While it isn't explicitly stated, I think it's assumed that the mage still has to meet level prerequisites for the various item creation feats. If this is the case, then enchanting a staff as a "staff" would require 12th level. If he is trying to enchant it as a "weapon" then he would have to be 5th. If this is the case, then I would assume, yes, you would need a masterwork staff if your going the weapon property route.
As far as I know, there is no way to turn a regular staff into a masterwork one. You have to decide on the masterwork part at the time of it's creation.
One of my players has a bonded staff that he chose at first level. During game last night everyone made 2nd level and had some extra coin to spend. He was looking into enchanting the staff. We ran into the problem that his staff isn't masterwork as he couldn't afford one at 1st level.
My question is this: as the rules are written, is it intended that he should have to rebond with a new masterwork staff in order to enchant it? OR is there a way to spend gp (300 gp) to make the staff masterwork in this specific instance? OR is the staff made masterwork in the process of becoming his Arcane bonded object?
I'm playing a cleric/sorcerer and am hoping that the very fact of arcanely bonding with an item (in my case, a morningstar) sort of bypasses the masterwork issue and makes it capable of storing magic.
Granted, I'd love to hear an official point made on this, as it's an assumptive grey area where arguments can be made on either side (i.e. either you assume the previous rules of masterwork only, etc. or you rule on the side of player/game freedom).
In one respect, it's prohibitive and penalizing to a sorcerer or wizard to have arcane bond yet be unable to use that power at 1st level if you can't afford the item that's needed to utilize said ability. It'd be like giving a fighter the beginning ability to use plate armor as a smashing weapon charge (or something similar) yet very few fighters can afford plate armor at 1st level.
Alternatively, what about the idea that an arcanely-bonded item slowly becomes more purified/stronger/harder/powerful as the spellcaster to which it is bonded grows in power? Even if no other magics are pumped into it, a staff that has been bonded to a wizard for 10 levels ought to be more than just a long sanded branch....
Steven
|
Have the Wizard hand his staff to the fighter, have the fighter break the staff over his knee. Do the ritual to rebond with a masterwork staff.
"You can’t add the masterwork quality to a weapon after it is created; it must be crafted as a masterwork weapon (see the Craft skill). The masterwork quality adds 300 gp to the cost of a normal weapon (or 6 gp to the cost of a single unit of ammunition)."
Page 122 PHB.
Now you could ignore that if you wanted, up to you. But so far 3P doesn't cover it and Jason really hasn't responded to the whole enhancing problem.
If you listen to some people on these forums, a wizard could start with a masterwork longsword through a convoluted match formula while bonding with the item that doesn't exist. ;)
What I did was take the bonded item at level 1 as a MW staff (going with craft rules, it's 1/3 the cost for the masterwork component... so 1/3 of 300gp is 100gp. As a bonded item, it costs half of that, so 50 gp at level 1 for a mw bonded weapon). It left me as a fairly broke level 1 character, but I had a staff I could enchant.
As for level...
The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
So... a +1 staff requires Caster Level 3. Not 5. A +1 Defending Staff... is also Caster Level 3. A +1 Defending/+1 Spellstriking is also a Caster Level 3 staff.
At least, that's how I read it. But, as evidenced by the 5 separate threads on how these things work on this board, there are more guesses and unanswered questions with the bonded item than answers at this point.
|
|
Except that doesn't make sense. How can you be bound to an item that doesn't exist until you're done making it?
There's no arguement that'll convince me that you can bond with an item while it's being created.
If the item exists already, someone paid the 100gp. Then you can bond with it.
And if you can bond with an item while it's being created, then the bond item rules need to be revised so that Wizards can't selling their bond items at a ridiculous profit at a lose of non-existent ingame time.
I'm playing a cleric/sorcerer and am hoping that the very fact of arcanely bonding with an item (in my case, a morningstar) sort of bypasses the masterwork issue and makes it capable of storing magic.
Granted, I'd love to hear an official point made on this, as it's an assumptive grey area where arguments can be made on either side (i.e. either you assume the previous rules of masterwork only, etc. or you rule on the side of player/game freedom).
In one respect, it's prohibitive and penalizing to a sorcerer or wizard to have arcane bond yet be unable to use that power at 1st level if you can't afford the item that's needed to utilize said ability. It'd be like giving a fighter the beginning ability to use plate armor as a smashing weapon charge (or something similar) yet very few fighters can afford plate armor at 1st level.
Alternatively, what about the idea that an arcanely-bonded item slowly becomes more purified/stronger/harder/powerful as the spellcaster to which it is bonded grows in power? Even if no other magics are pumped into it, a staff that has been bonded to a wizard for 10 levels ought to be more than just a long sanded branch....
Steven
Nothing particularly constructive to add, except that you are so low key on the boards here Steven . . . you'd almost not even realize we have a gaming legend helping with the playtest here . . . ;)
Except that doesn't make sense. How can you be bound to an item that doesn't exist until you're done making it?
There's no arguement that'll convince me that you can bond with an item while it's being created.
If the item exists already, someone paid the 100gp. Then you can bond with it.
And if you can bond with an item while it's being created, then the bond item rules need to be revised so that Wizards can't selling their bond items at a ridiculous profit at a lose of non-existent ingame time.
I run a starwars game... and I think of the bonded item to be similar to a Jedi's lightsaber. The Jedi gets a bonus to using his own lightsaber - no one else gets that bonus - because the Jedi is uniquely attuned to the lightsaber because he made it that way.
If a Wizard makes his own bonded item, and bonds with it as he makes it, I don't see a problem with that. It solves an obvious problem - how does the bonded item get to be masterwork? And it doesn't create any new problems (other than perhaps needing to increase a wizard's starting wealth a touch).
The upside to this approach is that a wizard doesn't need to spend 600gp to use a class feature at level 3. (not to mention take that dear bonded item he has and chuck it in the river to start over. So much for growing with a weapon through the game, I guess). I don't see a downside to it.
The issue of wizards being able to sell their bonded item at a significant profit exists regardless of whether they can bond to a masterwork weapon that they are making. The profit from a masterwork item is 250 gp. The profit from a +2 defending quarterstaff is going to be much higher.
The real question is: can others use the Wizard's bonded item and gain the benefits of the Wizard's enhancements? My thought is no - the Wizard is particularly attuned to the object in a way no one else can be. So, to everyone else, it's just a mundane whatever. That solves the sale exploitation.
SirUrza - Is there a downside actually relating to the crafting while bonding that I'm missing? Setting aside your chicken/egg issue for the moment, what problems does my interpretation create for the game?
|
The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.So... a +1 staff requires Caster Level 3. Not 5. A +1 Defending Staff... is also Caster Level 3. A +1 Defending/+1 Spellstriking is also a Caster Level 3 staff.
Right idea, but your math is a little off. You are correct that a staff with only a +1 enhancement bonus would require a minimum caster level of 3. The +1 Defending Staff, however, would require a caster level of 8th.
The enhancement bonus is only +1 (CL 3rd), but the Defending special ability, as described on page 224 of the DMG, requires a minimum caster level of 8.
So the higher caster level requirement of the two comes from the special ability, meaning you need to be a minimum 8th level caster to craft a +1 Defending quarterstaff.
In practice, the special ability of the weapon will determine the minimum caster level so long as you don't go above a +1 enhancement bonus, since none of the special abilities in the DMG have a CL requirement lower that 5th. If you go higher than +1 enhancement then it becomes an issues because the next level of enhancement (+2) requires a minimum CL of 6 but some special abilities require a minimum CL of 5.
Crafting a +2 Merciful weapon would be a good example. In this case, the higher caster level requirement would come from the +2 enhancement bonus (CL 6th) while the Merciful special ability requires a minimum CL of 5th (pg. 225 DMG).
The full description of Caster Level for Magic Items is on the bottom of page 215 of the DMG.
The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.So... a +1 staff requires Caster Level 3. Not 5. A +1 Defending Staff... is also Caster Level 3. A +1 Defending/+1 Spellstriking is also a Caster Level 3 staff.
Right idea, but your math is a little off. You are correct that a staff with only a +1 enhancement bonus would require a minimum caster level of 3. The +1 Defending Staff, however, would require a caster level of 8th.
The enhancement bonus is only +1 (CL 3rd), but the Defending special ability, as described on page 224 of the DMG, requires a minimum caster level of 8.
So the question is, does the Pathfinder crafting rule establishing caster level requirements based upon the bonus trump the Caster level requirements in the DMG? If you say that you go with the minimum caster level from the DMG, then the minimum caster level set out in pathfinder becomes meaningless (regarding special abilities)... I don't think it was intended as a meaningless rule, so my interpretation is that it trumps the caster level in the DMG.
Yet another aspect of crafting in general and bonded items in specific that needs clarification, I guess.
|
|
SirUrza - Is there a downside actually relating to the crafting while bonding that I'm missing? Setting aside your chicken/egg issue for the moment, what problems does my interpretation create for the game?
The chicken/egg is the biggest issue. It gives Universal Wizards masterwork longsword where a fighter has none. A Universal Wizard now starts with the same BAB (because of masterwork) that a fighter has.
On top of that, you're making up a rule that doesn't exist, there's nothing there that says someone else can't use the bond item at it's full enhancement. I don't care what Star Wars does, this isn't Star Wars D20/Saga. Paizo isn't WOTC and isn't competing with Star Wars D20.
The rules have to be applied by the literal meaning. If they're intended to be bent so a Wizard can start with a masterwork item, they need to say so. If a wizard by bonding with a non-masterwork item, now qualifies that item for enhancement.. but it's not masterwork, they need to say that. If the item can't be passed to others, they need to say that.
As presented, the rules only give you 2 things.
1) Your item gets lost or destroyed and you get a new one (like a familiar dying in 3E.)
2) You get a discount for making a bond +1 "weapon," a +2 "weapon."
And even the destroyed rule is under question because there are people that want to apply that to.. "I don't want my +1 Quaterstaff anymore, I want that Staff of Fire we just looted to be my bond item." But the bond item isn't lost.. and the rules say lost bond items. Does lost bond items mean captured by the enemy? Bottom of the ocean? What? Heck.. that doesn't even address the issue if the familiar gets revived or if you can just take a new familiar. Does the item magically reappear or do you just have the ability to replace it something else.
These are all rhetorical questions that JASON and ONLY Jason needs to address before August 2009.
If rules need to be interpreted, then they're not clear nor complete enough.
|
|
The enhancement bonus is only +1 (CL 3rd), but the Defending special ability, as described on page 224 of the DMG, requires a minimum caster level of 8.
So the higher caster level requirement of the two comes from the special ability, meaning you need to be a minimum 8th level caster to craft a +1 Defending quarterstaff.
...
The full description of Caster Level for Magic Items is on the bottom of page 215 of the DMG.
I never got around to buying a 3.5 DMG, but the SRD does not actually say that, and I'm curious as to whether there is a difference between the two.
The SRD says:
Caster Level
The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation. This information is given in the form "CL x," where "CL" is an abbreviation for caster level and "x" is an ordinal number representing the caster level itself.For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.
Prerequisites
Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind. The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item’s caster level.
Note two things here: first, that the caster level is clearly distinct from the item's prerequisites (last sentence). Second, an item's minimum caster level is "that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given." For the Defending ability, the prerequisites are shield or shield of faith, both spells that can be cast with a CL of 1. That suggests rather strongly that a third level wizard, bound to a weapon, could create a defending weapon with 2000 gp and 4 days' worth of work.
Edit: Actually, there's specific evidence otherwise: the spell storing ability, which clearly differentiates between the item's CL and the minimum caster level needed to make the item. An item's CL does not determine the minimum level needed to make the item. Only the spells needed and the feat requirements do that.
|
|
So the question is, does the Pathfinder crafting rule establishing caster level requirements based upon the bonus trump the Caster level requirements in the DMG?
Well ... no. It doesn't replace the rule in the DMG, it just reprints it. The exact same rule, almost word for word, is in the DMG. On pg. 217, under the heading "Caster Level for Armor and Shields" and again on page 221 under "Caster Level for Weapons".
You already needed a caster level equal to 3xthe enhancement bonus of the weapon/armor/shield. If it had a special ability, you needed to meet the higher requirement between the enhancement bonus and the special ability.
Nothing really changed there. They just reprinted existing rules in a more consolidated location.
|
|
The SRD says:
You know what I just noticed? The unofficial hypertext version of the SRD at d20.org is different from the official text version that you can download from WotC
I've used the hypertext version before as a quick reference, but the last line that you just quoted reads entirely differently in the official SRD. For some reason, the author of the hypertext site changed it (probably one of those "changes in format to make the SRD easier to read") and inadvertently made it needlessly confusing.
"For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator’s caster level must be as high as the item’s caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator’s level)."
Bold-faced emphasis mine.
Either way, if you go to the individual descriptions of the magic items, either at the hypertext site or in the official SRD, the minimum caster level for the ability is listed in the description of the prerequisites at the end of the entry. It's the second piece of information listed, after the aura/strength entry (which isn't a prerequisite, thus continuing a long history of poor editing in D&D products ... so really the CL is the first prerequisite listed, followed by the necessary feats and spells).
|
|
It gives Universal Wizards masterwork longsword where a fighter has none. A Universal Wizard now starts with the same BAB (because of masterwork) that a fighter has.
Well ... kinda. The fighter will still have a better BAB (+1 vs. the wizard's +0) and probably a better Strength score as well. The fighter will also, probably, have a better Constitution modifier and armor class and definitely have a higher hit die.
So the wizard would end up with better chance to hit than he normally would with that one, single weapon but the fighter would still have a better chance to hit overall with any weapon he gets his grubby little hands on. He'll also do more damage and have more lasting power in a fight (keeping in mind his higher hit points and armor class).I don't really see how giving the wizard a small bonus to hit, limited as it is to one single weapon, at 1st level is all that unbalancing.
On top of that, you're making up a rule that doesn't exist, there's nothing there that says someone else can't use the bond item at it's full enhancement. I don't care what Star Wars does, this isn't Star Wars D20/Saga. Paizo isn't WOTC and isn't competing with Star Wars D20.
Well, yes I suppose you're right there. It doesn't specifically say that someone else can't use the bonded item. Personally, I think that is implied by the description of the "bonded" item, and I would definitely suggest it as an area in the rules that could be clarified in Alpha 3, but it's a small problem that could be fixed with a sentence or two.
I disagree with your second point, though. D&D is most certainly not Star Wars, but that doesn't mean Paizo can't get inspiration from other game systems. The Complete Warrior doesn't contain any open gaming material, but the new version of Toughness in the Alpha release is pretty clearly a combination of the original, SRD, Toughness and the Non-SRD Improved Toughness.
Does lost bond items mean captured by the enemy? Bottom of the ocean?
VERY good point. I definitely like the concept behind the Bonded Item, but it's also an area that could use a little more clarification and expansion in the "rules" area.
If rules need to be interpreted, then they're not clear nor complete enough.
Well ... maybe. You're always going to have a certain degree of "open to interpretation" going in in the rule system. No rule system is perfect, or can account for every possible situation, no matter how carefully constructed. Heck, house rules and on-the-fly interpretations are half the fun of D&D!
I suppose it's part of the reason why tabletop gaming has continued to survive despite steady competition from the assorted computerized RPGs. Even the best computer program can't beat the human/DM interaction.Woah, three posts in a row and I'm starting to get philosophical. I think I need to step away from my computer and drown a few more brain cells with beer before I begin making up poetry or something!
|
|
That is interesting. And rather non-trivial. I'm disappointed, though of course the actual position is the one of sanity.
Truer words were never spoken. I wonder what other "minor" changes have crept into the hypertext SRD over time?
...ok, four posts in one night. I'm seriously leaving this time....
|
|
Well ... kinda. The fighter will still have a better BAB (+1 vs. the wizard's +0) and probably a better Strength score as well. The fighter will also, probably, have a better Constitution modifier and armor class and definitely have a higher hit die.
So the wizard would end up with better chance to hit than he normally would with that one, single weapon but the fighter would still have a better chance to hit overall with any weapon he gets his grubby little hands on. He'll also do more damage and have more lasting power in a fight (keeping in mind his higher hit points and armor class).
I don't really see how giving the wizard a small bonus to hit, limited as it is to one single weapon, at 1st level is all that unbalancing.
Who cares about STR, CON, and AC? My fault for not being more clear.
Universal Wizard uses Hand of the Apprentice on his Masterwork Longsword. He now has an attack that's equal to, and perhaps better then the fighter if the Wizard has an 18 and the fighter doesn't.
Well, yes I suppose you're right there. It doesn't specifically say that someone else can't use the bonded item. Personally, I think that is implied by the description of the "bonded" item, and I would definitely suggest it as an area in the rules that could be clarified in Alpha 3, but it's a small problem that could be fixed with a sentence or two.
It should NOT be IMPLIED. It should be stated. It should be crystal clear.
Well ... maybe. You're always going to have a certain degree of "open to interpretation" going in in the rule system. No rule system is perfect, or can account for every possible situation, no matter how carefully constructed. Heck, house rules and on-the-fly interpretations are half the fun of D&D!
Then the Open Alpha/Beta has already failed considering the number of people that have the same questions and issues regarding to this small section.
|
|
Universal Wizard uses Hand of the Apprentice on his Masterwork Longsword. He now has an attack that's equal to, and perhaps better then the fighter if the Wizard has an 18 and the fighter doesn't.
Personally, I think the Hand of the Apprentice special ability is a tad overpowered. I can get behind the Intelligence bonus to attack part, but there is no way I could ever support that bonus to damage. It gives a wizard with a modest 14 intelligence the equivalent of Weapon Specialization at 1st level, while the aforementioned apprentice with his impressive 18 Intelligence would get the equivalent of Greater Weapon Specialization.
Better than either, actually, because the Hand of the Apprentice isn't limited to a single weapon type and that seems more than a little out of balance to me. I hope someone corrects the oversight before the final release. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, that will be a page in the rulebook with "fix via house rule" stamped all over it.
But I digress.
I also shake my head and concede that our 1st level wizard with an 18 Intelligence certainly has an edge over our poor 1st level fighter when it comes to damage (unless the fighter has an 18 Strength score, or is using his weapon two-handed).
Of course, if our wizard is using Hand of the Apprentice to make his attack then it really doesn't matter if the sword is masterwork or not now does it? The description of the Hand of the Apprentice power is fairly specific as to what our wizard will be rolling for that attack roll: Base Attack Bonus & Intelligence modifier.
That totals to a solid +4 attack (+0 BAB & +4 Int. Modifier), which is respectable but easily in the range of a 1st level fighter. Even assuming our fighter doesn't take Weapon Focus or some other bonus-providing feat, he can still reach +4 to hit with only a 16 Strength.
The limited, thirty foot maximum range our wizard can reach with his invisible hand presents another problem. Thirty feet puts our poor wizard with his carelessly low Armor Class and tiny hit point total within the "single-move" range of most opponents. That leaves our wizard uncomfortably close to melee combat which is, itself, not a very good place for our poor, squishy wizard to be. Especially considering that so long as he is playing with his invisible hand, our wizard isn't casting any spells.
Our fighter, all snug in his armor and drunk on his large hit point total, can hit just as often and still hang around to survive the counter-attack.
It should NOT be IMPLIED. It should be stated. It should be crystal clear.
This is a game ... not a binding legal document.
I'd also like to point out that what is "crystal clear" to one person can be "confusing at all hell" to another. I can't remember ever having a problem navigating the murky waters of mathematics to conquer the legendary, dread Thac0. Yet after fifteen years of gaming, my friend Chuck still can't calculate his initiative score without a calculator, compass, several sheets of graph paper and, ultimately, a Sherpa.
No matter how much proofreading, brainstorming and playtesting get put into the final product, I would bet a year's salary that five minutes after it hits the market the Paizo forums will flood with questions by confused gamers regarding newly discovered and totally unanticipated conflicts in the rules. The type of questions that will be answered, at the table, by a DM and his players collectively agreeing upon a house rule. A house rule based upon the assumed intent and implications of other, existing rules.
Then the Open Alpha/Beta has already failed considering the number of people that have the same questions and issues regarding to this small section.
Wow. If you have a copy of the Beta Release then I'd love to see it. I'm still waiting for the third draft of the Alpha Release.
I wonder what they'll do with the bard ....
|
|
Better than either, actually, because the Hand of the Apprentice isn't limited to a single weapon type and that seems more than a little out of balance to me. I hope someone corrects the oversight before the final release. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, that will be a page in the rulebook with "fix via house rule" stamped all over it.
The oversight is in the reading. Hand of the Apprentice functions as Mage Hand except where noted. Hand of the Apprentice is thus limited to Mage Hand's weight limit. Longsword or Rapier are the best weapon it can use. The no magical item limit will be changed in alpha 3 as per Jason.
The limited, thirty foot maximum range our wizard can reach with his invisible hand presents another problem. Thirty feet puts our poor wizard with his carelessly low Armor Class and tiny hit point total within the "single-move" range of most opponents. That leaves our wizard uncomfortably close to melee combat which is, itself, not a very good place for our poor, squishy wizard to be. Especially considering that so long as he is playing with his invisible hand, our wizard isn't casting any spells.
It's far enough when the fighter, cleric, etc. will be upfront fighting the monster. What's the difference between a magic missile canon sorcerer and a hand of the apprentice wizard? Nothing, they both need the protection of the other classes if the monsters come after them.
Playing with his hand? That hand is better then all of his level 1 spells and he can stop using it any time he wants to cast a spell.
I'm not sure if your entire reply was sarcasm or not, but most of it seems to be. I think most of your comments have been less then constructive because you seem to think that house rules are the answer to every problem.. and yet we're participating in an alpha/beta whose point is to find the problems and bring them to light.
That said, Hand of the Apprentice is amazing and extends the game day to 30-45 minutes instead of 10-15 minutes because the wizard has something reliable to use in non-boss encounters and can save his spells for when it really matters.
|
|
The oversight is in the reading.
Nope, no oversight here. I said that "the Hand of the Apprentice special ability is a tad overpowered" if it allows a wizard to add his Intelligence bonus to damage. I supported that statement by pointing out that a wizard with a 14 Intelligence would gain the equivalent of Weapon Specialization (a 4th level feat) and a wizard with an 18 Intelligence would gain the equivalent of Greater Weapon Specialization (a 12th level feat) when attacking via the hand. In addition, because the wizard gains this bonus to damage with multiple weapons, the ability is actually better than either feat (both of which are limited to a single weapon).
The weight limit isn't relevant to any of that. Only four potential weapons are over five pounds. There are still eight simple melee weapons and thirteen martial melee weapons that the wizard could use.
Longsword or Rapier are the best weapon it can use.
That is a highly subjective statement. The "best" weapon for a character to use is partially a matter of opinion and partially a matter of environment. Yes, the longsword and rapier are very good martial weapons that fall within the weight limit. So are the scimitar, flail, warhammer & trident.
I think that giving a first level wizard a significant bonus to both hit and damage with twenty-one melee weapons is a tad overpowered considering a fighter would have to expend a feat to get a +1 bonus to hit with one.
What's the difference between a magic missile canon sorcerer and a hand of the apprentice wizard?
The sorcerer casting magic missile can be 110' away from the monster?
The wizard has to almost be in melee combat to make his attack?
... they both need the protection of the other classes if the monsters come after them.
Well ... yes. That was sort of the point that touched all this off. Something about whether or not a bonded item needed to be masterwork, which morphed into a question about whether or not a masterwork bonded item potentially gave a first level wizard a masterwork weapon.
My response to all that is fairly in line with that last quote of yours. So long as the weapon only counts as masterwork for the wizard bonded to it then I don't think it matters much.
That hand is better then all of his level 1 spells...
Again, that is another highly subjective statement. Grease, Obscuring Mist, Color Spray, Enlarge/Reduce Person, Cause Fear and Ray of Enfeeblement can all totally change up a fight. The same can be said for Magic Missile, Shocking Grasp, Burning Hands and even Chill Touch. A single, well-placed Burning Hands can clear a battlefield at low levels and, as I mentioned earlier, Magic Missile can be used without exposing the fragile little wizard to direct harm.
...and he can stop using it any time he wants to cast a spell.
Sort of, but that's a little misleading. The Hand of the Apprentice requires concentration (and a standard action), so either the wizard is manifesting it or he is casting a spell of some sort. If he's using the Hand then he isn't affecting the battlefield in some other way.
I'm not sure if your entire reply was sarcasm or not, but most of it seems to be.
Absolutely not! Granted, I do tend to write the same conversational manner that I speak, so there is generally a tasty dose of sarcasm sprinkled throughout every post I make. Still, I would never waste my time with a totally sarcastic reply and my original responses on this thread were 100% serious and rather dry.
The sarcasm didn't wake up until much later. :-)
I think most of your comments have been less then constructive because you seem to think that house rules are the answer to every problem.
I assure you that I don't believe that at all. After close to two decades of gaming, though, I do believe that there is a point where even the best designed table-top role playing game is going to leave a heaping pile of unexpected questions from well-meaning and perfectly intelligent players.
I also believe that the more complicated and in-depth you make the rule system, the slower, more restrictive and less enjoyable it becomes. When I have to refer to chart 62F on page 421 of book three to see what bone was broken by that last hit from a 16 Gauge 2.75 beanbag shot (I'm looking at you, Chartmaster!) then I'm no longer playing a game. I'm sitting at a table doing long division for fun.
Ok, my example is a little off but I hope you get the idea. My point is that D&D is a table-top role playing game, not a computerized role playing game. A flaw in the system isn't going to cause the game to crash. If you make the rules more complicated than they need to be, it will just make it that much harder and more intimidating for a new player or inexperienced DM. Better for the designers to make the intent behind the rules clear and the rule itself a little open to interpretation. Trust the people on the other side of the rulebook (the players) to go with all the things that work and patch up, as needed, those situations where things don't.
That said, Hand of the Apprentice is amazing and extends the game day to 30-45 minutes instead of 10-15 minutes because the wizard has something reliable to use in non-boss encounters and can save his spells for when it really matters.
While I can't help but smile a bit at the description of "non-boss encounters", I agree that giving any class something to do in every encounter is a great idea. Nothing drains the fun out of an adventure like a character who can't participate. I also agree that the Hand of the Apprentice is an excellent idea. I still, however, think that the ability needs to be clarified a little and that letting the wizard add his Intelligence modifier to damage is a tad overpowered. I also think I have a fairly well justified reasoning behind that concern.
|
|
I'll say 2 more things..
First, while using Hand of the Apprentice is a standard action, stop using it isn't. Wizards round comes around, he can stop using it and cast a spell in the same round.
And lastly, a Big Bad Evil Guy term isn't an appropriate since I don't consider lieutenants of the BBEG to be the BBEG or to be regular encounters. Boss encounters seem to be the most appropriate term these days, particular when you consider how the APs are built.
Sure random encounters can be accidentally become fights that are equivalent to BBEG fights, but you'd have to be playing with a particular evil DM to allow a random encounter to wipe the party.
Sorry about the delay in getting back to the discussion here...
SirUrza - Is there a downside actually relating to the crafting while bonding that I'm missing? Setting aside your chicken/egg issue for the moment, what problems does my interpretation create for the game?The chicken/egg is the biggest issue. It gives Universal Wizards masterwork longsword where a fighter has none. A Universal Wizard now starts with the same BAB (because of masterwork) that a fighter has.
As a general point, I hate the idea of the Hand of the Apprentice, for exactly this reason - it turns the Wizard into the Fighter. A Wizard should be using magic to dispatch the bad guys, not swinging a sword around!
However... we have the problem of how does a Wizard get a bonded item beyond being mundane? Our options include:
1) Start with Mundane, then lose/destroy it and "replace" with a masterwork item.
2) Start with a masterwork item.
If we lose/destroy, then the issue of what is lost? Also, the question of what does replace mean... do we get the same item back, or do we get to bond with something new? If it's the same item back, then wizards will never be able to enhance their bonded item (clearly not what was intended in the rules).
Starting with a bonded masterwork item would allow for the intent of the rules to be used (enhancements later on, and grow with 1 weapon/item over time).
The rules have to be applied by the literal meaning. If they're intended to be bent so a Wizard can start with a masterwork item, they need to say so. If a wizard by bonding with a non-masterwork item, now qualifies that item for enhancement.. but it's not masterwork, they need to say that. If the item can't be passed to others, they need to say that....
These are all rhetorical questions that JASON and ONLY Jason needs to address before August 2009.
I don't believe they are rhetorical questions (we do want an answer)... but I agree, that Jason is the only one that can give an official answer to these issues... and that this one ability is filled with unanswered questions. The problem is, play testing a wizard using this ability, we (the players) have to have some answers to go forward.
It's magic...
...and it's a bonded item.
Between those two facts alone, I find it odd that a wizard's bonded object (weapon or otherwise) couldn't "grow" into masterwork quality. The bonded familiars "grow" into greater powers as well. What's so hard to believe something similar couldn't be done with the object, mechanically-speaking? Maybe levels 1-2 it's mundane. But the jump to levels 3-4 causes the object to alter its very nature and become masterwork quality.
I'm not a Tolkien historian, but the way Gandalf's staff looks one way during The Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring, but matches his newfound White Wizard look in The Two Towers and The Return of the King, I'd like to see something similar play out in Pathfinder's interpretation of this situation.
Either that, or dictate the bonded object automatically starts out as masterwork...similar to the way familiars automatically start out as magical creatures as opposed to their basic animal subtype. Problem solved. Move on...
Just my two-cents,
--Neil
|
|
Either that, or dictate the bonded object automatically starts out as masterwork...similar to the way familiars automatically start out as magical creatures as opposed to their basic animal subtype. Problem solved. Move on...
Good point. Why not just put a little sentence in there about how the bonded item counts as a masterwork item for the purposes of being enchanted?
That way you can give the wizard a masterwork item without having to give the wizard a masterwork item. No bonuses to hit and no additional value to anyone except the bonded wizard. Very little potential for abuse.
Now the wizard can keep the same item from 1st - 20th level.
Problem solved.
|
|
Problem solved.
One problem solved by us, not by Jason who's gotta be the one to solve it.
But there are still other problems, like what happens if it's lost or destroyed. Is it gone forever? Does it get restored? Can you change to something else? Same question applies to familiars.
In 3.5 the rules for familiars are pretty clear. A familiar dies, it dies. You can resurrect it or do a little ritual to get a new one.
Arcane Bond is too unspecific.
Well then let's hope that Jason reads the playtest forums so he can learn about this wonderful solution we came up with.
For the record, it was a good idea.
|
I don't see why it would be assumed that you wouldn't have to rebond a new staff to have one that was masterwork. Familairs and the like weren't normally things you started with in D&D, it took some adventuring before you were finally able to afford the costs of them.
I don't see why the item would be any different in the spirit of things.
As for a staff, to enchant a staff is cost prohibited. It would not be the best item to choose if you wanted to enchant it early.
You're right about making a staff of frost, for example, but staffs are also weapons, so a wizard could enchant it to +1 at third level, if he wanted.
At high levels, it might be a +5 to hit, defending, spell storing, staff of speed, as well as a staff of power, for just over 200,000 gp.
Not a bad deal! PCs should be wary of staff-wielding wizards!
It makes me wonder if many wizards would want to go the familiar route.