http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/animateObjects.html#animate-objec ts
A bard operates off of arcane magics, and it makes more sense to me for a wizard or sorcerer to have this spell than a bard.
Why can they not use it, is this an error in the SRD?
Because if sorcerers had Animate Object, they would make a magical hat to cast the spell at will. And then their mouse familiar, whose name would have to be Mickey, would put on the hat and animate a broom to do his chores for him. Hilarity and chaos would ensue, great floods would wreck the sorcerer's home, the mouse would nearly drown, and the sorcerer would get no sleep. And Goethe would roll over in his grave.
It's just too dangerous.
Is it really too dangerous?
Also, pro reference.
I see no problem, ever since 2nd edition went 3rd edition I noticed a trend to make wizard spells into cleric spells, but somehow the reverse is being tread with extreme care.
It is a wizard spell in my campaign by the way, I'd sooner consider taking it away from bard and cleric.
If it's not a typo it's probably because of some annoying esoteric sense of game balance.
So then we wait for the talking dinosaur. >.>
Frankly I think this is part of the long-standing tradition of taking wizards toys and giving them to clerics because the God of * should be able to grant all * spells to his/her groupies but then assume that wizards are too incompetent to research arcane versions of spells they see clerics do. It gets even worse with bards now having the spell too.
Personally I'd house rule that wizards can have Animate Objects because otherwise the note about how it may be used with Permanency is a bit nonsensical, since that would require a cleric/wizard or bard/wizard jam session or else a wizard or sorcerer blowing a Wish followed by Permanency.
Plus it lets you have Merlin from THE SWORD IN THE STONE followed by animated teapots and other furnishings.
Creative Director
|
It's not about balance. It's a flavor choice, more or less. Some spells are obviously arcane spells; some are obviously divine. Some could be either, and in those cases the game designers make a decision on whether to let them be both or more or less arbitrarily be one or the other. In the case of animate objects, it's traditionally been a cleric spell so that's why it remains a cleric spell.
If you wanna change it in your home game, by all means go for it. We didn't change it in Pathfinder because we're pretty big fans of the game's tradition and history is all.
Since it is an arcane spell, can wizards cast if from a scroll?
Wizards can cast any spell from a scroll that is on their spell list. By the book this is not one of those. It is just like the bard version of cure light wounds. Wizards cannot cast it (unless they Use Magic Device skill) and they cannot scribe it into their spellbooks.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Since it is an arcane spell, can wizards cast if from a scroll?Wizards can cast any spell from a scroll that is on their spell list. By the book this is not one of those. It is just like the bard version of cure light wounds. Wizards cannot cast it (unless they Use Magic Device skill) and they cannot scribe it into their spellbooks.
I thought not. I always wondered how this guy got all the animated objects.
The craft construct feat would allow a wizard to make any of these things. Rather then casting a spell animate object he is creating and animated construct. They have the added advantage of being more like a zombie or skeleton and not needing to be "refreshed" and they also cannot be dispelled.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The craft construct feat would allow a wizard to make any of these things. Rather then casting a spell animate object he is creating and animated construct. They have the added advantage of being more like a zombie or skeleton and not needing to be "refreshed" and they also cannot be dispelled.
I think that's true under Pathfinder (although it doesn't seem spelled out as to the costs) but was it true under 3.5?
Rather then casting a spell animate object he is creating and animated construct.
To me, that sentence sounds hilarious. I don't know why.. tickles my redundancy funny bone, even though it's not technically redundant.
If a player asked me if they could have that spell as a Wizard, I'd allow it to be researched. I try to cleave to regular rules, but in this case, Fantasia has too good a grip on my psyche to not allow it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Permanent animated objects can be built using the Craft Construct feat.
Craft Construct (Item Creation) ... Benefit: You can create any construct whose prerequisites you meet.
What are the prerequisites for crafting animated objects? What are the costs?
(I left my Core Rulebook and Bestiary in my office. Is there more info in there?)
Pre 3e, the spell was cleric probably because it was conceived as "spark of life" animating the objects, quite a bit in the divine area of action. It's also possible that Gygax and co. mined from some mythological source, which I cannot piece out right now. That's the origin of many Wizard vs. Cleric divides. e.g., Sticks to Snakes is a Divine spell because Moses performed that miracle in the book of Exodus. In those lines, many of the Divine spells in 1st and 2nd ed are biblical and biblical tradition recorded miracles (Create Water, Create Food, Insect Plague, Flame Strike...) There is a good tradition of medieval Christian miracles where items (or foodstuffs) animate in response to a prayer and similar stuff. Also, the whole original Golem tradition is crearly divine, as animation of objects (clay statue) is done by the application of the divine name by a rabbi.
Bards, well, in 2e bards just went along with the wizard list. In 3e it seems that their list got to include spells connected to performance, image and sound control (besides their access to healing). So, along with Silence, Animate Object makes sense from the pov of a theme-specialized spellcaster.
As I recall, Animate Objects was related to positive energy, which wizards don't really have much access to.
As I recall, Animate Objects was related to positive energy, which wizards don't really have much access to.
This unfortunately fails to explain Animate Rope which has been a wizard spell for a good long while now, despite the fact that a fakir or swami would more likely be a cleric.
|
Creative Director
|
As I recall, Animate Objects was related to positive energy, which wizards don't really have much access to.This unfortunately fails to explain Animate Rope which has been a wizard spell for a good long while now, despite the fact that a fakir or swami would more likely be a cleric.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to see fakir or swamii as a variant class some day. And with variant classes you can do a lot of things with spell selections.
Does James know how awesome he is? lol.