Is a Wizard's Arcane Bond optional?


Rules Questions

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I have seen a kender played in a group that wasn't disruptive and was actual fun for everyone.

Why yes, I've also run a group with a PC unicorn, why do you ask?

But yeah, the race seems designed for that obnoxious player to have carte blanche to troll the whole group continuously. It doesn't have to be that, though.

If you really want to troll/annoy a kender player, tell them they have to play an afflicted kender. They are like kender with PTSD - no joy, lost all the kleptomania, immunity to fear replaced with a gnawing dread at everything. In my last Dragonlance game, my group met a band of afflicted kender refugees and by the end of the encounter they had full on pity for the poor things.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If you look through the wizard archetypes, there are quite a few of them that replace arcane bond with intangible abilities. Spell Sage is one of many examples.


graystone wrote:
Then assume my reason for hating kender is that I find their flavor to be that of fresh dung floating in otherwise clean water.

I try not to assume, it's why I asked why you held the opinion.

graystone wrote:
I find it hard to imagine a wizard concept that that can't accommodate one of the bonds. For instance, is your character never going to wear an amulet or ring? Never use a staff or wand? Never carry weapon?

Not any that should he lose them he finds it very hard to cast any spell. No.

graystone wrote:
I'd ask you do the same for me and kender's.

I only asked why you had the opinion you had.


Firest wrote:


Seconded, I had a character who wanted to take Improved Familiar later as well and didn't think it would be in character for someone Lawful Good to kick their original familiar to the side like that.

Well, for the Pact Wizard archetype it explicitly says your familiar becomes the improved familiar.

I don't see much of a problem doing the same with a regular wizard.


Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
graystone wrote:
I find it hard to imagine a wizard concept that that can't accommodate one of the bonds. For instance, is your character never going to wear an amulet or ring? Never use a staff or wand? Never carry weapon?
Not any that should he lose them he finds it very hard to cast any spell. No.

That's really a none issue though. When would you EVER lose the bonded item and not your spell book? As an amulet/ring, it's hard to steal and it's pointless to sunder [no one KNOWS it's a bonded item]. So what's the scenario where someone only wants to make it hard for you to cast instead of impossible when one is super easy to figure out [wizards need book] vs impossible[which item if your bonded].

It's kind of like worrying about someone puncturing your tire to slow you down when they could just as easily syphon the gas or take your battery. Why slow you when they can stop you?

AS to the rest... You did more than ask, you read into my posts saying "So what I'm hearing is that you don't like them because they are inconvenient for your character?" With that I inferred that you where comfortable making assumptions. As such, I offered some.


graystone wrote:
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
graystone wrote:
I find it hard to imagine a wizard concept that that can't accommodate one of the bonds. For instance, is your character never going to wear an amulet or ring? Never use a staff or wand? Never carry weapon?
Not any that should he lose them he finds it very hard to cast any spell. No.
That's really a none issue though.

It's not a non-issue to me. It's a huge issue for me. My issue is NOT that I might lose the item, I'm not afraid of the consequence. My issue is with the very rule itself. I don't like the flavour that a Wizard might have an item that if lost has consequences. It's not the consequences themselves that I dislike.

ie: AD&D never had this. I never once in AD&D said, "Oh man I wish I had an item that gives me an extra spell but when lost has consequences". I'd play AD&D, but I like some of the changes (no more THAC0, etc)

And to be fair, if the GM never took advantage of it, then it was never a disadvantage. And if it was never a disadvantage the player shouldn't gain the advantages of it either (the trade-off of the advantage is that it's possible to have negative affects if the item is lost, stolen, etc). For example a ring can be removed by a clever thief.

graystone wrote:
AS to the rest... You did more than ask, you read into my posts saying "So what I'm hearing is that you don't like them because they are inconvenient for your character?"

That's called Active Listening. Google it. Trying to see if I understood you correctly by repeating it back to you in my own words.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't delay picking between familiar or item. It is a choice the rules require you to make at 1st level Wizard.

Just like you can't delay choosing your first level feat, you can't delay your Wizard Bond.

If you want a Wizard without Arcane Bond, try:
Arcane Bomber
Exploiter Wizard
Instructor
Scrollmaster
Shadowcaster
Spell Sage


James Risner wrote:

You can't delay picking between familiar or item. It is a choice the rules require you to make at 1st level Wizard.

Just like you can't delay choosing your first level feat, you can't delay your Wizard Bond.

If you want a Wizard without Arcane Bond, try:
Arcane Bomber
Exploiter Wizard
Instructor
Scrollmaster
Shadowcaster
Spell Sage

In my campaign I'm just going to use one of the Wizards of High Sorcery which I linked to earlier. I think they fit Dragonlance, where I'll run my campaign, best.


Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
graystone wrote:
I find it hard to imagine a wizard concept that that can't accommodate one of the bonds. For instance, is your character never going to wear an amulet or ring? Never use a staff or wand? Never carry weapon?
Not any that should he lose them he finds it very hard to cast any spell. No.
That's really a none issue though.

It's not a non-issue to me. It's a huge issue for me. My issue is NOT that I might lose the item, I'm not afraid of the consequence. My issue is with the very rule itself. I don't like the flavour that a Wizard might have an item that if lost has consequences. It's not the consequences themselves that I dislike.

ie: AD&D never had this. I never once in AD&D said, "Oh man I wish I had an item that gives me an extra spell but when lost has consequences". I'd play AD&D, but I like some of the changes (no more THAC0, etc)

And to be fair, if the GM never took advantage of it, then it was never a disadvantage. And if it was never a disadvantage the player shouldn't gain the advantages of it either (the trade-off of the advantage is that it's possible to have negative affects if the item is lost, stolen, etc). For example a ring can be removed by a clever thief.

graystone wrote:
AS to the rest... You did more than ask, you read into my posts saying "So what I'm hearing is that you don't like them because they are inconvenient for your character?"
That's called Active Listening. Google it. Trying to see if I understood you correctly by repeating it back to you in my own words.

I'm already gone over personal dislikes so I'm only debating actual advantages/disadvantages.

Lets start with your second point. If that where true, then they would/should steal your book. They don't KNOW it's a bonded item. So lets go through the reasons someone would take it.

Messing up your casting: Spell component pouches and spellbooks do this MUCH better, are already build in to the class, and totally cut uut casting.

Just stealing: Stealing isn't exactly easy for worn items and thieves are more likely to target valuables. If you have a silver necklace, a gold ring and a plain copper bonded item, which do YOU think would be targeted?

I'm played in dozens of games and I haven't seen ANY DM's take "advantage of it" as doing so made no sense. About the only thing I've ever seen targeted are component pouches.

As to the last, yes I understand what you mean. You made an assumption, as you CLEARLY weren't paraphrasing, on what you heard and asked to confirm it. It didn't make it any less an assumption by giving it an intellectual sounding name... ;)

EDIT: Ah, It just dawned on me. You ARE playing in a world with kender... Then I retract my statements on stealing. Those little bastards takes anything not nailed down, so I'd expect a wizard in dragonlance to regularly be unable to cast spell with them borrowing spell component pouches, spell books, underwear, ect... It's just such a foreign concept that people let them live... :P


graystone wrote:
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
graystone wrote:
I find it hard to imagine a wizard concept that that can't accommodate one of the bonds. For instance, is your character never going to wear an amulet or ring? Never use a staff or wand? Never carry weapon?
Not any that should he lose them he finds it very hard to cast any spell. No.
That's really a none issue though.

It's not a non-issue to me. It's a huge issue for me. My issue is NOT that I might lose the item, I'm not afraid of the consequence. My issue is with the very rule itself. I don't like the flavour that a Wizard might have an item that if lost has consequences. It's not the consequences themselves that I dislike.

ie: AD&D never had this. I never once in AD&D said, "Oh man I wish I had an item that gives me an extra spell but when lost has consequences". I'd play AD&D, but I like some of the changes (no more THAC0, etc)

And to be fair, if the GM never took advantage of it, then it was never a disadvantage. And if it was never a disadvantage the player shouldn't gain the advantages of it either (the trade-off of the advantage is that it's possible to have negative affects if the item is lost, stolen, etc). For example a ring can be removed by a clever thief.

graystone wrote:
AS to the rest... You did more than ask, you read into my posts saying "So what I'm hearing is that you don't like them because they are inconvenient for your character?"
That's called Active Listening. Google it. Trying to see if I understood you correctly by repeating it back to you in my own words.

I'm already gone over personal dislikes so I'm only debating actual advantages/disadvantages.

Lets start with your second point. If that where true, then they would/should steal your book. They don't KNOW it's a bonded item. So lets go through the reasons someone would take it.

Messing up your casting: Spell component pouches and spellbooks do this MUCH better, are already...

Kender aside, if the Arcane Bonded item couldn't possibly be destroyed, stolen, lost, or otherwise not on the Wizard's person than the rulebook would not even mention the effects of the Wizard not having the item. Agreed?

I just don't like the concept of the Arcane Bond (with an item, and I've never really wanted a familiar). Has there ever been anything in the rules that didn't fit your vision of what you did and did not want in your campaign?

Would I read a medieval fantasy book where class X used modern-day sniper rifles? No, because that doesn't fit my perception of my ideal medieval fantasy setting. If the next revision of Pathfinder said all Wizards have access to said modern day sniper-rifles would I accept and enjoy it simply because the rules said they exist? No, I'd change the rule or play another RPG system that doesn't have that rule. That's all I'm saying about Arcane Bond. You can like it, there might be lots of existing medieval fantasy literature where Wizards use similar items, it just doesn't fit my ideal version of medieval fantasy.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
I just don't like the concept of the Arcane Bond (with an item, and I've never really wanted a familiar).

Summarized as:

My GM is Rule 0-ing away Arcane Bond, since it is not optional and normally must be chosen.


Adrian Parker 563: Oh, it's possible. It's also possible I could walk out of my door and simultaneously br gored by a moose, struck by lightning and hit by a meteor...

In the MANY games I've been in it's always seen as bad form to take away your class special features unless the character themselves puts them in danger. No kidnapped familiars, no stolen books, no poisoned companions, alchemy kits, ect... As such, I don't expect that kind of thing and I'd move to a new game if they did without a VERY good reason.

"I just don't like the concept of the Arcane Bond": I thought we went over this. I'm cool with you not liking it. I'm just disagreeing with what you've said you found as a mechanical issue: The disadvantage. It's the reason you give for not liking it and I'm not getting how it's a disadvantage. It's a sort of self fulfilling prophesy as you've already said that you'd not like it even if it never happens which makes in in fact not a disadvantage...

So If you just say I don't like it, we're good. It's actually being a disadvantage is where the argument starts.

"Would I read a medieval fantasy book where class X used modern-day sniper rifles?": You're going to play in a game where tinker gnomes exist... Is your medieval fantasy REALLY thrown off by that? Because dragonlance left medieval fantasy a LONG time ago ...

"there might be lots of existing medieval fantasy literature where Wizards use similar items": I on the other hand can't think an any it doesn't fit in. In all those medieval fantasy literature, how often have those characters ever been stripped naked and casting spell? That's about the only way you'd KNOW if they had a bonded item or not because it'd only come up if it's lose as you don't HAVE to use it for anything. It's not being brought up in no was means it doesn't or would work/fit.

Again, I just disagree on it fitting. Feel free to alter it as you wish.

James Risner: And I'd agree with that but he doesn't stop there. It like if someone says they don't want guns in the game so their out. No complaints here. Now if you say 'no guns because...', you open up the debate. Anyway, he seems to have made up his mind on what to do so the reason for the thread is over. We can debate this or not at he wishes.


graystone wrote:
"I just don't like the concept of the Arcane Bond": I thought we went over this. I'm cool with you not liking it. I'm just disagreeing with what you've said you found as a mechanical issue: The disadvantage. It's the reason you give for not liking it and I'm not getting how it's a disadvantage.

I'm not sure how you've gotten it completely backwards. I said the disadvantage is NOT the reason I dislike Arcane Bond. I said I don't like it because I don't like the concept.

graystone wrote:
So If you just say I don't like it, we're good. It's actually being a disadvantage is where the argument starts.

I don't like it. I've said all along it's not the disadvantage of losing it that is my concern. My concern is that I just don't like the concept of the Arcane Bond.

graystone wrote:
"Would I read a medieval fantasy book where class X used modern-day sniper rifles?": You're going to play in a game where tinker gnomes exist...

I know. But having read a hundred or more Dragonlance novels I see how much they affect the world (virtually none).

graystone wrote:
"there might be lots of existing medieval fantasy literature where Wizards use similar items": I on the other hand can't think an any it doesn't fit in. In all those medieval fantasy literature, how often have those characters ever been stripped naked and casting spell? That's about the only way you'd KNOW if they had a bonded item or not because it'd only come up if it's lose as you don't HAVE to use it for anything.

I stated earlier that I don't like the concept. Someone replied by saying that Arcane Bond was quite common in medieval fantasy literate. What you've quoted is just a throw-back to that. My point was even if it is common in literature, that doesn't mean I like it.


James Risner wrote:
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
I just don't like the concept of the Arcane Bond (with an item, and I've never really wanted a familiar).

Summarized as:

My GM is Rule 0-ing away Arcane Bond, since it is not optional and normally must be chosen.

I don't understand. Are you saying your GM is removing the rule? Why did you say "summarized as"?


Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
I just don't like the concept of the Arcane Bond (with an item, and I've never really wanted a familiar).

Summarized as:

My GM is Rule 0-ing away Arcane Bond, since it is not optional and normally must be chosen.

I don't understand. Are you saying your GM is removing the rule? Why did you say "summarized as"?

If you don't like something and don't want it in your campaign then it's rule 0 - you remove it. The rules allow you (the person running the campaign) to do this to any rule. You don't need to ask the rules forum for advice on this. If you aren't sure how a rule actually works this forum is the place. If you don't like how your GM uses a rule - talk to him about it after the game and if he doesn't change figure out if you can live with that or find another game.

No one can force the GM to use the rules exactly as written (unless you are playing PFS) - so in essence if you don't like it - remove it - the fact that it's there doesn't really apply.


Ckorik wrote:
If you don't like something and don't want it in your campaign then it's rule 0 - you remove it.

The game, in theory, is designed so that classes are more or less equal. If you simply remove something, you're altering that balance in some way.

I guess my concern is removing the rule and handicapping all Wiards who play. Granted I'm the GM and the players are only my own, young, children, so they wouldn't care or even notice.

But I've a condition known as Unrelenting Standards, so I tend to be extremely picky about everything I do. I'll spend weeks debating what about class I want to play, or weeks finding new names for World of Warcraft when I play that, etc).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
graystone wrote:
I find it hard to imagine a wizard concept that that can't accommodate one of the bonds. For instance, is your character never going to wear an amulet or ring? Never use a staff or wand? Never carry weapon?

It's kind of like worrying about someone puncturing your tire to slow you down when they could just as easily syphon the gas or take your battery. Why slow you when they can stop you?

I can answer that. They are more likely to get caught by taking battery or siphoning gas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
If you don't like something and don't want it in your campaign then it's rule 0 - you remove it.

The game, in theory, is designed so that classes are more or less equal. If you simply remove something, you're altering that balance in some way.

I guess my concern is removing the rule and handicapping all Wiards who play. Granted I'm the GM and the players are only my own, young, children, so they wouldn't care or even notice.

But I've a condition known as Unrelenting Standards, so I tend to be extremely picky about everything I do. I'll spend weeks debating what about class I want to play, or weeks finding new names for World of Warcraft when I play that, etc).

No - the game isn't designed that way actually. Pen and Paper isn't like an MMORPG where they try to achieve balance - this game is more like old school everquest - some classes are really good at one thing but suck otherwise - or need support. Some are really weak at low level and go off the charts power wise. All the classes are meant to work best as a *team* in a group setting. Wizards are good at what they do - arcane magic - in fact they are arguably better at it than any other class (cue debate here) - taking away arcane bond in your world isn't going to change that at all. If you are worried about it look at the archtypes that replace arcane bond and either give an alternate ability or design something on your own.


Ckorik wrote:
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
If you don't like something and don't want it in your campaign then it's rule 0 - you remove it.

The game, in theory, is designed so that classes are more or less equal. If you simply remove something, you're altering that balance in some way.

I guess my concern is removing the rule and handicapping all Wiards who play. Granted I'm the GM and the players are only my own, young, children, so they wouldn't care or even notice.

But I've a condition known as Unrelenting Standards, so I tend to be extremely picky about everything I do. I'll spend weeks debating what about class I want to play, or weeks finding new names for World of Warcraft when I play that, etc).

No - the game isn't designed that way actually. Pen and Paper isn't like an MMORPG where they try to achieve balance - this game is more like old school everquest - some classes are really good at one thing but suck otherwise - or need support.

I don't agree. Not all classes are balanced for damage, and I didn't say they were. I think they are balanced for playability. Each class is designed so they can offer something meaningful to a party. They are balanced in that there is no one super class (or inferior) making all others redundant.

If there was no balance then we could say that Wizards, and only Wizards, have unlimited hit points and never fail saves and nobody would bat an eyelash.


Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
If you don't like something and don't want it in your campaign then it's rule 0 - you remove it.

The game, in theory, is designed so that classes are more or less equal. If you simply remove something, you're altering that balance in some way.

I guess my concern is removing the rule and handicapping all Wiards who play. Granted I'm the GM and the players are only my own, young, children, so they wouldn't care or even notice.

But I've a condition known as Unrelenting Standards, so I tend to be extremely picky about everything I do. I'll spend weeks debating what about class I want to play, or weeks finding new names for World of Warcraft when I play that, etc).

No - the game isn't designed that way actually. Pen and Paper isn't like an MMORPG where they try to achieve balance - this game is more like old school everquest - some classes are really good at one thing but suck otherwise - or need support.

I don't agree. Not all classes are balanced for damage, and I didn't say they were. I think they are balanced for playability. Each class is designed so they can offer something meaningful to a party. They are balanced in that there is no one super class (or inferior) making all others redundant.

If there was no balance then we could say that Wizards, and only Wizards, have unlimited hit points and never fail saves and nobody would bat an eyelash.

In theory they would be balanced for the ability to contribute equally to the party, but that is not true.

Each class may(should) have its area of specialization, but not all specializations are equal.
You are taking an extreme either/or view of balance. "Not dominating the entire game" does not equate to "is balanced".

edit: With that being said player ability, and the willingness to not step on someone else's toes are a big factor when it comes to what takes place at the table.

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is a Wizard's Arcane Bond optional? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.