Could there be more clarification on how the Arcane Bond with an object works, in particular the wizard's ability to enchant the object. Below are two examples of clarifications needed.
The paragraph states "A wizard can enchant a bonded object as if he has the required feats." Does this mean a third level wizard ca enchant a staff (with which he is bonded) with magic missile? Would this function at 3rd level and then as the wizard advanced in level at a higher level since staves use the caster level of the spellcaster? Or would the minimum level that a wizard be able to enchant an arcane bonded staff be 8th since this is the minimal CL of a staff's ability to function?
Over the course of his career, can the wizard change the object to which he is bonded (for example from staff to amulet)? If he cannot switch the type of object, can he at least switch the actual object (For example, he starts with a MW staff, but in his adventures throughout the years he finds a staff of fire, can he transfer the bond to the staff of fire)?
Could there be more clarification on how the Arcane Bond with an object works, in particular the wizard's ability to enchant the object. Below are two examples of clarifications needed.
The paragraph states "A wizard can enchant a bonded object as if he has the required feats." Does this mean a third level wizard ca enchant a staff (with which he is bonded) with magic missile? Would this function at 3rd level and then as the wizard advanced in level at a higher level since staves use the caster level of the spellcaster? Or would the minimum level that a wizard be able to enchant an arcane bonded staff be 8th since this is the minimal CL of a staff's ability to function?
Over the course of his career, can the wizard change the object to which he is bonded (for example from staff to amulet)? If he cannot switch the type of object, can he at least switch the actual object (For example, he starts with a MW staff, but in his adventures throughout the years he finds a staff of fire, can he transfer the bond to the staff of fire)?
Answers (based upon guesses, opinions, facts and house rules):
No, a 3rd level Wizard cannot enchant his staff, as they have a minimum CL of 8th. After that, he could enchant it and its CL and Dcs would increase with his level and abilities.He can add abilities for a price. For example, he could add Baleful Polymorph to his staff that has Wall fo Fire on it for the difference between a staff with both and one with just WoF.
The rules are vague. We houserule that you can be bonded with any item of your item type. To bond to a new item, you must spend 24 hours without your previous item, meaning you have to make the Spellcraft to cast spells. After that 24, you are now bonded to the other item.
|
It seems reasonable to allow someone to enchant their staff, regardless of the feat prerequisites. After all, they are assumed to have the feats already.
As well, that means that choosing an Arcane Bond is useless until 3rd level, minimum, which is ridiculous. And those who choose staves have to wait until 8th? Seems unfair.
However, my main concern is the unlimited ability of a wizard to enchant something. So let's take a 3rd level wizard, right? He's probably got 1,000 gp squirreled away of his estimated 2,700 gp. That means he can enchant an item for 1,000 gp in materials to get something of 4,000 gp in value -- a little high for 3rd level, don't you think? I'm still a strong advocate for putting a gp cap on bonded items ... I'd recommend 2,000 gp.
Otherwise, a 10th level wizard (who is already pretty powerful) who should have 49,000 gp could take 10,000 gp of that wealth, and give themselves a 40,000 gp item, for a total wealth of 89,000 gp. That's a bit much for a class that already excels at higher levels.
|
|
Useless? Certainly not, regardless of how you can enhance your Arcane Bond item still provides you with an extra spell slot.
Well, there is that ... and of course we need to compare 'power gain' from the arcane bond to the familiar, but it seems redundant to offer a class feature and not let them use it until 3rd or 8th level.
There's already a limitation of gp. So even if the 1st level wizard wants to make a wand of magic missile, he needs to get his hands on 187 1/2 gp and a day of peace and quiet to enchant his wand ...
Bonded staff is hardly useless. It can be enchanted as a weapon starting at level 3... then at level 8 you can start enchanging it as a staff. I don't know if you can swap charged spells out of it over time. I don't know if it's lost if you only end up replacing the exact item lost, or if you can bond to a new item and start over.
But, we do know that it starts masterwork now. So, that's something.
Answering a whole bunch of your questions by your first one. No. the masterwork item has to be paid for as normal. BTW familliars weren't free either, a lot of beginning first level wizard/sorcerers put off that 100 gold expenditure until later.
Just curious, but do you have a source for this? Because, the Alpha Rules state:
Arcane Bond (Su): At 1st level, wizards forge a powerful bond with an object or creature.... These objects are always masterwork.
Masterwork for weapons adds 300g to the cost. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#masterworkWeapons
A Wizard's starting gold is what... 150g? At most (couldn't find this in the SRD). So, even though at level 1 you forge this bond with a masterwork item per the class ability, there is no way you can actually afford it.
Then we have the SRD's explanation of familiars, which does include a 100 gold piece summoning ceremony. This ceremony isn't in the Pathfinder rules on familiars (and most noteworthy is there is no reference to a 100gp cost for a familiar).
My interpretation of the deletion of the 100gp cost for familiars is that the bonded object/familiar is now a free class feature at level 1.
The price to replace the bonded object gives you back the bonded item plus the arcane bond enchants purchased for it. It does not return any other enchantments that were not part of the arcane bond. So if you have a Staff of Power which you are arcane bound and added additional qualities to it with arcane bond. and mr. Joe Fighter in a bit of pique tosses it into the River of All Consuming Flame. the replacement ritual returns you a lookalike masterwork quarterstaff with your arcane bond and the powers added through arcane bond. Period.
Now that's an unanswered question. Does the bit about "replacing" the bonded object mean you get back exactly what you lost/destroyed? (In which case the idea of bonding to a staff, then having the fighter break it over his knee so you could bond to something better wouldn't work)... does this allow you to bond with a new object? Does this recreate the same object without enhancements? So far, there really isn't any guidance on what you get back after spending 200 gold / wizard level.
Not to mention you can just give your staff to the fighter to break over his knee when you come across a better item.. which you will likely come across before 8th level.
Hmm... so what's better than a staff with +4 enhancements on both ends? (+2 Defending & Spellstoring / +2 Spellstriking & Spellstoring) staff for 1/4 market price? At level 8?
The rules as written say you bond to an object... not 1/2 of an object. A staff is 1 object. I agree that each end is enhanced separately. But, as the Staff of Power shows us, a staff can be enhanced as a weapon and as a magical staff... it's still 1 object, with different enhancements on it. What basis is there to draw a line between one enhancement and another? And when I say what basis, I'm asking for citation to the rules showing me what I've missed.
As for the fighter... he can fight with a mundane weapon at level 1. A Wizard, particularly at level 1, needs the bonded item. Which a masterwork anything is going to add 150 to 300 gold to... which is going to be out of the price range of a level 1 wizard (particularly after you get the spell component pouch and the spellbook).
Perhaps the rules should have said, "the object is considered masterwork for purposes of enhancements." - so the wizard can purchase it at the same cost as a fighter can buy his level 1 sword or whatever... and then never really get the masterwork bonus.
Takes care of the cost issue.
The problem with the suggestion that a wizard can just trade out his bonded object is that we don't know what "replace" means here. Does it mean replace the lost item with a new item of the Wizard's choice? Does it mean replace the lost item with an exact duplicate of what was lost? Does it mean replace the lost item with an exact duplicate of what was lost, but without enhancements?
If the Wizard's replacement ritual doesn't allow them to change from one item to different object... then a wizard could never bond with a masterwork staff or other object. Clarification on the replacement ritual is thus somewhat important in this discussion.
Given the great issue involved here (a core, low level item that every wizard will deal with) I'm surprised the Dev's haven't piped in on their thoughts.
Or have they, and I just missed it?
-S
Given the great issue involved here (a core, low level item that every wizard will deal with) I'm surprised the Dev's haven't piped in on their thoughts.
Or have they, and I just missed it?
-S
Jason's answered 2 questions on the boards about the bonded item that I'm aware of. First, the choice of Rings as bonded items was based upon LotR (surprising tidbit, I know); and that 1/2 cost to make is 1/4 the market price. The only other clarification was in the rules... Alpha 3 clarified that the items are Masterwork (but not how they get that way).
The rest of the questions... well, we've been talking about them since Alpha 1, and seem to be going in circles.
As for the lack of developer response... I agree, it's both surprising and frustrating.
I'm not adverse to familiar extinction- at least as long as they keep that ole line about losing xp when they die.
For a critter that gets next to no Hp and no defenses, but special abilities that are supposed to take it to the front line, I've never understood why it has such a penalty to the mage. Especially given that Druids and Rangers never faced such hefty penalty.
I welcome the arcane bond, if only since I lose no xp if someone whacks it in half. (groups i've been with tend to agree to ignore the sundering rules ;p )