Having read the section on the Arcane Bond I have a few questions. If the bonded item is a ring or amulet does it occupy the character's ring or amulet magical item slot since it is a sort of magical item? Also it seems that a wizard bonded to a familiar can cast without a Spellcraft check so long as his familiar is within one mile of the wizard, but if a wizard is bonded to his staff, he must make the check if his staff is leaning against a chair five feet away. Wouldn't it make sense to show a connection between the bonded item and the wizard as stronger that "it work when they are touching". Perhaps a short distance, ten or so feet, before the wizard must make the Spellcraft check?
Having read the section on the Arcane Bond I have a few questions. If the bonded item is a ring or amulet does it occupy the character's ring or amulet magical item slot since it is a sort of magical item? Also it seems that a wizard bonded to a familiar can cast without a Spellcraft check so long as his familiar is within one mile of the wizard, but if a wizard is bonded to his staff, he must make the check if his staff is leaning against a chair five feet away. Wouldn't it make sense to show a connection between the bonded item and the wizard as stronger that "it work when they are touching". Perhaps a short distance, ten or so feet, before the wizard must make the Spellcraft check?
I like the bonded item rules as is because the familiar is a disadvantage in that the familiar can be slain fairly easily. A bonded item getting broken? It's possible but not nearly as likely. So the advantage of the familiar is the distance factor.
I actually had not thought of the familiar being an easy target or so weak in general. I have not played with one for a while.
No, the whole point of having a familiar is so that they can serve as a scout, messenger, and companion for you. It's pretty hard to get a staff to check out "what's over that hill".
Though I would like to see a feat that gave an extra familiar or object- you could have two, like the character om the front of the Complete Mage, or Ursula from the Little Mermaid (I watched that eighteen years ago, man do I feel old).
I am having some oddities- I'm starting playtesting Pathfinder Alpha already, and I have one character who has made a 9th-level human Illusionist, but wants to make his bonded item a Circlet of Intellect.
a) it can't be a circlet, only an amulet or ring (or staff, wand or weapon), and so according to RAW he can't.
b) it seems a bit strange that the wizard counts as having any item creation feats he likes in order to enchant his bonded object. I can understand with a ring, a staff, a wand, or a +1 weapon, but an amulet lets him make miscellaneous items, and they can be busted fairly easily. Then there's the whole 'market price', 1/2 cost, thing.
So if I make a misc. item that's worth 15,000gp on the open market, I have to spend 7,500gp on materials (and 300xp, right?). But because it's my bonded object, it only costs me half- 3,750gp and 150xp. I know that's cheap because I can't sell it, but that makes things... awkward. Especially when he now wants to make an Amulet of Intellect. So now I have to take the market price, halve it, halve it again, then add 50%... brain hurting...too much maths.
Edit: Does that mean I can just add 50% to make my ring an Apparatus of Kwalish? That could be interesting.
|
Though I would like to see a feat that gave an extra familiar or object- you could have two, like the character om the front of the Complete Mage, or Ursula from the Little Mermaid (I watched that eighteen years ago, man do I feel old).
Yes, PLEASE! That's a great idea!
On the Bonded Item rules, they should be clarified - a weapon has to be enchanted as a weapon, a staff as a staff, a ring as a ring, a wand as a wand, and an amulet as a wondrous item.
I would also suggest *not* having magic item creation costs be halved, because being able to enchant an item without item creation feats is powerfull enough. I would also recommend limiting the bonded item to be of no more value than 2000 gp per wizard level or so. That way you aren't going to turn your amulet into an Apparatus of Kwalish any time soon (45th level by my suggestion).
Apparatus of Kwalish Prerequisites: CL 19th; Craft Wondrous Item, animate objects, continual flame, creator must have 8 ranks in the Knowledge (architecture and engineering) skill; Price 90,000 gp; Weight 500 lb.
Edit: Does that mean I can just add 50% to make my ring an Apparatus of Kwalish? That could be interesting.
How could your ring be a large, lobster-like submarine? I thought it was a ring? ;)
I think the intention here is that you are counted as having the item creation feat only for the bonded item itself. So just because your bonded item is a ring doesn't mean you can make any wonderous item you want -- just the rings. And even then, only really one of them, because you only have one ring.
And perhaps I'm not entirely following, but why are you adding 50% back on after halving the halved market cost?
|
I like this idea. It helps reduce the amount of feats necessary for a wizard to make magical items and it gives the wizard a more storyesque ability. Wizards in many of the books I've read have a powerful staff or orb that is an extention of their power. I think a balance is needed however. A familiar is not going to be used as often and the bonded item as it is written now.
I think it needs to be clarified too, because the way I read it, I can never take another item creation feat, get a bonded wand- (which can opporate at low caster levels ok) and just keep re-enchanting it for cheap, 1/2 price creation cost. Or, what about a bonded ring that I keep adding new abilities to constantly for 75% of the normal cost? I mean, it's pretty awsome, and getting to the correct requirements for some of the abilities will take time, but I think it needs a little clarification to whether or not it should be allowed.
I just started reading up on this stuff today so maybe I missed something, but the thing that is confusing me is this: If I am in a 1st level campaign and I want to have a staff as my bonded item do I have to save up 16500 gp to buy the cheapest one on the market or can I just use a peice of wood until I imbue it with the powers of an actual staff?
I just started reading up on this stuff today so maybe I missed something, but the thing that is confusing me is this: If I am in a 1st level campaign and I want to have a staff as my bonded item do I have to save up 16500 gp to buy the cheapest one on the market or can I just use a peice of wood until I imbue it with the powers of an actual staff?
My reading tells me that either can be the case. You forge the bond with object and that is what makes it special for the purposes of casting one spell per day through it, and what makes it easier to enchant later on.
I know that there was an article somewhere (maybe in an old Dragon) whereby a paladin could substitue the bond he forged with his mount with a bonded sword, which he *could* enchant (or have enchanted) much the same way at this class suggests. Here are my thoughts by way of some things I have read above:
If the bonded object is a familiar, then it seems to have all the standard extraordinary benefits of typical familiars, except that you don't get the XP hit from the death of it.
If the bonded object is a ring or amulet, then it would take up that slot on your characters body - but, you can mitigate that somewhat by being able to enchant it at less cost. Further, if you try to cast a spell without your object in hand (or worn) you risk losing the spell. This makes disarms against the typical caster EXTREMELY valuable - though it has long been my experience that with the low hit points wizards used to have this isn't really ever needed. With 6 per level... we'll see.
My guess (though the rules don't officially state it) is that even though you are assumed to have the required feats when magiking your own bpnded object, you still can't enchant a ring or stave yourself until 12th level, or an amulet until 3rd level, or a weapon or wand until 5th. I would also surmise that if you wanted to change the object you're bonded to, it would only cost 200gp/level and 8 hours of alone time with it. Also, at 12th level, if your bonded staff +2 defending/+2 dispelling gets sundered, you can always bond a new mundane staff for 24,000gp - but, alas, your cool staff is kaput.
Seems like the bonding to an object is both better and worse than having a familiar, but not a slam dunk...
Having read the section on the Arcane Bond I have a few questions. If the bonded item is a ring or amulet does it occupy the character's ring or amulet magical item slot since it is a sort of magical item? Also it seems that a wizard bonded to a familiar can cast without a Spellcraft check so long as his familiar is within one mile of the wizard, but if a wizard is bonded to his staff, he must make the check if his staff is leaning against a chair five feet away. Wouldn't it make sense to show a connection between the bonded item and the wizard as stronger that "it work when they are touching". Perhaps a short distance, ten or so feet, before the wizard must make the Spellcraft check?
I'm not sure if I interpreted the rules correctly and I need some clarification:
1 - is it true that if a wizard choses Arcane Bond [item], he will need his item to cast properly, and if he loses it he will be a dead duck until he manages to create a new item?
2 - if he choses Arcane Bond [familiar], he'll be able to cast normally without having to make a Spellcraft check? I couldn't find a reference to that one-mile-limit you mentioned.