymore. It is quite fine IMO.

If the GM never targets/destroys the bonded object because the wizard's player would start crying, then by the same token he should make the familiar impervious to any form of harm or mind-control.

Of course, the next step is then to give a similar immunity to the goodies of the other classes too.

After a while, the GM should not be surprised that his players get bored.

Roberta Yang wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Well, nothing you can do about GM Fiat.

Why do people act like it's a bad thing when the GM makes rulings for corner cases where the rules as written lead to stupid conclusions?

Because I disagree that it's a stupid conclusion.

You shouldn't take penalties for trying to pickpocket a sleeping person, you should get bonuses.

Likewise, why is it stupid for someone to try and sunder a ring? You saying my barbarian can't crush the magic stone on his enemy's ring with his greathammer?

you DO get a bonus vs somebody sleeping in that they are at a -10 to their opposed check. That does not mean that the difficulty of taking something on their belt should be the same as a ring worn on the finger.

Okay...so with all this sundering of rings question...how does anyone even KNOW what to sunder to begin with?!? Does arcane bonded items have a big sign that flashes I AM AN ARCANE BOND or something? I get the feeling that GMs who are sundering arcane bonds maybe the ones who are in trouble of doing GM fiat vs the ones who increase DC for certain actions which is ACTUALLY ALLOWED BY RAW.

If that is your arguement for taking a Bonded Object, you might as well play a half elf sorcerer. Paragon Surge gives greater versatility without the liability of being forced into concentration checks if you lose your bonded item.

Personally, I go with a greensting scorpion and have it hide in my bag. No figure on the table and no line of effect for offensive spells. As I side benefit, I feel sorry for any rogues that inappropriatly touch my stuff.

Again, when are you going to lose your Bonded Item that often?

Unless you're playing a Wizard that likes to make a pair of scissors his bonded item and leaves them lying around all over the place I don't see an issue. Make it a ring and they basically have to take your hand off to get your item destroyed, and limb mutilation ain't exactly common in your run of the mill combat.

Artanthos wrote:

If that is your arguement for taking a Bonded Object, you might as well play a half elf sorcerer. Paragon Surge gives greater versatility without the liability of being forced into concentration checks if you lose your bonded item.

Personally, I go with a greensting scorpion and have it hide in my bag. No figure on the table and no line of effect for offensive spells. As I side benefit, I feel sorry for any rogues that inappropriatly touch my stuff.

Again, when are you going to lose your Bonded Item that often?

Unless you're playing a Wizard that likes to make a pair of scissors his bonded item and leaves them lying around all over the place I don't see an issue. Make it a ring and they basically have to take your hand off to get your item destroyed, and limb mutilation ain't exactly common in your run of the mill combat.

See...you say that, and yet the last time we had a bonded object in our group, the hand that was holding it got ripped off.

See...you say that, and yet the last time we had a bonded object in our group, the hand that was holding it got ripped off.

And that's all well and good, but an anecdote of "this one time..." does not negate the fact that MOST OF THE TIME it's not going to happen.

I know, it was just kinda funny.

I still say Familiar is better

Bonded Object = 1 spell slot a day

Imp Familiar with UMD: I potentially have access to every spell in the game and have essentially a second character.

i think familiars are a great deal, even if you don't get the class ability special effects (i.e. you multiclass out),
HPs and Saves and Skills (as well as HD-linked abilities, if you have Improved Familiar) all still scale,
the remaining class abilities may be nice, but they are definitely not required.

People keep questioning how enemies are supposed to figure out what is the bonded object without metagaming. But remember, you are a wizard, your dump stat is likely CHA, you are not good at bluffing.

My real point is that if you use the bonded object in a battle to get the free spell, it will make it obvious that it is an important object. Even if it wasn't the bonded object, the enemies will at least be able to figure out it is magic and has access to a spell up to your current spell level. At any level, that would be relatively valuable based off of the level of enemies you face. That could sell for a lot, and it is something you want to get rid of if you want to kill someone.

"oh, his staff can cast fireballs, I bet I could sell it for a lot"
"oh, his amulet lets him turn into a Huge dragon *Dragon form III* that would be an invaluable asset to our military, get a mercenary to take it off him while he sleeps"

So while you could find all sorts of cute ways to hide your object such as making it a ring and hiding it among many rings, I highly doubt that it would not give some visual indication when you draw magic from it. And while the GM might be far more persistent about destroying a bonded object, I could see an enemy targeting any magical ring of sufficient power if they had the ability (whether sunder gives them the ability is a separate discussion)

People keep questioning how enemies are supposed to figure out what is the bonded object without metagaming. But remember, you are a wizard, your dump stat is likely CHA, you are not good at bluffing.

Oh no, there goes my plan to constantly shout "My bonded object is the amulet, not the ring!" throughout every battle and hope everyone believes me.

People keep questioning how enemies are supposed to figure out what is the bonded object without metagaming. But remember, you are a wizard, your dump stat is likely CHA, you are not good at bluffing.

Not good at bluffing =/= you tell people what your item is

It just means that when asked directly you probably aren't going to be able to lie to them.

My real point is that if you use the bonded object in a battle to get the free spell, it will make it obvious that it is an important object. Even if it wasn't the bonded object, the enemies will at least be able to figure out it is magic and has access to a spell up to your current spell level. At any level, that would be relatively valuable based off of the level of enemies you face. That could sell for a lot, and it is something you want to get rid of if you want to kill someone.

"oh, his staff can cast fireballs, I bet I could sell it for a lot"
"oh, his amulet lets him turn into a Huge dragon *Dragon form III* that would be an invaluable asset to our military, get a mercenary to take it off him while he sleeps"

How do they know you're not just casting Form of the Dragon? YOU'RE A F#@+ING WIZARD, you cast spells. It's kinda what you do.

Besides that, they've probably got bigger problems with the huge dragon flying around at that point.

So while you could find all sorts of cute ways to hide your object such as making it a ring and hiding it among many rings, I highly doubt that it would not give some visual indication when you draw magic from it. And while the GM might be far more persistent about destroying a bonded object, I could see an enemy targeting any magical ring of sufficient power if they had the ability (whether sunder gives them the ability is a separate discussion)

If I'm close enough to make a strike against that itty bitty item hanging off the Wizard I'm probably close enough to just chop his head off.

I've never understood the argument against either arcane bond (familiar or object) that "the enemy will just target 'X'". I currently am a GM and have a PC pretty effectively using his owl familiar. They've gone against a villain who's come back into the game (a sprite sorceress) who is really intelligent; both times she's just taken out the wizard either with a charm or a whole horde of minions.

My thought for her was this: I COULD target the owl since I know from the first time we tangled that he has some special connection to it...but I also know he's about 98 lbs wet and a few good smacks to the noggin takes him AND the owl out!

As for what kind of bond I prefer, I go familiar all the way. It is upgradable through traits, feats, spells (sometimes made permanent), magic items and substances. It offers a good deal of utility at all levels and while it'll never be combat ready no matter HOW you multiclass when compared to an animal companion it CAN be used creatively for one-off, all or nothing combats when you pull out all the stops.

Plus I love them thematically. There's something satisfying to my old-school fantasy ethic to imagining a wisened wizard, conversing with a black cat as he peruses his spellbook under an oak tree studying his spells for the day. You just don't get the same feeling when the wizard talks to his ring, calling it "precious" all creepy like that...

Now the "pulling spells out of nowhere" thing hasn't come up in my games for familiar-using wizards, mainly because they make TONS of scrolls, even spending starting gold for some. I haven't played PFS so I don't know what the reality of doing this would be outside of a home-game, but I can only speak to my own experience. I think this is a matter of opinion, but I WILL say that in a couple instances in my previous campaign the PC's cat familiar was allowed to have a couple magic item slots that were then filled with utility items to fill in the gaps of the wizard's battle-centric spell selection.

I haven't gotten high enough level to witness the change over to an improved familiar. Personally I dislike the idea of replacing a familiar on purely thematic grounds. Its like you're ditching your old pet for a new and improved model. However my current players and I came up with a compromise that made it more palatable to me: when the PC takes and uses the feat its not that they dismiss the old familiar, but rather transform it into this new form. The PC in question is thinking of a homonculus, so basically his owl will become a feathery construct, sort of an animated stuffed bird. Creepy but hey; works for me.

All this brings me to that AGE-OLD dilemma: what if we're captured and all our stuff gets taken? Well it's only happened once and it was a while back when I was playing as a PC with an owl myself. When the battle against the orcs turned bad I sent my owl off into the caves to hide nearby. Then we got captured, tortured down to 1 hp and thrown in cells a level below. While the rest of the players were freaking about their 9 levels of gear having been taken I calmly called my familiar, it eventually found its way to me moving slowly with it's full stealth skills, and then it flew some stones to the cleric, who cast magic stone and helped it take out the guard. Guard destroyed, keys delivered; end of imprisonment.

In that last example the bonded object would've allowed you to hurl a fireball, I get that. But in that instance the demon commanding the orcs was ridiculously thorough; I can't guarantee that my bonded object would've been accessible. But my owl and those rocks were...

When you play Pathfinder, does your GM make "sunder absolutely every piece of magical equipment anyone is wearing" the standard battle tactic of most enemies? What does the fighter think of having her expensive sword shattered every encounter?

Wow, I have taken too many literature classes. The bluff thing was a joke, more about the player's attempt at deception than the characters. I meant that you are not good at hiding your intentions and actions. /not mechanics wise..... headache. An example of the kind of trickery used to completely hid how you are using your bonded object to cast a spell would be to look at the bits about divine focus for the hidden priest archetypes for clerics. It describes in great detail how far you have to go to hide things like this. You can try to be cute all you want, but the GM just has to have one enemy with a pumped up Spellcraft to see through it and tell the others.

Yes, you can cast the spell, but there are a lot of items that give off magical effects too. If you use your bonded item to get one of your spells, how is the enemy supposed to tell the difference? I know, I am going for a weird little place of enemies smart enough to notice, but not smart enough to realize its nature. I have little experience on the matter, and it is likely largely gm dependent. I get that I suck at getting at the mechanical aspects of this, and I am a lowly noob, but can we have civil discussion? really. If it makes you happy, I will not post in this thread after this so as not to offend your delicate senses any further.

So yes, it is weird that they can target tiny little objects, but your barbarian can also use a greatsword to target a fine size monster just as well as with a dagger, so why not? We are fairly divided from physics. While you can argue about the exact detais, the sunder is still possible. The rest is just a few made up numbers. Remember, gm has the final word, no matter what the rules say. If you have a jerk gm, they can get your item destroyed. If your gm is that out to get you, go with the 'safer option.' Most of all, try not to get a jerk gm.

Wow, I have taken too many literature classes. The bluff thing was a joke, more about the player's attempt at deception than the characters. I meant that you are not good at hiding your intentions and actions. /not mechanics wise..... headache. An example of the kind of trickery used to completely hid how you are using your bonded object to cast a spell would be to look at the bits about divine focus for the hidden priest archetypes for clerics. It describes in great detail how far you have to go to hide things like this. You can try to be cute all you want, but the GM just has to have one enemy with a pumped up Spellcraft to see through it and tell the others.

Not sure who you're responding to so I'll take a crack at it.

The point was that you don't need to bluff or Bluff in this case. You're not tying to hide your intentions or lie about what you're doing or pretend it's another item.

How the bonded item works is as long as you've got it on you (wielded for weapons, but just worn for all else) you're gold. It works as a focus as long as it's on you.

That's it. Maybe it gives off a faint glow, I dunno, but if you want to argue that magic items glow in the dark when in use (and I consider this a constant effect item, especially since once the Wizard gets Craft Ring you can be sure it WILL be) I hardly see the need for the umpty billion light creating spells and items there are in this game.

Yes, you can cast the spell, but there are a lot of items that give off magical effects too. If you use your bonded item to get one of your spells, how is the enemy supposed to tell the difference? I know, I am going for a weird little place of enemies smart enough to notice, but not smart enough to realize its nature. I have little experience on the matter, and it is likely largely gm dependent. I get that I suck at getting at the mechanical aspects of this, and I am a lowly noob, but can we have civil discussion? really. If it makes you happy, I will not post in this thread after this so as not to offend your delicate senses any further.

I think that's basically what I said up further so I'm pretty sure this isn't for me to catch.

Moving on.

So yes, it is weird that they can target tiny little objects, but your barbarian can also use a greatsword to target a fine size monster just as well as with a dagger, so why not? We are fairly divided from physics. While you can argue about the exact detais, the sunder is still possible. The rest is just a few made up numbers. Remember, gm has the final word, no matter what the rules say. If you have a jerk gm, they can get your item destroyed. If your gm is that out to get you, go with the 'safer option.' Most of all, try not to get a jerk gm.

Just want to point out that while you can TARGET a Diminutive/Fine creature with your dagger, the fact that they're immune to weapon damage makes the whole point moot.

Rynjin:

Diminutive and Fine creatures are not immune to weapon damage. Swarms of Diminutive and Fine creatures are immune to weapon damage.

- Gauss

Rynjin:

Diminutive and Fine creatures are not immune to weapon damage. Swarms of Diminutive and Fine creatures are immune to weapon damage.

- Gauss

Oh.

My mistake.

No worries Rynjin, I make errors too at times. :D

- Gauss

People keep questioning how enemies are supposed to figure out what is the bonded object without metagaming. But remember, you are a wizard, your dump stat is likely CHA, you are not good at bluffing.

My real point is that if you use the bonded object in a battle to get the free spell, it will make it obvious that it is an important object. Even if it wasn't the bonded object, the enemies will at least be able to figure out it is magic and has access to a spell up to your current spell level. At any level, that would be relatively valuable based off of the level of enemies you face. That could sell for a lot, and it is something you want to get rid of if you want to kill someone.

"oh, his staff can cast fireballs, I bet I could sell it for a lot"
"oh, his amulet lets him turn into a Huge dragon *Dragon form III* that would be an invaluable asset to our military, get a mercenary to take it off him while he sleeps"

So while you could find all sorts of cute ways to hide your object such as making it a ring and hiding it among many rings, I highly doubt that it would not give some visual indication when you draw magic from it. And while the GM might be far more persistent about destroying a bonded object, I could see an enemy targeting any magical ring of sufficient power if they had the ability (whether sunder gives them the ability is a separate discussion)

What the hell does bluffing have to do with anything unless you constantly try yell out loud that your ring is not your arcane bond.

Oh a ring that produces magic...how is that any more of a worthwhile target then the fighter's weapon? Or the staff or wand the wizard is huring spells out of? Or the boots that is letting the fighter fly to reach you? Or do your games involve sundering of everything that gives a player any advantage at all every single time? And how long does that last before the players go screw this, and opens a make whole shop and make a fortune?

So you steal an item while they sleep and leave them alive as a commander of some sort...how the hell did your 10 IQ self get to be a commander?!?

You don't even have to hide it. There are PLENTY of magical items in the party...unless everyone is getting their crap sundered all over the place, targeting JUST the arcane bond item is metagaming and quite frankly pure DM fiat realm. It is also piss poor DMing IMHO as you might as well just ban the wizard class if your gonna do that instead of be passive agressive about a class.

To be honest, I've always imagined an arcane bond as something you'd have to hold aloft or present flamboyantly to use or something of that nature. I know the rules don't say anything to support this, but every time I imagine a wizard using an arcane object, I imagine him holding the it aloft and yelling "BONDED OBJECT HO!!!" Anything else just seems...wrong.

All,

It seems to me that a bonded item is a massive risk. Its cool to have but if taken, the downside is atrocious.

Familiars can get killed, but I think they have no real down sides when they are dead. But if I only have a few Wizard levels on a multiclassed character, wont it be tedious to keep them alive?

Is there a Familiar Pocket spell in Pathfinder? Can I simply not summon a familiar? Is there any legal way to trade out a familiar without having to takea feat or trait hit? And preferably without archetypes?

Thanks.

Familiar Satchel from the Ultimate Equipment, 25g. DONE.

Wow, I have taken too many literature classes. The bluff thing was a joke, more about the player's attempt at deception than the characters. I meant that you are not good at hiding your intentions and actions. /not mechanics wise..... headache. An example of the kind of trickery used to completely hid how you are using your bonded object to cast a spell would be to look at the bits about divine focus for the hidden priest archetypes for clerics. It describes in great detail how far you have to go to hide things like this. You can try to be cute all you want, but the GM just has to have one enemy with a pumped up Spellcraft to see through it and tell the others.

Yes, you can cast the spell, but there are a lot of items that give off magical effects too. If you use your bonded item to get one of your spells, how is the enemy supposed to tell the difference? I know, I am going for a weird little place of enemies smart enough to notice, but not smart enough to realize its nature. I have little experience on the matter, and it is likely largely gm dependent. I get that I suck at getting at the mechanical aspects of this, and I am a lowly noob, but can we have civil discussion? really. If it makes you happy, I will not post in this thread after this so as not to offend your delicate senses any further.

So yes, it is weird that they can target tiny little objects, but your barbarian can also use a greatsword to target a fine size monster just as well as with a dagger, so why not? We are fairly divided from physics. While you can argue about the exact detais, the sunder is still possible. The rest is just a few made up numbers. Remember, gm has the final word, no matter what the rules say. If you have a jerk gm, they can get your item destroyed. If your gm is that out to get you, go with the 'safer option.' Most of all, try not to get a jerk gm.

The issue isn't a mechanical one...it is a DM fiat one. There really is no way to tell an arcane bond item for what it is...not even with a spellcraft check...not even as a wizard who as an arcane bond item in combat. You can do so if you can study the item while on the wizard for three rounds of thoroughly examining it(as the item off the wizard becomes a normal item). That is not gonna happen in combat...that is not gonna happen in general. So yes if your targeting the wizard's arcane bond, it is DM fiat land in almost all cases. Also lets say the arcane bond is the ring. You are saying that the ring should be a valid target because it is clearly magical and so a valid target...are the other partymembers magical rings getting the same treatement? If not...once again DM fiat land...and a bad DM being passive aggressive. And yes don't play with jerks solves a lot of issues...but by default, a DM being passive agressive and using all those excuses you gave to target an arcane bond while leaving everyone else's stuff alone is a jerk.

edit: Don't leave on our account. We generally have thick skin and honestly don't care much...but we do like to tear at rather half thought out arguments so you may want to come up with better reasoning then arcane bonds should be targeted because they are magical.

um, yeah... suffice it to say, there's nothing in the rules to suggest that using the bonded object to recall and cast any known spell 'looks' any different than using it to cast ANY of your spells (which requires you to simply be wearing or wielding the item, i.e. how normal people wear jewelry or wield weapons... no special 'presentation' of the item ala Channel Energy or He-Man chants of 'I... HAVE... THE POWER!!!'). i guess one could have IMAGINED that there was some special ritual involved in doing so, but generally speaking there's no general assumption that this is the case: one could IMAGINE many things, but people can't read one's mind and aren't likely to wholesale subscribe to whatever one wants to imagine out of thin air.

@lemeres: i think your role-playing skills for the victim role are down pretty solid, but you might want to consider branching out in roles. you don't need to be an uber rules-expert to positively partake of these discussion forums, but when people are obviously discussing what is stated/allowed by the rules, don't take offence at that fact, or try and turn your own ignorance of the actual rules into a holy virtue. plenty of people diverge from 'official' rules in their own games, and that's fine and well, but one shouldn't be surprised when people by default are discussing what is actually in the rules.

Personally, I think familiars the better option - but both are solid.

1/2 enchanting cost- without a feat? Whats not to love?
Personally I pick rings. Plain, boring (it doesn't radiate magic,iirc). And hitting a ring - well with its tiny size -- lets just say its just as productive to hit the mage.

On the familiar side - forget about delivering touch attacks.
Its all about action economy... 2x rolls on skills, and umd'ing wands...

Not offended, just pointing out that you're giving out incorrect information. If "using armor = screwed", and I'm using armor, then I must be screwed. But I'm not screwed, therefore your statement was wrong.

And pointing out incorrect advice/guidance is helpful, and therefore in line with the point of Advice threads, as you noted.

I currently have Arcane Armor Mastery (not just Training), and a +2 mithral breastplate. I also carry a wand of shield in a spring-loaded wrist sheath. I'm also a Foresight wizard with +12 initiative.

If we get ambushed and I don't know what the threat is, or if I want to shift to "melee mode", I pop the wand and have a very respectable AC. Otherwise, I cast spells as needed from the back. All in all, I've ended up as a very versatile and powerful character.

With armor.

Just a note...characters designed for PFS will differ from one built for an AP or a 1-20 game. Your EK will NEVER get the capstone and your ability to make use of quicken spell will be very limited to none existant. It isn't exactly fair to bring in a PFS build when discussing about a in general 1-20 aspect.

i disagree, PFS is a prime venue for the PRPG rules. Paizo's APs and modules don't go to 20th char level or really past 16th, and I'd say that 99.9% of game play doesn't include those high levels either, so I wouldn't consider such high level play to de facto be the frame of reference for people discussing topics here... Assuming that 20th level play is the frame of reference would not be held up by any game play statistics of typical posters, IMHO. I didn't notice 20th level or high level game play mentioned in the OP, so I don't see why it's inherently central to the discussion.

It's certainly a good idea to CLARIFY when one is discussing PFS characters or dynamics, but I would say that it is valid to discuss. Unless there is a PFS specific rule, many topics on Rules Questions or Advice end up getting transferred to those other forums, even when the context is PFS specific dynamics.

i disagree, PFS is a prime venue for the PRPG rules. Paizo's APs and modules don't go to 20th char level or really past 16th, and I'd say that 99.9% of game play doesn't include those high levels either, so I wouldn't consider such high level play to de facto be the frame of reference for people discussing topics here... Assuming that 20th level play is the frame of reference would not be held up by any game play statistics of typical posters, IMHO. I didn't notice 20th level or high level game play mentioned in the OP, so I don't see why it's inherently central to the discussion.

16 is when you get the capstone...the real crux of the issue really. Well quicken spell too...but I suppose having a weaker quicken spell could be viewed as a balancing factor...but I digress. Anyways, a build where you NEVER reach your capstone will differ from one where you do. An EK I make for PFS will no doubt have AAT/AAM and AS. One for an AP? Not really...why? Because as soon as I get enough levels to make use of quicken spells, those feats become redunant. Even more so once the capstone kicks in. Yeah it is for a small segment of the game...but it's not like you exactly have feats to burn here as an EK.

um, yeah... suffice it to say, there's nothing in the rules to suggest that using the bonded object to recall and cast any known spell 'looks' any different than using it to cast ANY of your spells (which requires you to simply be wearing or wielding the item, i.e. how normal people wear jewelry or wield weapons... no special 'presentation' of the item ala Channel Energy or He-Man chants of 'I... HAVE... THE POWER!!!'). i guess one could have IMAGINED that there was some special ritual involved in doing so, but generally speaking there's no general assumption that this is the case: one could IMAGINE many things, but people can't read one's mind and aren't likely to wholesale subscribe to whatever one wants to imagine out of thin air.

Man, comedy is just dead on this forum isn't it.

I know that, I was just trying to funny. My point is, I think Bonded Object without any flair is just silly. Part of the game is to have fun and roleplay.

Sure you could sit back and be like "My bonded object doesn't give itself away, it just sits on my finger and nobody knows it's there and anything to the exclusion of that is DM fiat and yadda yadda yadda"

But isn't that BORING?

Wouldn't you much more prefer to run out on the battlefield and raise your hand to the sky and something awesome like "WONDER TWIN POWERS ACTIVE!" and rain fire from the sky?

It's about thinking cinematic.

Man, comedy is just dead on this forum isn't it.

I know that, I was just trying to funny. My point is, I think Bonded Object without any flair is just silly. Part of the game is to have fun and roleplay.

Sure you could sit back and be like "My bonded object doesn't give itself away, it just sits on my finger and nobody knows it's there and anything to the exclusion of that is DM fiat and yadda yadda yadda"

But isn't that BORING?

Wouldn't you much more prefer to run out on the battlefield and raise your hand to the sky and something awesome like "WONDER TWIN POWERS ACTIVE!" and rain fire from the sky?

It's about thinking cinematic.

Comedy died when people started bring up "The GM's an a$@*++$, he's going to find every possible way he can to screw you" argument.

If we're working under the assumption that your GM is that guy (you all know the one) I'm not going to do any damn thing to draw attention to myself, lest the GM decide Improved Stone Call is a 9th level spell the BBEG made up himself and inscribed in a ton of scrolls he handed out to his minions.

Well, typically I do prepare every character assuming the absolute worst case scenario for every variable I can think of, but that's just because I'm slightly crazy. That being said, it's nice when things don't go south and you can open up a bit as a player.

*Some* wizards have arcane bonded objects, and they can be any of a half-dozen different items on the wizard's person (particularly if he wears multiple rings and / or amulets, some magical, some decorative,
and carries a couple of daggers at his belt and a staff in his hand). The average schmoe won't know which, if any, are the bonded object (since the bonded object might be a dagger he's got hidden in a wrist sheath, and all the other stuff is sunder-bait). The average schmoe probably also won't know the exact mechanical benefits he'll gain from sundering that bonded object in the first place.

But pretty much *everyone* knows that wizards read their spells out of books, and need those books. If someone wants to sunder or destroy or steal something that will bone a wizard, they are ten times more likely to go after the spellbook, than attempting to sunder all of their jewelry and weapons, one at a time...

Misdirection can also be a friend. Let everyone think that a particular item is your bonded object, while keeping the real one concealed. Whisper to the sparkly crystal prism you wear around your neck while preparing spells, while your adamantine ring lies concealed under your silken glove. Purchase a pet raven and teach it to speak a few words in Draconic (or Infernal, or some other language that sounds impressive and that few of your allies will know). Let everyone think it's your familiar. Some fool will eventually gank it, and you can just shake your head and magic missile them in the face, since they've just wasted an action and cost you the 2 gp. it will take to replace Mister Beaky.

If the GM *wants* to bone your wizard, he can't lose that game, but there's no reason to advertise your character weaknesses and encourage that sort of thing as a logical tactic for your enemies.

It's about thinking cinematic.

if you want cinematic, great, but that's hardly something specific to this class ability...

Is this one of those inscrutable cases of 'british humor'? Because I'm missing the punch line.

EDIT: That's what I get for running back and forth between tabs and whatnot. Nevermind D;

*goes back to lurking*

Elamdri wrote:

It's about thinking cinematic.

if you want cinematic, great, but that's hardly something specific to this class ability...

so why bring it up as a 'liability of the class feature'?
i find it bizarre that both you and 'Lemeres' were supposedly 'trying to make a joke'... But you both apparently really do think that bonded items should be 'giving it's self away'... So you weren't really 'making a joke', you were just disputing/interrupting other people's discussion of the rules with your own preference/house-rule.

Is this one of those inscrutable cases of 'british humor'? Because I'm missing the punch line.

Well, I don't think I ever actually used my joke as an argument against bonded object itself. If I did, forgive me. The point of the joke was to poke fun at the idea of all the fuss over bonded rings and trying to keep your bonded object hidden.

My argument against bonded object is summed up as such:

A: I don't think it's impossible for a savvy villain to figure out a wizard's bonded object. It's hard to hide much from someone who's been constantly scrying on the party fighter since you foiled his first plan, at least at low levels anyway. I'm not saying it's the most effective strategy for going about things, but then again not all wizards take bonded rings, and it's certainly possible that a wizard might get feared and drop his bonded sword during a fight for example.

B: If a GM is going to screw with your bonded object, they're going to screw with your bonded object, whether they have to use GM fiat or not. In that scenario, even your best thought out plan isn't going to help you. Sure, you might be absolutely right before the Lord and everyone else, but that does you little good when you don't have the power.

C: Familiar is still better. Bonded Object gets you 1 spontaneous spell slot at your highest level per day and comes with a mechanical penalty for losing it. Familiar provides you with a lot of RP benefits and some nice abilities, action economy, and the ability to upgrade. While yes, your Bonded Object will absolutely get you out of that situation you didn't expect when you need it most, but I'd rather avoid that situation entirely by going out all guns blazing: Throwing out debuffs and control spells while my familiar flies around invisible buffing the party, casting spells not on my list with UMD, using all sorts of powerful spell-like abilities.

I mean, Good lord, if you wanted to be Captain Cheeze-Pants McGillicutty: Have a wizard take Improved Familiar AND Leadership, taking on a Wizard apprentice who ALSO has Improved Familiar. Now you essentially have 4 characters.

"If your GM decides to screw you over, you will be screwed over."

And that's a weakness unique to bonded objects how exactly? Set's right: if the GM wants to screw you over, the spellbook is a much more attractive target.

Me, I love my raven and would not trade it in. . In Combat I have it stay away from me as I know I got a big bulls eye for every ranged attack out there, but before the combat is when I use it most.
See a group of rocks out there ahead on the trail., have the Raven fly over there and take a look.. Bunch of Ogres hiding in them and going to hit them in front and back, Ravens can speak so use it to communicate back and forth. Familiar can be quit versatile if used with a little imagination.
Might point out I play in a low loot game so we dont have a wagon full of magic items to use on encounters

No worries Rynjin, I make errors too at times. :D

- Gauss

You must be really warm wherever you are Gauss, with your pants on fire. Gauss not make mistakes; universe correct itself around Gauss.