Actually, with the spellcraft check, you may not have impacted the wizard much at all. A universalist would still be able to use the Hand of the Apprentice just fine; cantrips are all likely usable (which is why I keep Mage Hand always prepared... on the off chance I do end up losing my staff, summoning it back is relatively easy). There seem to be enough ways of getting the spellcraft check high enough (skill focus, high Int., Precocious Apprentice, and I'm sure there is equipment available).Yup, but you're using feats for a contingency instead of making your character more powerful. You'd be better off choosing a ring or amulet and not spending the feat. Once disarmed, your wizard now has access to much lower level spells and possible access to his higher level spells, so I've effectively given him some negative levels.
I suppose your wizard could have a locking gauntlet. That would be cool. :-)
Actually... skill focus (spellcraft) is a freebie from Master Specialist prestige class... but, with concentration merged with spellcraft, that feat isn't a waste here. Precocious Apprentice also grants an extra second level spell / spell slot. Not really a negative level.
The locking gauntlet's not a bad idea though.
And here I thought it was because the choice was either killing me outright or stealing my staff, letting me get another round of spell casting and a chance to run away... and the death to wizard option won.You've never had a fighter with Improved Sunder whacking at everyone's weapons just to see the surprised look on their faces? I had a player who did just that for an entire campaign. What does the villain who put all his feats into wielding a greatsword do when his greatsword breaks?
Or how about a wizard with Telekinesis? That just became a much more useful spell.
My party prefers to be able to sell/use the stuff... so basic greed wins out over sundering.
Is Telekinesis more powerful now? The defending Wizard gets a +15 bonus, thanks to the CMB rules.
I'm just not sure that the loss of the bonded item is an unintended consequence. The fact that there is a spellcraft check to cast without it suggests that the designers realized that the bonded object could be taken, and thus made it more difficult for the Wizard.
Depending upon the group, the DM... and the tactics employed, some groups it might make more sense to go with a ring, amulet or even a familiar. Others, it might make more sense to go with a staff or weapon. Heck, depending upon the build, if you were going to max spellcraft anyway, the loss of the weapon may only be a minor inconvenience and worth the benefit of enhancing it to the hilt.
I don't see much of a problem here... a Staff can be a very effective tool... it seems like it can be either a magic staff or a weapon... or both (Staff of Power being a prime example of both). In which case, that might be worth the extra risk of being disarmed. A ring won't have the same enhancements that a staff can have... but it's not as at risk. So, maybe it's balanced?
Devil's advocacy time – I really, really don't like the bonded item / familiar rules at all.
I've been playing wizards for years and have never liked the flavour of a familiar. And depending on an object for my ability to cast spells is asking for trouble from thieves.
This doesn't seem to make wizards better – if anything it appears to make them more vulnerable. If the aim is to make the wizard able to do more there are surely other ways of doing it.
I've found it's not difficult for wizards to survive low levels (buy a crossbow, stay out of fights, use your brain) - having d6 hit dice and cantrips usable all day is a superb added bonus.
Consequently I'd make the bonded item / familiar rules optional or give a third alternative (bonus wizard feat perhaps?) for those who don't want to have themselves tied to an object or creature they don't want. If nothing else the rule as it stands forces a thematic relationship that to my mind is just as intrusive as the now-defunct Unnatural Beauty ability.
How is 1 extra spell slot that you can fill with any spell you know, of any level... not an improvement?
As for the thematic issues... every wizard I've ever heard of has had their wizardry implements. Harry Dresden has his staff and blasting rod... without one or the other, he has a tougher time with his spells. Gandalf had a staff and a sword (and a ring, if I remember right)... Merlin (in the disney version) had a familiar (an owl, I believe).
As for thieves... sure, there's a chance your bonded item will be stolen. But, if you want to minimize the risk of loss, use a ring or amulet. Harder to take that off your finger than to disarm you. Or go universalist and use Hand of the Apprentice to carry your bonded item for you all the time (as far as I know, the Hand of the Apprentice can't be disarmed).
I just think the odds are low that a thief will even know what to steal. Carry a bunch of things that could be bonded... have a couple rings, a few wands, a staff, and an amulet. You could be really clever and use a wand, and keep it your glove of storing. It's a free action to summon it when you need it, and otherwise it's completely out of sight.
The extra slot is useful but wizards have lots of others goodies thanks to the new school rules, the d6 hit dice and the cantrip changes.
And iconic mage items shouldn't be an Achilles Heel at the same time. After all, Rastlin could cast spells without the Staff of Magius.
This rule is turning the Paizo wizard more towards his 4e counterpart.
And I for one don't ever want to go down that route.
If it stays at all (and I really hope it doesn't) the rule should be optional.
The extra slot is useful but wizards have lots of others goodies thanks to the new school rules, the d6 hit dice and the cantrip changes.
And iconic mage items shouldn't be an Achilles Heel at the same time. After all, Rastlin could cast spells without the Staff of Magius.
This rule is turning the Paizo wizard more towards his 4e counterpart.
And I for one don't ever want to go down that route.
If it stays at all (and I really hope it doesn't) the rule should be optional.
Considering this is my favorite change in all of the Alpha rules (next to no xp costs)... I have to strongly disagree with you.
And I would gladly trade the school powers for the bonded item. The lack of choice on the school powers bugs me; that the saves are based upon charisma (I had a level 20 universalist with a Fireball Ref. DC 13 as a spell like ability - which is pretty much useless at all levels) bugs me; and the few school powers that seem worthwhile (the metamagic mastery being my personal favorite here) just aren't as good as the extra spell / day of anything in your spellbook.
I don't know enough about how 4e is handling wizard implements... but that was something I liked about 4e (that they were making the implements useful as opposed to disposable).
The extra slot is useful but wizards have lots of others goodies thanks to the new school rules, the d6 hit dice and the cantrip changes.
And iconic mage items shouldn't be an Achilles Heel at the same time. After all, Rastlin could cast spells without the Staff of Magius.
This rule is turning the Paizo wizard more towards his 4e counterpart.
And I for one don't ever want to go down that route.
If it stays at all (and I really hope it doesn't) the rule should be optional.
Considering this is my favorite change in all of the Alpha rules (next to no xp costs)... I have to strongly disagree with you.
And I would gladly trade the school powers for the bonded item. The lack of choice on the school powers bugs me; that the saves are based upon charisma (I had a level 20 universalist with a Fireball Ref. DC 13 as a spell like ability - which is pretty much useless at all levels) bugs me; and the few school powers that seem worthwhile (the metamagic mastery being my personal favorite here) just aren't as good as the extra spell / day of anything in your spellbook.
I don't know enough about how 4e is handling wizard implements... but that was something I liked about 4e (that they were making the implements useful as opposed to disposable).
Lol. Ok Doug, looks like we completely disagree on bonded items.
I agree with you though about saves based on CHA - madness.
Lol. Ok Doug, looks like we completely disagree on bonded items.
I agree with you though about saves based on CHA - madness.
For what it's worth, I do understand the notion of wanting the class abilities to be open enough to allow for various different character concepts.
(yet another gripe of mine about the school powers).
Well Alpha 3's out and bonded objects are still in.
Maybe I've been spoilt by loads of general goodness from this ruleset but I'd be absolutely gutted if I find myself having to resort to a house rule to remove this institutionalised vulnerability from the character class I care most about.
Being tied to an object smacks of Daemons out of Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass book - you really don't want to get separated from one of them.
Speaking as a Greyhawker surely this option is thematically utterly different from what's gone before? Wasn't re-connecting with the feel of 1st ed vs the 4e changes what Pathfinder was supposed to do?
Familiars were always optional (not that in over twenty years of playing wizards and dm-ing I ever met anyone who bothered with one, mind you), so can't we keep our options open?
The only way to get round this within the rules as they stand would be to have your wizard summon a familiar at 1st level before earning any xp then immediately dismiss it. Talk about a quickie divorce...
In fact, that's what's bothering me about this rule - it's a forced marriage. Tie yourself to an animal or an inanimate object, but you have to be dependent on one of them. You can't be single.
Seriously Jason, please don't do this. Make it optional, or better still get rid of it and do something else for wizards as fantastic as sorcerer bloodlines. This Arcane Bond rule is truly awful.
But on the bright side, Jason did answer some of the questions about the bonded item.
And, seriously, bond to a ring or something you're not likely to lose unless dead and don't worry about it. Problem solved. Then enjoy the benefit of 1 spontaneous spell / day from your spellbook (still an open question of whether you can cast a spell higher level this way than what you could prepare though).
(don't have access to A3 at the moment, so if somethin is new about these that clears what i'm about to say, then I apologize)
You have two options if you don't want to use the bonded item or have a familiar with you:
One: Don't bind a familiar. Select the "familiar" option, and never summon one.
Two: Bind a Ring. Wear it on your pinky. It isn't a "magic item" until and unless you "enchant it" Until then, it's just a ring.
Unless they tie you up in a dungeon somewhere, you aren't losing the ring- and unless you enchant it, it doesn't interfere with other rings worn.
Problem solved.
Alternatively- do as you suggested. Ask your DM for a free feat (or two) in exchange for never taking an item or familiar.
I highly doubt a DM would look at the rules and absolutely mandate 100% that you *must* take a familiar or bonded item.
(and if they do- select a familiar. Murder it. Don't replace it.)
Two: Bind a Ring. Wear it on your pinky. It isn't a "magic item" until and unless you "enchant it" Until then, it's just a ring.
Is this true - a bonded item doesn't count as a magic item for the purposes of item slots?
Two: Bind a Ring. Wear it on your pinky. It isn't a "magic item" until and unless you "enchant it" Until then, it's just a ring.
Is this true - a bonded item doesn't count as a magic item for the purposes of item slots?
Per Alpha 3, a wizard's bonded item is considered masterwork. Not magic until/unless you enchant it. So yes, I'd say that is true.
Although, it'd be cheaper to enchant it than to buy another ring (although then someone might steal it).
So far as I could find, it's just "a ring". It doesn't even detect magic. (familiars don't either, unless you cast a spell on them. "magical beast" is a creature type. A term of art, rather than a description. they don't radiate under "detect magic").
A simple plain wooden (or iron, or .. whatever) ring that doesn't radiate magic and doesn't appear to have anything special about it.
Alot of folks wear rings.
When they Detect Magic you, they'll take your Ring of Protection +1 assuming it's your special ring, and will leave the 2cp wooden ring alone since it's worthless.
;p
Or for that matter, your non-magical quarterstaff.
(doesn't work so well with the wand though.. a wand is. a wand.. if it doesn't radiate magic, they'll take it anyway).
edit:
Did anyone else find it interesting that they removed the cost and ritual for summoning your familiar? I was going to tell the fellow to select familiar and never summon it, but on reading through- the summoning rules seem to have been omitted..