|
But this conversation has lead me to think about a sorc that pretends to use a wand during his casting. So for that I am thankful.Win!
Also, the first person who actually answered the question. If I could give you an internet, I would!
I've actually already used this trick with a bard before. Both as stated and in reverse (pretended to be casting, but using the wand). I also used a weird combination once where I claimed the wand was a wand of fireball then pretended to use it while actually casting an illusion of a fireball.
Up until this point as a wizard with a bonded item, my assumption was that bonded items could not be identified as such since you were creating a bond with a mundane non-magical item.
There are no rules that state that this item changes properties, other than what it was a MW item.
In my opinion, Paizo left out the characteristics of this item to keep it from being sundered, or dispelled or such or to even really worry about.
I would think that under the right circumstances, like the roleplaying options or by simple method of deduction that you might be able to deduce which item is their Bonded Item. The caster wears one ring, it is a MW item (which should take some type of check) which is a property of a Bonded Item. I should cut off his hand to see if he has trouble casting spells, you could call it a process of elimination.
I think if you extend the magical theory to the bonded item, that you would have to do the same with a familiar. Even though its type changes to magical beast, it also glows with the magic of the bond. Again, there is nothing in the rules that talks about this, other than the change of type.
I see both side of the arguement, I just lean towards the nono-magic one because there is nothing in the rules that specifically addresses the item becoming magical.
Personally, I do not think currently there is a "skill check" that allows it to be identified. I also hope it stays this way. Being able to cast *one* extra spell per day is nothing compared to the PAIN IN THE [bleep] that losing the item entails for the wizard. Being able to "roll dice" and tell the fighter to sunder the 4th ring on his left hand is just too good, IMO.
That being said- I am in the camp of "logic can figure it out". aka investigation.
A wizard (or whatever- for me, its a bard) with a bonded item /is not going to let that item get away/ for very long.
In the bath? Sleeping? On a date? Sshmoozing with the nobles? That person will /always/ have one particular item on them whether its a ring or amulet or whatnot.
You do some investigation, you watch the guy awhile, and even aside from combat- you'll most likely be able to figure out what item it is.
If you make the item *too* easy to find and neuter in your campaign then all you'll really do is have players figure its too big a weakness for the relatively minor boon and familiars will abound.
-S
|
Personally, I do not think currently there is a "skill check" that allows it to be identified. I also hope it stays this way. Being able to cast *one* extra spell per day is nothing compared to the PAIN IN THE [bleep] that losing the item entails for the wizard. Being able to "roll dice" and tell the fighter to sunder the 4th ring on his left hand is just too good, IMO.
That being said- I am in the camp of "logic can figure it out". aka investigation.
A wizard (or whatever- for me, its a bard) with a bonded item /is not going to let that item get away/ for very long.
In the bath? Sleeping? On a date? Sshmoozing with the nobles? That person will /always/ have one particular item on them whether its a ring or amulet or whatnot.
You do some investigation, you watch the guy awhile, and even aside from combat- you'll most likely be able to figure out what item it is.
If you make the item *too* easy to find and neuter in your campaign then all you'll really do is have players figure its too big a weakness for the relatively minor boon and familiars will abound.
-S
+1
A devout member of the religion can have a holy symbol(Don't christian wear crosses?) It just won't grant him any powers. Now if you see someone in robes acting in an official capacity for the church, that would be clergy. I am not saying robes are necessary, but they are normally worn in most games or movies with priest(not necessarily clerics)Clergy is different than cleric wandering around town in plain clothes, which happens to not be in disguise. Clergy are typically in vestments, or a uniform with accessories AKA they are wearing something that outwardly shows what they believe in. Are you being intentionally difficult at this point or what?
Actually, it says I can identify the clergy of a religion, meaning if you are a cleric and not in disguise, I can identify you as a cleric of the religion.
If you are in disguise and wearing lots of holy symbols, that's pretty weird.
Clergy, you mean like a cleric with a divine focus? Which is what we are talking about, which is still an off topic strawman.
If you aren't a cleric (or divine caster), then why do I care about your divine focus? And if you are...well then aren't you clergy?
There is a christian, and there is a priest. There is a marine who wears a cross, and there is a holy crusader.
Paladins and Clerics, by definition, are acting in an official capacity for the church.
That does not remove the fact that anyone can wear a holy symbol, but not everyone that does is clergy.
And the simple answer is no single check can give you the definitive answer you want. And you refuse to hear it EVERY TIME.Then give me a series of checks. You are giving no way to identify the arcane bonded object.
This either means you feel there should be no way to do it, or you can't think of one either.
What part of there is no specific roll or set of rolls or sequence of rolls that will get the information you want aren't you getting.
because EVERY situation is different.
We ARE trying to be helpful here and you are just being willfully ignorant at this point. If you are incapable of understanding what "investigate in game" means, you will never get it, ever. If you are unable to fathom something that doesn't come down to a die roll, maybe this isn't the game for you.
Do you understand the difference between role playing and roll playing??
When you actually provide a scenario where the arcane bonded item can be identified, you will be helping.
There is no specific scenario. I tell you what we will have a PbP in this thread. I will DM, and your job is to steal the bonded item from the wizard in order to complete the quest. The wizard is also a high ranking member of the government so kidnapping him is not an option. We will use level 10, but if you want to propose a different level you may. I think your DM has you roll for everything as to think about how to solve actual problems. Finding the bonded item is not that hard unless the wizard is trying to hide what it is. In this case we will assume he is not trying to hide it, but he won't just give the information freely either.
If you can not find a method we can switch roles, and I will try to find it.
No. I am waiting for the FAQ at this point, as it is clear the sides are entrenched and a reasoned rules discussion isn't going to answer the question.
If you can not find a method we can switch roles, and I will try to find it.
You're waiting for an FAQ to tell you that there isn't a set of rolls to make to find out what specific item is a bonded item? Lets just say I wouldn't hold my breath...
|
|
You're waiting for an FAQ to tell you that there isn't a set of rolls to make to find out what specific item is a bonded item? Lets just say I wouldn't hold my breath...No. I am waiting for the FAQ at this point, as it is clear the sides are entrenched and a reasoned rules discussion isn't going to answer the question.
If you can not find a method we can switch roles, and I will try to find it.
Agreed. It's very obvious that, as it currently stands, there is no RAW way of discovering that an item is an arcane bond except inference. The only way otherwise is to FAQ-in that the "bond" property is treated as a regular magic item property, in which case only identification could tell you it was a bond rather than just "a magic ring". That's a bit of a stretch for a FAQ.
I always thought that the "Sp" portion of the Arcane Bond ability was the ritual that creates it, not the result.
|
|
I thought the Sp was for the familiar(which turned into a magical animal) and the Ex was for the Bonded Item(which starts as masterwork, and is later enhanced by the wizard/sorcerer/bard with certain APG archtypes).
Only an ability can be Ex/Su/Sp. A creature is always either alive or dead, anti-magic won't kill your familiar. In order for your familiar to be Sp it would have to be insta-killed by anti-magic (or at least, turn back to normal until it left).
The rituals to bond the item or familiar would be Sp since they obviously involve magic. The Bond's abilities must be Ex since Sp means it's like casting a spell but without components (and having its own per-day usage pool), but the usage of the ability makes no such concession. The familiar cannot be Ex since it's not an ability (though the abilities it has have their own labels).
So the breakdown is:
Sp - Bond a familiar or item
Ex - Using the bonded item
N/A - The familiar
Varies - The familiar's abilities
If you look at the above you also can't make the use of the bonded item Sp since then NOTHING in the entry would be Ex.
|
|
You're waiting for an FAQ to tell you that there isn't a set of rolls to make to find out what specific item is a bonded item? Lets just say I wouldn't hold my breath...No. I am waiting for the FAQ at this point, as it is clear the sides are entrenched and a reasoned rules discussion isn't going to answer the question.
If you can not find a method we can switch roles, and I will try to find it.
I'm waiting for a ruling on how to identify an item, yes.
|
|
I thought the Sp was for the familiar(which turned into a magical animal) and the Ex was for the Bonded Item(which starts as masterwork, and is later enhanced by the wizard/sorcerer/bard with certain APG archtypes).Only an ability can be Ex/Su/Sp. A creature is always either alive or dead, anti-magic won't kill your familiar. In order for your familiar to be Sp it would have to be insta-killed by anti-magic (or at least, turn back to normal until it left).
The rituals to bond the item or familiar would be Sp since they obviously involve magic. The Bond's abilities must be Ex since Sp means it's like casting a spell but without components (and having its own per-day usage pool), but the usage of the ability makes no such concession. The familiar cannot be Ex since it's not an ability (though the abilities it has have their own labels).
So the breakdown is:
Sp - Bond a familiar or item
Ex - Using the bonded item
N/A - The familiar
Varies - The familiar's abilitiesIf you look at the above you also can't make the use of the bonded item Sp since then NOTHING in the entry would be Ex.
Actually, if it is the same as the Witch, the familiar is the EX
|
|
Actually, if it is the same as the Witch, the familiar is the EXI thought the Sp was for the familiar(which turned into a magical animal) and the Ex was for the Bonded Item(which starts as masterwork, and is later enhanced by the wizard/sorcerer/bard with certain APG archtypes).Only an ability can be Ex/Su/Sp. A creature is always either alive or dead, anti-magic won't kill your familiar. In order for your familiar to be Sp it would have to be insta-killed by anti-magic (or at least, turn back to normal until it left).
The rituals to bond the item or familiar would be Sp since they obviously involve magic. The Bond's abilities must be Ex since Sp means it's like casting a spell but without components (and having its own per-day usage pool), but the usage of the ability makes no such concession. The familiar cannot be Ex since it's not an ability (though the abilities it has have their own labels).
So the breakdown is:
Sp - Bond a familiar or item
Ex - Using the bonded item
N/A - The familiar
Varies - The familiar's abilitiesIf you look at the above you also can't make the use of the bonded item Sp since then NOTHING in the entry would be Ex.
Ex and N/A are functionally identical, but that would mean that the bonding ritual is Ex (which is weird, since that means it could be performed in an anti-magic zone).
If that's true, then the bonded object would be Sp, though that doesn't make much sense as it in no way fits that mold.Maybe they should have explicitly designated it. That was an awfully large chunk of text to leave with an ambiguity like that.
|
|
Actually, if it is the same as the Witch, the familiar is the EXWell the familiar has EX, SP and SU abilities.
But I don't see what is considered spell like at all.
Perhaps calling the familiar and bonding with the bonded item?
I don't believe that using the bonded item is a spell-like ability. The spell cast 'from it' isn't silenced or stilled (as would be a spell-like ability) and can be counterspelled (unlike a spell-like ability) and is most likely not able to be modified by monster feats for spell-like abilities (empower/quicken SLA).
-James
If for the witch, the Familiar is just an EX. So logically if the Arcane Bonded item and the Familiar combined are EX and SP, then the bonded object is the SP.
So the Bonded object is a Spell-Like ability.
"Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spell-like abilities and actual spellcasting power."
Makes sense to me. It's an item that allows you to cast a spell.
|
|
Makes sense to me. It's an item that allows you to cast a spell.
I'm sorry, how is that 'spell-like'?
What is the spell-like ability that you are talking about here?
Is it using the arcane bond or making an item an arcane bond?
You seem to imply it's using it.
Does that mean a spell cast via the arcane bond is a SLA? Cool! It's even stronger than I thought!
I'll use it to cast wish so I don't have to pony up the material components...
-James
The last line
"Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spell-like abilities and actual spellcasting power."
Which is exactly what it does. You can cast wish if you know it and "pony up the material components."
|
|
The last line"Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spell-like abilities and actual spellcasting power."
Which is exactly what it does. You can cast wish if you know it and "pony up the material components."
You're misunderstanding what its saying there I think.
If I have wish as a SLA I'm not ponying up anything but a standard action that provokes.
Now I also might have actual spellcasting power alongside this spell-like ability, and other creatures might actually cast spells as a sorcerer (say a Rakshasa, Naga or Dragon). Those parts of their casting are not SLAs and cannot for example be effected by say 'empower SLA' or 'quicken SLA' feats.
-James
I was joking.
I think the SLA is the creation of the bonded item itself, as well as the healing properties of the object.
But you will disagree as that would make the bonded object magic.
The last line"Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spell-like abilities and actual spellcasting power."
Which is exactly what it does. You can cast wish if you know it and "pony up the material components."
You're misunderstanding what its saying there I think.
If I have wish as a SLA I'm not ponying up anything but a standard action that provokes.
Now I also might have actual spellcasting power alongside this spell-like ability, and other creatures might actually cast spells as a sorcerer (say a Rakshasa, Naga or Dragon). Those parts of their casting are not SLAs and cannot for example be effected by say 'empower SLA' or 'quicken SLA' feats.
-James
I was joking.
I think the SLA is the creation of the bonded item itself, as well as the healing properties of the object.
But you will disagree as that would make the bonded object magic.
OOOooooo! I would not disagree, it is the SLA in the bonding..the item it results in is not magic in and of itself though. Much like using stoneshape, squish the stone any way you want..but it is still stone. Not magic stone. Blast me with magic missles ( please dont) and I dont radiate magic.
I really need to stop reading this thread. After all, I did win :P And we are not going to convince you and you are not going to convince us. *sighs*
Actually, if it is the same as the Witch, the familiar is the EX.
Well the familiar has EX, SP and SU abilities.
.
But I don't see what is considered spell like at all.
.
Perhaps calling the familiar and bonding with the bonded item?
.
I don't believe that using the bonded item is a spell-like ability. The spell cast 'from it' isn't silenced or stilled (as would be a spell-like ability) and can be counterspelled (unlike a spell-like ability) and is most likely not able to be modified by monster feats for spell-like abilities (empower/quicken SLA).
.
-James
Well you also have to look at things another way, if the familiar was an SP or SU ability. AMF would destroy the connection and all the sudden and the familiar would be lost. Being EX allows the wizard/witch/etc to allow the maintain the connection all the time. It can't be dispelled or interrupted which is a good thing.
Assuming it hasn't been changed, the ability for a class to cast spells per day is a SP ability. The fact that a mundane object allows the wizard to cast a spell would follow that logic no? Put another way, casting a spell is an SP ability, the arcane bond allows the wizard to cast a spell when the mundane item is in hand, once per day, that single casting of the spell is what is SP. If casting a spell were an EX ability it would break one of the core rules, magic operating where magic shouldn't. The SP of the ability is that the wizard casts the spell, it has nothing to do with the actual item itself being magical. As the wizard is casting a spell, it also allows for the "extra" spell to be altered by meta feats just like a spell normally cast, which seems to be the intent of the ability. Just to verify, I wouldn't allow a wizard to cast a spell that broke the level limit (IE if the highest they can cast is 4th level spells I wouldn't allow them to meta magic something beyond that).
|
|
The last line"Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spell-like abilities and actual spellcasting power."
Which is exactly what it does. You can cast wish if you know it and "pony up the material components."
You're misunderstanding what its saying there I think.
If I have wish as a SLA I'm not ponying up anything but a standard action that provokes.
Now I also might have actual spellcasting power alongside this spell-like ability, and other creatures might actually cast spells as a sorcerer (say a Rakshasa, Naga or Dragon). Those parts of their casting are not SLAs and cannot for example be effected by say 'empower SLA' or 'quicken SLA' feats.
-James
I was joking.
I think the SLA is the creation of the bonded item itself, as well as the healing properties of the object.
But you will disagree as that would make the bonded object magic.
OOOooooo! I would not disagree, it is the SLA in the bonding..the item it results in is not magic in and of itself though. Much like using stoneshape, squish the stone any way you want..but it is still stone. Not magic stone. Blast me with magic missles ( please dont) and I dont radiate magic.
I really need to stop reading this thread. After all, I did win :P And we are not going to convince you and you are not going to convince us. *sighs*
The healing part.
I don't care if it is magic. I think it is, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Like I said, I'm just waiting for the FAQ.
I was joking.
.
I think the SLA is the creation of the bonded item itself, as well as the healing properties of the object.
.
But you will disagree as that would make the bonded object magic.
Well the disagreement is because the item isn't actually magic until the wizards enchants it. The healing properties aren't part of the item, they are part of the bond and are totally reliant on the wizard. The repair doesn't actually occur unless the wizard does something (prepares spells). Also the wizard is still casting that extra spell per day, it just so happens they are incapable of casting it if the mundane item is not in their possession. The item isn't providing anything, it is a requirement for the wizard to cast the spell, a material focus (not component as it isn't actually used up). Analogous to the extra spell having "Focus: arcane bonded object" added to the components in the spell block.
The healing part.
.
I don't care if it is magic. I think it is, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Like I said, I'm just waiting for the FAQ.
Nowhere does it say the item is "healing" itself, it actually says the item is repaired when the wizard prepares spells as part of the bond. You are adding things to the rules again.
|
|
Well the disagreement is because the item isn't actually magic until the wizards enchants it. The healing properties aren't part of the item, they are part of the bond and are totally reliant on the wizard. The repair doesn't actually occur unless the wizard does something (prepares spells). Also the wizard is still casting that extra spell per day, it just so happens they are incapable of casting it if the mundane item is not in their possession. The item isn't providing anything, it is a requirement for the wizard to cast the spell, a material focus (not component as it isn't actually used up). Analogous to the extra spell having "Focus: arcane bonded object" added to the components in the spell block.
This makes me think of the bonded item as an inanimate symbiotic parasite...
I like it! :)
|
|
Nowhere does it say the item is "healing" itself, it actually says the item is repaired when the wizard prepares spells as part of the bond. You are adding things to the rules again.The healing part.
.
I don't care if it is magic. I think it is, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Like I said, I'm just waiting for the FAQ.
What again?
Seriously, everyone needs to calm down. There will be an FAQ at some point and it will be made clear.
Relax.
Nowhere does it say the item is "healing" itself, it actually says the item is repaired when the wizard prepares spells as part of the bond. You are adding things to the rules again.The healing part.
.
I don't care if it is magic. I think it is, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Like I said, I'm just waiting for the FAQ.What again?
Seriously, everyone needs to calm down. There will be an FAQ at some point and it will be made clear.
Relax.
Who isn't calm? Many of the posters have given you answers that you don't like yet you keep arguing it as it doesn't come down to some simple resolution. As I said, I'm okay with this, if it is something you cannot handle there is nothing this forum will be able to do for you and I seriously doubt the Paizo crew is going to give you the answer you want to hear via FAQ. If a simple doesn't make the cut, is PAIZO saying that it isn't a simple answer going to make you happy??
No. I am waiting for the FAQ at this point, as it is clear the sides are entrenched and a reasoned rules discussion isn't going to answer the question.
If you can not find a method we can switch roles, and I will try to find it.
You will soon learn problems are not solved by dice rolls alone.
PS:Sometimes there is not a specific rule for an issue.
First I thought the bonded item shouldn't be magic, then I thought it should, now I am back to thinking it isn't magic.
Having a familiar is an Extraordinary ability of the Wizard. That doesn't mean that the familiar IS and Ex ability, just that the Wizard's bond with it is. Likewise the Wizards bond with his bonded item is an Ex ability. This Ex ability gives the Wizard the Spell-like Ability to cast a spell of his choice from his spellbook once a day. Unlike most Spell-like Abilities the Wizard has to cast it like a regular spell.
A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. The bonded object cannot be used to cast spells from the wizard's opposition schools (see arcane school).
It doesn't specifically mention verbal, semantic and material components, but "treated like any other spell cast by the wizard" seems to imply it.
Also, it specifically says it can not be modified by metamagic.
First I thought the bonded item shouldn't be magic, then I thought it should, now I am back to thinking it isn't magic.
Having a familiar is an Extraordinary ability of the Wizard. That doesn't mean that the familiar IS and Ex ability, just that the Wizard's bond with it is. Likewise the Wizards bond with his bonded item is an Ex ability. This Ex ability gives the Wizard the Spell-like Ability to cast a spell of his choice from his spellbook once a day. Unlike most Spell-like Abilities the Wizard has to cast it like a regular spell.
A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. The bonded object cannot be used to cast spells from the wizard's opposition schools (see arcane school).It doesn't specifically mention verbal, semantic and material components, but "treated like any other spell cast by the wizard" seems to imply it.
Also, it specifically says it can not be modified by metamagic.
So it does, tunnel vision from banging my head against the same rules over and over, I am wrong on that (the meta magic) point :)
This Ex ability gives the Wizard the Spell-like Ability to cast a spell of his choice from his spellbook once a day. Unlike most Spell-like Abilities the Wizard has to cast it like a regular spell.
It doesn't specifically mention verbal, semantic and material components, but "treated like any other spell cast by the wizard" seems to imply it.
Doesn't quite seem like a spell-like ability, rather it seems like a 'spell ability' so to speak.
You'd also claim that the spell cast this way can be counterspelled, right?
So really it IS spellcasting and has nothing that separates spell casting from using a spell-like ability...
-James
It is a spell. It just has an exception to the rules to where it is treated like an SLA in many respects.
It is a spell. It just has an exception to the rules to where it is treated like an SLA in many respects.How is it treated like a SLA?
1. The spell has VSM components unlike a SLA.
2. The spell can be counterspelled unlike a SLA.
3. The spell cannot be augmented by Empower/Quicken SLA unlike a SLA.
4. The spell is based off of INT vs CHA unlike a SLA.
5. The spell is based off of Wizard casting level vs HD unlike a SLA.Is there something that a SLA has that a normal spell doesn't that this has?
So far all the ways I think of a SLA as being different from a spell we have this coming up as 'its a spell' rather than a SLA.
-James
I read it wrong, but we do agree that it is a spell. :)
|
|
So it does, tunnel vision from banging my head against the same rules over and over, I am wrong on that (the meta magic) point :)
This is a good point. I don't think anywhere the entire rule has been posted. It may actually be helpful, as both sides seem to think the other isn't reading it completely. I'll add editors notes below each paragraph for what I think are key points, others can do the same.
"Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp)"
ed:Note "or" not "and"
"At 1st level, wizards form a powerful bond with an object or a creature. This bond can take one of two forms: a familiar or a bonded object. A familiar is a magical pet that enhances the wizard's skills and senses and can aid him in magic, while a bonded object is an item a wizard can use to cast additional spells or to serve as a magical item. Once a wizard makes this choice, it is permanent and cannot be changed. Rules for bonded items are given below, while rules for familiars are at the end of this section."
ed: "an item a wizard can use to cast additional spells or to serve as a magical item."
"Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork quality. Weapons acquired at 1st level are not made of any special material. If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is equal to 20 + the spell's level. If the object is a ring or amulet, it occupies the ring or neck slot accordingly."
ed: "If the object is an amulet or ring it must be worn to have effect" meaning it has an effect.
"A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. The bonded object cannot be used to cast spells from the wizard's opposition schools (see arcane school)."
ed: "A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared." meaning the bonded item somehow contains the ability to cast any spell the wizard knows, even if the wizard had not prepared it for the day.
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required Item Creation Feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat. For example, a wizard with a bonded dagger must be at least 5th level to add magic abilities to the dagger (see the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat in Feats). If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its wand abilities when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties and can be used to craft a new wand. The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it. If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.
ed: "A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required Item Creation Feats and if he meets the level prerequisites for the feat." As I've said several times, there is no reason to use the word "additional" unless it is already considered to have magic abilities. You'll note the next sentence refers to a dagger, not a magical dagger. Also in this paragraph "The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it." If it did not have magical properties other that added ones, it wouldn't have to add "including any magic abilities added to the object". Last in this paragraph, " If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type." meaning it has to "revert" back to being an ordinary masterwork item, because it is not one when it is a bonded object.
"If a bonded object is damaged, it is restored to full hit points the next time the wizard prepares his spells. If the object of an arcane bond is lost or destroyed, it can be replaced after 1 week in a special ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level plus the cost of the masterwork item. This ritual takes 8 hours to complete. Items replaced in this way do not possess any of the additional enchantments of the previous bonded item. A wizard can designate an existing magic item as his bonded item. This functions in the same way as replacing a lost or destroyed item except that the new magic item retains its abilities while gaining the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a bonded item."
Ed: "If a bonded object is damaged, it is restored to full hit points the next time the wizard prepares his spells. If the object of an arcane bond is lost or destroyed, it can be replaced after 1 week in a special ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level plus the cost of the masterwork item. This ritual takes 8 hours to complete." In other words it heals itself, and requires a ritual to replace.
Now, again I don't know if any of that means it can be detected in the same way other magic items can. I don't know if it can be detected in any way short of wish or miracle (which at least gives it some way to be identified. It may not.
Like I said, I'm waiting for the powers that be to decide in the FAQ.
I'm gonna say it was probably labeled (Sp) because there is no tag for something that actually *is* a spell.
I would agree with this.
The other possibility is that the (Sp) ability is a two step process. First, use the Spell-Like Ability to gain the ability to cast any spell from your spell book. Second, you cast that spell as normal. The only issue here then is that the Spell-Like Ability takes no time at all instead of a Standard action.
Either way it is certainly a unique ability that is not encountered anywhere else in the game.
I am still thinking that the ability to use the Arcane Bonded item to cast spells without a concentration check is an (Ex) ability. Even if the item was suppressed by Dispel Magic it would still allow the Wizard to cast unhindered as (Ex) abilities are not magic. Theoretically it would also continue to function in an Anti-Magic Sphere, except the Wizard wouldn't be able to cast spells at all anyway.
*stuff we've all been reading and pouring over looking for an answer that makes us "right" or at least more right than the other guy/gal*
You know, what fine, you win. Arcane Bond with an object is magical and the SP part is the masterwork non-magical magical weapon.
As soon as I can dispel magic, I'm casting it on my bonded item as it just became an indirect buff. As it is a SP, a MAGICAL item which can be targeted, when it is dispelled I can happily cast all my spells without any penalty as the bond isn't any longer in effect. WIN!
[end sarcasm]
|
No. I am waiting for the FAQ at this point, as it is clear the sides are entrenched and a reasoned rules discussion isn't going to answer the question.
If one person is asking the same question over and over again it doesn't really count as a Frequently Asked Question.
The Holy Symbol argumentation you are making doesn't work as 'holy symbol' is disambigous. The check is about identifying the religion, not about determining the object used as a divine focus. Why else would it be harder to identify a symbol of a obscure religion?
Some real world examples of holy symbols. Which ones could you identify?
|
|
No. I am waiting for the FAQ at this point, as it is clear the sides are entrenched and a reasoned rules discussion isn't going to answer the question.If one person is asking the same question over and over again it doesn't really count as a Frequently Asked Question.
The Holy Symbol argumentation you are making doesn't work as 'holy symbol' is disambigous. The check is about identifying the religion, not about determining the object used as a divine focus. Why else would it be harder to identify a symbol of a obscure religion?
Some real world examples of holy symbols. Which ones could you identify?
Two things
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/knowledge
RAW
Recognize a common deity’s symbol or clergy Religion 10
Know common mythology and tenets Religion 15
Recognize an obscure deity’s symbol or clergy Religion 20
Second,11 people have flagged this as an FAQ, and if you read the posts I'm not the only one unsure of the answer.
Sarcasm = Not helpful.
Sarcasm = Not helpful.
Maybe not for you, but it made me feel better after repeating logical things ad nauseum and getting illogical replies.