First, let's begin with a parable.
The parable of the three Samurai.
Three samurai were walking down a road one day. One samurai saw a butterfly flying across the path. He drew his sword and in a single motion, -*slice*- he put his sword back in its sheath as the two dead halves of the butterfly fell to the ground.
The other two samurai complimented him on his excellent cut and they continued.
Then the next samurai saw a housefly flying across their path. He drew his sword and cut the housefly in half, resheathing his sword just as the two dead halves of the fly fell to the ground.
The other two samurai remark at the difficulty of the deed and the skill of his blade and they continued.
Then the third samurai saw a gnat flying across their path. He drew his sword and -*slice*- the gnat flew on his way. He resheathed his sword.
One of the other samurai said, "Too bad, but it was a difficult hit."
The third samurai said, "What do you mean? I hit it."
The other samurai said, "But it flew on. You didn't kill it."
So the third samurai said, "Sure, but he will never have any children again."
...
Verbose, yes, but I have a point.
Here's another parable: the parable of the three Wizards.
Three wizards are sitting in a bar. The first one says, "Here's my arcane bond. It's a magic sword. It's big, sure, but I also bought myself a locked gauntlet. That way, I never have to worry about it being taken from me, or having to make a Spellcraft check to cast a spell (my primary class feature) just for not having my arcane bond."
The second one says, "Nice. My arcane bond is my magic ring. It's so small and innocuous, that no one ever thinks to try and take it from me. That way, I never have to worry about it being taken from me, or having to make a Spellcraft check to cast a spell (my primary class feature) just for not having my arcane bond."
The third one says, "Here's my arcane bond." (Pulls out a rat.) "His name is Gregory."
The other two wizards give each other a look, then one of them says to the third wizard, "Why would you pick a rat? Wouldn't a pet rat be easy to lose"
The third wizard says, "Maybe, but it's not something I have to worry about. If I have my rat, I never have to make a Spellcraft check just to cast a spell (my primary class feature). If I don't have my rat, I still don't have to make a Spellcraft check. If my rat gets killed, I still don't have to make a Spellcraft check. If I had decided that my arcane bond would be a familiar, but I decided to just not go through the ritual right now, I still don't have to make a Spellcraft check."
...
The point is if I ever attempt to cast a spell without my arcane bond (assuming it’s the object version), I can lose it with a failed Spellcraft check. Looking at the other choice (the familiar), and the lack of such a restriction, I’m having trouble seeing how this is an appealing choice. I don't know what the object arcane bond was supposed to emulate, but surely there's a better way of representing it.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Your parables aside, I think that the arcane bond as an object is much stronger than the familiar, and think that if kept as is, familiars will become the more rare option. I don't think many players will be that worried about losing their bonded item. If you're risk adverse though, go for the familiar, but I think it's a fair and balanced trade off.
Losing Bonded Item is not much different than losing your Spellbook.
It should be a factor, but if it is constantly coming up, then your DM is a sadist.
By your logic, nobody would ever play Wizard characters,
since they will lose all their Magic abilities if their Spellbook is taken away.
(EASIER than taking off a ring, if their bags can be separated from their person)
The Familiar and Bonded Item should be more equivalent in power.
Why isn't Alertness (or Skill Focus: Spellcraft) and a +2 to two skills appropriate for Bonded Item?
(so the only difference would be: intelligent Familiar helper vs. Item Enchantment w/o Feats)
That seems like more of a 50/50 choice. As is, Wizards are gaining the full flexibility of a Sorceror at their highest spell level, but with their entire spellbook to choose from (as opposed to a sorceror's limited selection).
For a multiclass wizard, the item is better since it is not tied to the wizard level, which is not the case for the familiar.
Losing Bonded Item is not much different than losing your Spellbook.
It should be a factor, but if it is constantly coming up, then your DM is a sadist.
By your logic, nobody would ever play Wizard characters,
since they will lose all their Magic abilities if their Spellbook is taken away.
(EASIER than taking off a ring, if their bags can be separated from their person)
True, but all Wizards (familiarists and object-users) have to deal with that risk; it's inherent to being a Wizard. Choosing what kind of arcane bond to have also influences your primary class ability (either by leaving it alone or negatively impacting it). And that kind of a choice shouldn't be there. I'd love to pick either Object or Familiar purely on the basis of which fits my character concept more, but with the Spellcraft check penalty being present in one choice and no penalty present in the other, character concept gets waylaid for the sake of game mechanics (never a good thing for any RPG).
Maybe make the benefits of the Object lesser and take away the Spellcraft check penalty. I don't really know what to suggest because I don't know what the mechanic is trying to represent (Harry Potter, where they need their wand for a good majority of the magic they do?).
Here's another example: Take the Monk's Quivering Palm ability. You must 1) declare the attempt ahead of time, 2) hit the target, 3) the target must be vulnerable to precision-based damage, 4) and the target must fail their Fortitude save. And 5) this is a once-per-week deal.
Not very reliable. Too many things that can go wrong. Now, let's suppose the Monk class had, instead of Quivering Palm, Abundant Step, and Perfect Self, the ability known as Slaying Palm.
Slaying Palm (1)(Sp): At 20th level, you can slay any (2)living target. You must (3)declare the attempt ahead of time (so a failure ruins the attempt). You must (4)hit the target, then the target makes three saves, a (5)Reflex save, a (6)Fortitude save, and a (7)Will save. If the target has (8)Spell Resistance, it too can negate the attack (your caster level is equal to your Monk level). However, should you succeed, you slay your target and they can't be revived by anything short of the direct intervention of a Greater Deity. This will slay anything living, including a Greater Deity. You may make this attempt (9)once per year.
Wow. The ability to slay anything including a god. Seems good, until you look at what it costs. Nine opportunities for failure mean that this theoretical ability, no matter how good when everything works out, is awful, not reliable, and should be replaced by things less powerful, but far more useful.
The principle is the same with the Arcane Bond Object. It shouldn't be more powerful, just with more penalties; it should be no better AND no worse than the other choice.
I've suggested ways to tone down/ "clarify" the "Bonus Spell" Bonded Item,
but if we're starting from the point that it should be equivalent to Familiar:
...and no Bonus Spontaneous Spell from all Known.
The above benefits would certainly make it an "equal" option to a Familiar.
An object is also simpler and not liable to get killed when used in combat.
I beleive Items and Familiars would be equally popular options with the above abilities.
As-is, Bonded Items are MUCH superior for Wizards, while still good for Sorcerors.
Yeah, I see this the same way I see the Fighter versus the Warblade. If I recall correctly, there were a couple of Fighter builds that could hands-down outclass anything the Warblade could do. On the other hand, the Warblade is far harder to mess up and make a poor build with. I don't want to be comparatively uber, I just want to not suck. Hence, Warblade good, Fighter bad.
Same deal with the Arcane Bond. I don't care if the benefits of the Object outweigh the benefits of the Familiar if it comes at such a price. And having a chance for your spells to fail like that that isn't replicated anywhere else sucks.
I don't get it...
What were the Samurai wearing?
Did they walk into a bar?
...
Despite the Bond item's spellcraft issues, I can eventually see how it would be more useful than a familiar at higher levels. If I remember correctly, 'Pearls of Power' only go so high in level(4th?), the bonded object could recall a 9th level spell as currently written.
Meanwhile... the other 12th level Wizard with "Fluffy IX"('targets' die a lot, if actually used) the bat, has Alertness and someone to talk to when the rest of the party is sleeping., woohoo!
((Define: Target - A Familiar, an Animal Companion, a Henchman and anything else not an actual player character.))