Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Are familiars a liability? Esp for a multiclass wizard?


Advice

151 to 174 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Roberta Yang wrote:

"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.

Well, I dunno about you, but I keep multiple spellbooks hidden in various places with varying levels of protection. I only have 1 Bonded Object.


Elamdri wrote:


Well, I dunno about you, but I keep multiple spellbooks hidden in various places with varying levels of protection. I only have 1 Bonded Object.

It's...it's like you just completely forgot the past 3 pages of this thread.

How does someone DO that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

It's...it's like you just completely forgot the past 3 pages of this thread.

How does someone DO that?

Don't you understand? He was Just Joking(tm) and you are a bad person for not being able to understand his superior humor.

Silver Crusade

Rynjin wrote:
Elamdri wrote:


Well, I dunno about you, but I keep multiple spellbooks hidden in various places with varying levels of protection. I only have 1 Bonded Object.

It's...it's like you just completely forgot the past 3 pages of this thread.

How does someone DO that?

Well, to be honest, I have actually forgotten at least the 1st 2 pages somewhat, as this thread is like a week old or something. So educate me, what terrible thing have I forgotten that invalidates my argument that having multiple, hidden spellbooks mitigates the ability of the BBEG to screw you over by stealing your spellbook, whereas you only have one Bonded Object which you must keep on you at all times?

Silver Crusade

Excuse me, I was wrong. This thread is THREE weeks old. So yes, I have forgotten what was said on the 1st 2 pages.


Elamdri wrote:


Well, to be honest, I have actually forgotten at least the 1st 2 pages somewhat, as this thread is like a week old or something. So educate me, what terrible thing have I forgotten that invalidates my argument that having multiple, hidden spellbooks mitigates the ability of the BBEG to screw you over by stealing your spellbook, whereas you only have one Bonded Object which you must keep on you at all times?

You know, the whole thing that the Bonded Object can be one of any number of magical items you keep on your person.

Ring any bells? You posted a response to this YESTERDAY, so don't give me that "the OP was 3 weeks ago" bull.


Mark Hoover wrote:
Gauss wrote:

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.

I would never claim that. The moment I thought I was right all the time I would become wrong all the time. The reason I am often correct is because I do not believe I am correct, so I do my research to make sure I am correct. Even then I still make errors.

- Gauss

Silver Crusade

Rynjin wrote:
Elamdri wrote:


Well, to be honest, I have actually forgotten at least the 1st 2 pages somewhat, as this thread is like a week old or something. So educate me, what terrible thing have I forgotten that invalidates my argument that having multiple, hidden spellbooks mitigates the ability of the BBEG to screw you over by stealing your spellbook, whereas you only have one Bonded Object which you must keep on you at all times?

You know, the whole thing that the Bonded Object can be one of any number of magical items you keep on your person.

Ring any bells? You posted a response to this YESTERDAY, so don't give me that "the OP was 3 weeks ago" bull.

Right! And my point was that the "Bonded Object can be difficult to determine" argument was ok, but if a GM is going to try and take/destroy your Bonded Object, it's going to happen. It's harder to defeat multiple hidden spellbooks by GM fiat. You have to get the one on my person, the one in my bag of holding, the one stored at my home, the one stored at the secret location only I know of, the one stored in my gloves of storing, and the one stored in my Secret Chest.

Cheliax

This particular alias came to be when I had the idea to get a Familiar, put it in spiked fullplate, and use Throw Anything to turn it into a spiky ball of death.

Then a friend suggest Deflect Arrows and Penetrating Shot so we could another attack in.


... so, getting back to what would be useful for a multiclassed wizard, I think its 6 of one, half a dozen of another. You might get a couple more spells w/a bonded object and lower costs to enchant, but w/a familiar you've got the utility and potentially developing resource.

I guess what has been consistently debated con wise is the chance of a GM targeting your arcane bond vs you (which kind of goes for either) and the trade offs individual to both.

What do you value more? Personally I prize the versatility of the familiar, but then on the rare occasion I've gotten on the player's side of the screens I've played either straight wizards or wizards w/a dip into other classes briefly.


Elamdri wrote:
Right! And my point was that the "Bonded Object can be difficult to determine" argument was ok, but if a GM is going to try and take/destroy your Bonded Object, it's going to happen. It's harder to defeat multiple hidden spellbooks by GM fiat. You have to get the one on my person, the one in my bag of holding, the one stored at my home, the one stored at the secret location only I know of, the one stored in my gloves of storing, and the one stored in my Secret Chest.

At which point if the GM was out to get you he'd be resentful of you planning to thwart his a!~@+&$ishness and just kill you outright, destroy the corpse, and leave all of the spellbooks miraculously unharmed as a message.

And then you'd leave this GM (I don't know why you've stuck around this long) because it's not fun to play group-based games with your imaginary hate focus.

Silver Crusade

Rynjin wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
Right! And my point was that the "Bonded Object can be difficult to determine" argument was ok, but if a GM is going to try and take/destroy your Bonded Object, it's going to happen. It's harder to defeat multiple hidden spellbooks by GM fiat. You have to get the one on my person, the one in my bag of holding, the one stored at my home, the one stored at the secret location only I know of, the one stored in my gloves of storing, and the one stored in my Secret Chest.

At which point if the GM was out to get you he'd be resentful of you planning to thwart his a!%@#*%ishness and just kill you outright, destroy the corpse, and leave all of the spellbooks miraculously unharmed as a message.

And then you'd leave this GM (I don't know why you've stuck around this long) because it's not fun to play group-based games with your imaginary hate focus.

That's somewhat of a leap of D***ishness.

I don't think typically I've seen Bonded Objects get destroyed or stolen with intent to outright kill a character by a GM, but rather to make encounters more challenging for the wizard. Except for that one time with the sword and the hand.

Now, I have seen PLAYERS do this in PVP situations.

Stealing a spellbook...well I've only really had to deal with that twice and I learned my lesson after the first time.


Elamdri wrote:


Right! And my point was that the "Bonded Object can be difficult to determine" argument was ok, but if a GM is going to try and take/destroy your Bonded Object, it's going to happen. It's harder to defeat multiple hidden spellbooks by GM fiat. You have to get the one on my person, the one in my bag of holding, the one stored at my home, the one stored at the secret location only I know of, the one stored in my gloves of storing, and the one stored in my Secret Chest.

This is a pretty hilarious argument.

GM Fiat vs Bonded Object: AM BARBARIAN sunders your ring. Yes that one. He just does, ok?

GM Fiat vs Perfectly hidden spell books: AM ROGUE steals your spell book. When you check your bag of holding, you see a note: 'Thanks for the Spellbook! - Signed, AM ROGUE!'.

You go to your house, the Book pedestal has, in the dust around where your spellbook used to be 'Nice book! - Signed, AM ROGUE!'

You pull the book out of your gloves of storing, only it's not your book, it's a note... 'Nice try! - Signed, AM ROGUE!'

You summon your secret chest. With trepidation, you open it and see your spellbook! You open the cover 'Like my copy of your book? It's a spot on double, isn't it? - Signed, AM ROGUE!'

You finally teleport to your secret location, sure this one is safe. You see your spellbook... there it is! You pick it up and start to study, when suddenly DEATH ATTACK! As you perish, AM ROGUE steps out of the shadows 'I multiclassed into AM ASSASSIN!'

I mean, seriously, the conceit that a GM can't fiat you to death is pretty silly.

(please note: I am not advocating this level of Fiat, I am merely saying that if your argument is that the GM can't fiat you THAT MUCH, can he? is horribly naive. If you have to metagame around fiat, maybe you and your GM should inspect the relationship you have with one another.)


I have literally never seen anyone attack a familiar, ever, except as an AoO. They're really useful, but never worth an attack that could have been applied to their master.


yup, and the same goes for me with bonded item rings and amulets not being sundered.
(being kidnapped/arrested and having all your gear taken from you is really more of an issue, and that applies equally to spellbooks, and a familiar may very well be captured as well)
i don't think danger of being attacked is a big issue for deciding between them,
it's mostly a matter of deciding which of their benefits you like more/prefer for your character.
i do usually go for familiar, but the item bond definitely has some nice benefits, especially for wizards/witches with broad spellbooks.


As a GM I have attacked a familiar but only when it was attacking one of the monsters (trying to deliver a touch attack).

- Gauss


I've seen a bonded item attacked... because the item was a weapon being used by an Eldritch Knight, and even then "attacked" here means "disarmed".

Silver Crusade

Marshall Jansen wrote:
Elamdri wrote:


Right! And my point was that the "Bonded Object can be difficult to determine" argument was ok, but if a GM is going to try and take/destroy your Bonded Object, it's going to happen. It's harder to defeat multiple hidden spellbooks by GM fiat. You have to get the one on my person, the one in my bag of holding, the one stored at my home, the one stored at the secret location only I know of, the one stored in my gloves of storing, and the one stored in my Secret Chest.

This is a pretty hilarious argument.

GM Fiat vs Bonded Object: AM BARBARIAN sunders your ring. Yes that one. He just does, ok?

GM Fiat vs Perfectly hidden spell books: AM ROGUE steals your spell book. When you check your bag of holding, you see a note: 'Thanks for the Spellbook! - Signed, AM ROGUE!'.

You go to your house, the Book pedestal has, in the dust around where your spellbook used to be 'Nice book! - Signed, AM ROGUE!'

You pull the book out of your gloves of storing, only it's not your book, it's a note... 'Nice try! - Signed, AM ROGUE!'

You summon your secret chest. With trepidation, you open it and see your spellbook! You open the cover 'Like my copy of your book? It's a spot on double, isn't it? - Signed, AM ROGUE!'

You finally teleport to your secret location, sure this one is safe. You see your spellbook... there it is! You pick it up and start to study, when suddenly DEATH ATTACK! As you perish, AM ROGUE steps out of the shadows 'I multiclassed into AM ASSASSIN!'

I mean, seriously, the conceit that a GM can't fiat you to death is pretty silly.

(please note: I am not advocating this level of Fiat, I am merely saying that if your argument is that the GM can't fiat you THAT MUCH, can he? is horribly naive. If you have to metagame around fiat, maybe you and your GM should inspect the relationship you have with one another.)

The point of the extreme example wasn't to show that GM fiat is impossible at that point, but rather to point out that GM fiat taken to that extreme is no longer a credible device.

To some degree, a little GM fiat is acceptable and in some extreme cases, maybe necessary. But there is a line, a subjective line, where you are no longer in the realm of the reasonable and are now in the realm of "This is unacceptable and I'm quitting unless you stop."


can a wizard or witch take eldritch heritage: arcane BL to gain an item bond when they already have a familiar (or vice versa)?
you can't normally have more than 1 familiar thru different classes, but these would be separate things...?


Marshall Jansen wrote:
Elamdri wrote:


Right! And my point was that the "Bonded Object can be difficult to determine" argument was ok, but if a GM is going to try and take/destroy your Bonded Object, it's going to happen. It's harder to defeat multiple hidden spellbooks by GM fiat. You have to get the one on my person, the one in my bag of holding, the one stored at my home, the one stored at the secret location only I know of, the one stored in my gloves of storing, and the one stored in my Secret Chest.

This is a pretty hilarious argument.

GM Fiat vs Bonded Object: AM BARBARIAN sunders your ring. Yes that one. He just does, ok?

GM Fiat vs Perfectly hidden spell books: AM ROGUE steals your spell book. When you check your bag of holding, you see a note: 'Thanks for the Spellbook! - Signed, AM ROGUE!'.

You go to your house, the Book pedestal has, in the dust around where your spellbook used to be 'Nice book! - Signed, AM ROGUE!'

You pull the book out of your gloves of storing, only it's not your book, it's a note... 'Nice try! - Signed, AM ROGUE!'

You summon your secret chest. With trepidation, you open it and see your spellbook! You open the cover 'Like my copy of your book? It's a spot on double, isn't it? - Signed, AM ROGUE!'

You finally teleport to your secret location, sure this one is safe. You see your spellbook... there it is! You pick it up and start to study, when suddenly DEATH ATTACK! As you perish, AM ROGUE steps out of the shadows 'I multiclassed into AM ASSASSIN!'

I mean, seriously, the conceit that a GM can't fiat you to death is pretty silly.

(please note: I am not advocating this level of Fiat, I am merely saying that if your argument is that the GM can't fiat you THAT MUCH, can he? is horribly naive. If you have to metagame around fiat, maybe you and your GM should inspect the relationship you have with one another.)

That happened to you too?

Signed AM guy who was charmed by a sucubus...in his DREAMS...in the first 5 minutes of a new campaign in 1e that started at level 1.

Grand Lodge

Elamdri wrote:

The point of the extreme example wasn't to show that GM fiat is impossible at that point, but rather to point out that GM fiat taken to that extreme is no longer a credible device.

To some degree, a little GM fiat is acceptable and in some extreme cases, maybe necessary. But there is a line, a subjective line, where you are no longer in the realm of the reasonable and are now in the realm of "This is unacceptable and I'm quitting unless you stop."

Well your line for that maybe not at sundering an arcane bond and ONLY the arcane bond and not other magic items that everyone else has...but for me, yeah a DM who just targets the arcane bond while leaving everything else along is in the land of the extreme DM fiat land of unacceptable, stop or I walk...or hell I'll just walk. If you have that much of a hard on against the wizard, just ban the freaking class. And the reason why this becomes extreme DM fiat territory has been rather clearly shown by how hard it ACTUALLY is to determine what the hell the arcane bond IS. And if your a BBEG with enough juice to gather that much info, you can do so much instead...enough so that the party would be wiped off the face of the earth in all honesty.


Quandary wrote:

can a wizard or witch take eldritch heritage: arcane BL to gain an item bond when they already have a familiar (or vice versa)?

you can't normally have more than 1 familiar thru different classes, but these would be separate things...?

No, the Arcane Bloodline specifies that it does not let you have both a familiar and a bonded item... would be nice though >.>

Silver Crusade

Cold Napalm wrote:
Elamdri wrote:

The point of the extreme example wasn't to show that GM fiat is impossible at that point, but rather to point out that GM fiat taken to that extreme is no longer a credible device.

To some degree, a little GM fiat is acceptable and in some extreme cases, maybe necessary. But there is a line, a subjective line, where you are no longer in the realm of the reasonable and are now in the realm of "This is unacceptable and I'm quitting unless you stop."

Well your line for that maybe not at sundering an arcane bond and ONLY the arcane bond and not other magic items that everyone else has...but for me, yeah a DM who just targets the arcane bond while leaving everything else along is in the land of the extreme DM fiat land of unacceptable, stop or I walk...or hell I'll just walk. If you have that much of a hard on against the wizard, just ban the freaking class. And the reason why this becomes extreme DM fiat territory has been rather clearly shown by how hard it ACTUALLY is to determine what the hell the arcane bond IS. And if your a BBEG with enough juice to gather that much info, you can do so much instead...enough so that the party would be wiped off the face of the earth in all honesty.

It doesn't HAVE to be a sunder though. Nor does it have to be the BBEG, it could be a fellow player.

I mean, lets think here:

Scenario 1: The party is defeated and taken prison, stripped of their gear. Later that day, the party attempts to escape prison. The wizard still has whatever spells he memorized, but is now without his Bond.

Scenario 2: A thief with detect magic sneaks into the party camp and makes off with a multitude of magic items, including the arcane bond. The party must now go after the thief.

Scenario 3: The wizard must partake in a contest and is deprived of all magical items during the event.

Scenario 4: The wizard in question is not a char-op wizard and didn't take ring as his bonded object, but instead went for a weapon. He is then feared and drops the weapon, which is seized by the villian.

None of those scenarios involve any fiat whatsoever, and all result in a wizard losing his bonded object for a period of time.

My point is that even if you char-op bonded item as much as possible, it's still feasible to lose your bonded object, in which case you suffer a penalty. Meanwhile, there is no penalty for losing a familiar (aside from cost) and improved familiar is STILL better than bonded object.

Grand Lodge

Elamdri wrote:


Scenario 1: The party is defeated and taken prison, stripped of their gear. Later that day, the party attempts to escape prison. The wizard still has whatever spells he memorized, but is now without his Bond.

Scenario 2: A thief with detect magic sneaks into the party camp and makes off with a multitude of magic items, including the arcane bond. The party must now go after the thief.

Scenario 3: The wizard must partake in a contest and is deprived of all magical items during the event.

Scenario 4: The wizard in question is not a char-op wizard and didn't take ring as his bonded object, but instead went for a weapon. He is...

1) The wizard is devoid of his spellbook AND his component pouch. Yeah that concentration check isn't what he is really worried about at this point. What he is really worried about is how many none material spells he has memorized...and those are not many. Yeah the bonded items sucks a little more in this case...but let's be honest here, all the casters are screwed in this case...the cleric and druids even more so (no focus = no spells).

2) If the item was rolled at random...well that can happen...but unless the theif in question is taking a rather large load of stuff, the chances should still be small. That is even assuming that the thief in question can get past the guards on duty or whatever other protection the wizard may have up. The rogue bypasses all defenses with no rolls and the DM picks what items and he just "happens" to pick the arcane bond? Yeah I do believe that is the definition of DM fiat.

3) What sort of a stupid wizard does that?!? Really? I try to assume that people are not stupid...why do you folks try so hard to prove me wrong?

4) And the wizard can't be bothered to spend 1 sp why? See comment 3.

151 to 174 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Are familiars a liability? Esp for a multiclass wizard? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.