|
*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]
You want me to be saying something I am not saying. I will try once again to be clear.
I don't know if it is magic. I don't know if it detects as magic. It certainly has a number of magical aspects, a link to arcane spell casting, and is bonded to an arcane spell caster.
But then again a wizard wouldn't detect as magic, would he? So maybe something bonded to him wouldn't either, as perhaps the bond only activates when he is casting. However, I think most of us would agree that most PC's could figure out if someone was a wizard or not with some kind of observational/arcana check while he was casting a spell.
I think if it does end up having a check, it should be a very, very difficult check that goes up in difficulty with level. If it does detect as magic, that doesn't mean you can tell what it is right away, as the spells and checks aren't written that way. It is difficult to identify any magic item not in your hands, and wizards aren't going to exactly hand you their bonded item.
I am asking how you would identify it. Someone said wish or miracle, and that works for me as one solution. I don't know if their are others, I am asking.
Were it like a divine focus, it would be easy to detect. Too easy in my opinion. Were it like a somatic component it would also be too easy to detect, as you would see it being used in the process of casting the spell.
But it is something, and the fact that it specifically must be exposed indicates the developers intended it to be exploitable.
I hope it is very hard to figure out, as it is, as I've described, a death star like weakness for the wizard. But so to can be a wizards spell book. Such is the nature of the wizard, most potential power in the game mixed most potential vulnerability in the game.
And just like you need to protect your spellbook (an item we would all agree can be identified fairly easily) you would need to protect your bonded item. Or get a familiar instead.
Not getting into the 200+ post discussion as it seems most things have been said, just wanted to state that Ciretose isn't alone on the side that says there should be a way to identify the item.
I also think that the wording of the bonded object is such that it might support the interpretation that it is a magic item, with the "additional magic abilities" clause and such, but that it isn't in any way a clear call. Regardless, I think there should be some way to identify it.
I flagged this for the FAQ too.
Not getting into the 200+ post discussion as it seems most things have been said, just wanted to state that Ciretose isn't alone on the side that says there should be a way to identify the item.
I also think that the wording of the bonded object is such that it might support the interpretation that it is a magic item, with the "additional magic abilities" clause and such, but that it isn't in any way a clear call. Regardless, I think there should be some way to identify it.
I flagged this for the FAQ too.
I don't believe anyone has said there shouldn't be a way to identify it. What has been said is that it SHOULD NOT be reduced down to a few rolls of dice.
I don't believe anyone has said there shouldn't be a way to identify it. What has been said is that it SHOULD NOT be reduced down to a few rolls of dice.
Well, yeah, I meant that there should be a way to determine that it's the wizard's bonded item in a way that you can't determine any common item. If the only way to know what item is the bonded is becuase the wizard doesn't take it of in the bath, all wizards will bathe in full equipment.
My point is that there should be a way to detect it that is active, rather than proactive. Even if the enemy wizard doesn't want it found, there should be ways to. Partly because otherwise the drawback lines are more or less useless, and partly because otherwise wizards will do all kinds of funky stuff such as bathing in full garment just to avoid detection. I'm fine with wearing 10 rings and thus making it harder; I'm not fine with having trial-and-error being the only way to find out which.
I really want a faq on this, because when detection is left solely to DM adjudication and storyline, the arcane bond ability becomes very, very different in power level between groups, even in organized play. In some groups the object will be a useless choice, in other THE choice. I don't like that, especially for something chosen at level 1 before you get the feel for a campaign.
This, however, is now just a situation on how I'd like it to be and nothing about the RAW. The RAW IS ambiguous, which is why I hit the FAQ button.
.
..
...
....
.....
H
::
''Hey Mr Wizard, nice ring!''
''Why thank you.''
"Is it your Bonded Item?''
''Hmm.. what is a 'Bonded Item?''
''You know, the mundane or otherwise item that allows you to focus our magical energies once a day, an item who's loss or destruction can seriously hinder your spell casting capabilities.''
"What? How.. NO! Of course not!''
*SENSE MOTIVE CHECK: SUCCESS*
''LIAR! YOU LIE! YOU LIED TO ME! YOU..''
''...searing.. pain... hair.. melted to skull.. ''
''..and let that be a lesson to you small orphan child with disturbingly high Knowledge:Arcana ranks!''
I really like the idea that a bonded item only is magical when used. It's an interesting way of solving it, and makes it hard but not impossible to detect it at all levels, since you'd have to ready an action to study the caster when he casts a spell, so it's like a wasted opportunity to counterspell (or do anything else). It makes it hard to use as a standard tactic, but is useful in intelligence (the rogue stalking the wizard suspected of being the BBEG, and though she's to weak to attack him she studies him when he's casting his spell, using minor magic talent to detect the flash of magic from the third ring on his left hand.)
I don't like solutions that mean it's only detectable at higher levels.
I don't believe anyone has said there shouldn't be a way to identify it. What has been said is that it SHOULD NOT be reduced down to a few rolls of dice.Well, yeah, I meant that there should be a way to determine that it's the wizard's bonded item in a way that you can't determine any common item. If the only way to know what item is the bonded is becuase the wizard doesn't take it of in the bath, all wizards will bathe in full equipment.
My point is that there should be a way to detect it that is active, rather than proactive. Even if the enemy wizard doesn't want it found, there should be ways to. Partly because otherwise the drawback lines are more or less useless, and partly because otherwise wizards will do all kinds of funky stuff such as bathing in full garment just to avoid detection. I'm fine with wearing 10 rings and thus making it harder; I'm not fine with having trial-and-error being the only way to find out which.
I really want a faq on this, because when detection is left solely to DM adjudication and storyline, the arcane bond ability becomes very, very different in power level between groups, even in organized play. In some groups the object will be a useless choice, in other THE choice. I don't like that, especially for something chosen at level 1 before you get the feel for a campaign.
This, however, is now just a situation on how I'd like it to be and nothing about the RAW. The RAW IS ambiguous, which is why I hit the FAQ button.
And Paizo has stated on numerous other occasions that they leave rules as ambiguous for a reason. Given the nature of this issue, I'm of the mind they are doing it on purpose, to allow the DM of the campaign to say "it works this way in my game." Seeing as the severity of the weakness is so extreme at levels when the characters don't actually have ways to deal with it or protect themselves, your complaint of trial and error is exactly what it should be. You shouldn't be able to reduce this ability to "roll playing" and single out a classes main weakness which they choose to take just to punish them, because face it, the ONLY reason you'd be looking for it is to screw that wizard over. If your DM wants it to be that way fine, but I don't think the game itself benefits from such a simple minded ruling as: roll DC, target item, WIN. No wizard would ever choose that ability, ever, if that were the case.
all wizards will bathe in full equipment.Nope, wizards use prestidigitation.
Doesn't work on people, just items :/
And Paizo has stated on numerous other occasions that they leave rules as ambiguous for a reason.
Sure, but they've clarified them on a number of other occacions. This is one case where I'd like them to clarify. Whether they do it is of course up to them, but I prefer a clear ruling on whether a bonded object has any kind of magical attributes.
|
.
..
...
....
.....H
::
''Hey Mr Wizard, nice ring!''
''Why thank you.''
"Is it your Bonded Item?''
''Hmm.. what is a 'Bonded Item?''
''You know, the mundane or otherwise item that allows you to focus our magical energies once a day, an item who's loss or destruction can seriously hinder your spell casting capabilities.''
"What? How.. NO! Of course not!''
*SENSE MOTIVE CHECK: SUCCESS*
''LIAR! YOU LIE! YOU LIED TO ME! YOU..''
''...searing.. pain... hair.. melted to skull.. ''
''..and let that be a lesson to you small orphan child with disturbingly high Knowledge:Arcana ranks!''
Wonderful BenignFacist! +5
But it is something, and the fact that it specifically must be exposed indicates the developers intended it to be exploitable.
Where's it say it must be exposed?
And if we're speculating about developer intentions; the drawbacks are there. It takes a slot/hand to have with you. If you're imprisoned and stripped of all your posessions, you lose it.
There's no indication that the devs intended it to be identified and sundered.
|
|
.
..
...
....
.....H
::
''Hey Mr Wizard, nice ring!''
''Why thank you.''
"Is it your Bonded Item?''
''Hmm.. what is a 'Bonded Item?''
''You know, the mundane or otherwise item that allows you to focus our magical energies once a day, an item who's loss or destruction can seriously hinder your spell casting capabilities.''
"What? How.. NO! Of course not!''
*SENSE MOTIVE CHECK: SUCCESS*
''LIAR! YOU LIE! YOU LIED TO ME! YOU..''
''...searing.. pain... hair.. melted to skull.. ''
''..and let that be a lesson to you small orphan child with disturbingly high Knowledge:Arcana ranks!''
You sir, are one of the best posters on here.
.
..
...
....
.....H
::
''Hey Mr Wizard, nice ring!''
''Why thank you.''
"Is it your Bonded Item?''
''Hmm.. what is a 'Bonded Item?''
''You know, the mundane or otherwise item that allows you to focus our magical energies once a day, an item who's loss or destruction can seriously hinder your spell casting capabilities.''
"What? How.. NO! Of course not!''
*SENSE MOTIVE CHECK: SUCCESS*
''LIAR! YOU LIE! YOU LIED TO ME! YOU..''
''...searing.. pain... hair.. melted to skull.. ''
''..and let that be a lesson to you small orphan child with disturbingly high Knowledge:Arcana ranks!''
*Whimpers*
I wanna play in your campaign... :oP
|
|
Hmm...wizard and bonded item? I say this, if the wizard wears a ring on every finger of his left hand, don't waste five different attacks sundering five different ring! Use one attack and sunder his damned wrist! Even if you didn't get his bonded object, then he won't be able to make those silly hand gestures anymore.
|
|
But it is something, and the fact that it specifically must be exposed indicates the developers intended it to be exploitable.Where's it say it must be exposed?
And if we're speculating about developer intentions; the drawbacks are there. It takes a slot/hand to have with you. If you're imprisoned and stripped of all your posessions, you lose it.
There's no indication that the devs intended it to be identified and sundered.
Why do you think the require it to be worn or wielded? Why do they have a penalty if you don't?
Why do you think the require it to be worn or wielded? Why do they have a penalty if you don't?But it is something, and the fact that it specifically must be exposed indicates the developers intended it to be exploitable.Where's it say it must be exposed?
And if we're speculating about developer intentions; the drawbacks are there. It takes a slot/hand to have with you. If you're imprisoned and stripped of all your posessions, you lose it.
There's no indication that the devs intended it to be identified and sundered.
Having to be worn, doesn't mean it has to be exposed.... Being in hand doesn't mean it has to be purposely or "forcefully" presented.... Don't take this the wrong way, but is English your primary language? You seem to take things too literally at times and not comprehend other things, it would explain a lot if it weren't.
|
|
And Paizo has stated on numerous other occasions that they leave rules as ambiguous for a reason. Given the nature of this issue, I'm of the mind they are doing it on purpose, to allow the DM of the campaign to say "it works this way in my game." Seeing as the severity of the weakness is so extreme at levels when the characters don't actually have ways to deal with it or protect themselves, your complaint of trial and error is exactly what it should be. You shouldn't be able to reduce...
Here is my impression of the discussion.
Me: “How do you identify what a wizard’s arcane bonded item is?”
You “YOU WANT TO HAVE EVERYTHING A SIMPLE ROLL, IT WILL MAKE IT USELESS IF IT IS A SIMPLE ROLL!”
Me: “Ok, how do you think you can identify what a wizards arcane bonded item is?”
You “YOU WANT TO “ROLL” PLAY, THE RULES DON’T HAVE A WAY OF “ROLL” PLAYING AND YOU ARE ANGRY AND YOU AREN’T LISTENING TO ALL OF US EXPLAINING HOW TO IDENTIFY BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE THE ANSWER AND YOU WANT IT TO BE EASY TO DO SO YOU CAN KILL WIZARDS!”
Me: “Wait, what? What answer? You didn’t give an answer? Seriously, how do you identify what a wizard’s arcane bonded item is? I agree it should be hard to do, but isn’t there some way to do it? Can you tell me some way to do it?”
You: “YOU DON’T LISTEN, YOU DON’T LIKE HOW WE TOLD YOU TO DO IT, YOU WANT ALL WIZARDS TO BE WEAK AND YOUR MOTHER SMELLS OF ELDERBERRYS!”
Me: “But you didn’t give an answer…”
You “ELDERBERRIES! DON’T YOU LISTEN!”
Some guy actually being helpful: “I guess wish and miracle could work”
Me: “Ok, anything else?”
You “YOU WANT TO KILL MY WIZARD! WE ALL ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION! THE DEVELOPERS DON’T WANT YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED! “ROLL” PLAYER!!!”
Me: (this post)
|
|
Having to be worn, doesn't mean it has to be exposed.... Being in hand doesn't mean it has to be purposely or "forcefully" presented.... Don't take this the wrong way, but is English your primary language? You seem to take things too literally at times and not comprehend other things, it would explain a lot if it weren't.Why do you think the require it to be worn or wielded? Why do they have a penalty if you don't?But it is something, and the fact that it specifically must be exposed indicates the developers intended it to be exploitable.Where's it say it must be exposed?
And if we're speculating about developer intentions; the drawbacks are there. It takes a slot/hand to have with you. If you're imprisoned and stripped of all your posessions, you lose it.
There's no indication that the devs intended it to be identified and sundered.
Once again, you don't answer the question, you present a different question. You reword the original question by adding "Forcefully presented", to make it sound exaggerated rather that RAW.
The developers didn't have to require it to be worn or wielded. Pearls of power aren't. Neither are spell books. They didn't have to make you wield your dagger to cast, they could have just said you need to have it in your possession. They didn't have to make you wear your amulet to cast. They decided to do that, for some reason. They decided to make you expose those items for some reason.
What do you think that reason was?
|
|
They didn't have to make you wear your amulet to cast. They decided to do that, for some reason. They decided to make you expose those items for some reason.
What do you think that reason was?
Wear is not the same thing as exposed.
If someone wears underwear.. well think about it.
As to reasons the other poster presented some to you, didn't they? Personally this is another bad way of trying to read into rules. IF they really meant it to be this then they would have said it this way. Its a bad road to go down.
When you couple it with demanding a result you are not going to find happiness, at best you will find self-delusion.
-James
The reason they gave, I believe, was "if you were captured/stripped."
In that case, it wouldn't need to be in a slot. You also would not have your spellbook, pearls of power, potions, etc...
So why make you wield/wear the object. What is your opinion of why they specifically required this, rather than just being in your possession like a spellbook?
And Paizo has stated on numerous other occasions that they leave rules as ambiguous for a reason. Given the nature of this issue, I'm of the mind they are doing it on purpose, to allow the DM of the campaign to say "it works this way in my game." Seeing as the severity of the weakness is so extreme at levels when the characters don't actually have ways to deal with it or protect themselves, your complaint of trial and error is exactly what it should be. You shouldn't be able to reduce...
Here is my impression of the discussion.
Me: “How do you identify what a wizard’s arcane bonded item is?”
You “YOU WANT TO HAVE EVERYTHING A SIMPLE ROLL, IT WILL MAKE IT USELESS IF IT IS A SIMPLE ROLL!”
Me: “Ok, how do you think you can identify what a wizards arcane bonded item is?”
You “YOU WANT TO “ROLL” PLAY, THE RULES DON’T HAVE A WAY OF “ROLL” PLAYING AND YOU ARE ANGRY AND YOU AREN’T LISTENING TO ALL OF US EXPLAINING HOW TO IDENTIFY BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE THE ANSWER AND YOU WANT IT TO BE EASY TO DO SO YOU CAN KILL WIZARDS!”
Me: “Wait, what? What answer? You didn’t give an answer? Seriously, how do you identify what a wizard’s arcane bonded item is? I agree it should be hard to do, but isn’t there some way to do it? Can you tell me some way to do it?”
You: “YOU DON’T LISTEN, YOU DON’T LIKE HOW WE TOLD YOU TO DO IT, YOU WANT ALL WIZARDS TO BE WEAK AND YOUR MOTHER SMELLS OF ELDERBERRYS!”
Me: “But you didn’t give an answer…”
You “ELDERBERRIES! DON’T YOU LISTEN!”
Some guy actually being helpful: “I guess wish and miracle could work”
Me: “Ok, anything else?”
You “YOU WANT TO KILL MY WIZARD! WE ALL ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION! THE DEVELOPERS DON’T WANT YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED! “ROLL” PLAYER!!!”
Me: (this post)
I presented an RP scenario so you would see our point of view, but you refused. That is the only way I know to make you understand it. As long as we have been going at this the scenario probably would have been done by now.
Having to be worn, doesn't mean it has to be exposed.... Being in hand doesn't mean it has to be purposely or "forcefully" presented.... Don't take this the wrong way, but is English your primary language? You seem to take things too literally at times and not comprehend other things, it would explain a lot if it weren't.Why do you think the require it to be worn or wielded? Why do they have a penalty if you don't?But it is something, and the fact that it specifically must be exposed indicates the developers intended it to be exploitable.Where's it say it must be exposed?
And if we're speculating about developer intentions; the drawbacks are there. It takes a slot/hand to have with you. If you're imprisoned and stripped of all your posessions, you lose it.
There's no indication that the devs intended it to be identified and sundered.
Once again, you don't answer the question, you present a different question. You reword the original question by adding "Forcefully presented", to make it sound exaggerated rather that RAW.
The developers didn't have to require it to be worn or wielded. Pearls of power aren't. Neither are spell books. They didn't have to make you wield your dagger to cast, they could have just said you need to have it in your possession. They didn't have to make you wear your amulet to cast. They decided to do that, for some reason. They decided to make you expose those items for some reason.
What do you think that reason was?
I never saw the word expose. The wording was "held or worn". You can wear something and still have it hidden.
They didn't have to make you wear your amulet to cast. They decided to do that, for some reason. They decided to make you expose those items for some reason.
What do you think that reason was?
Wear is not the same thing as exposed.
If someone wears underwear.. well think about it.
As to reasons the other poster presented some to you, didn't they? Personally this is another bad way of trying to read into rules. IF they really meant it to be this then they would have said it this way. Its a bad road to go down.
When you couple it with demanding a result you are not going to find happiness, at best you will find self-delusion.
-James
The reason they gave, I believe, was "if you were captured/stripped."
In that case, it wouldn't need to be in a slot. You also would not have your spellbook, pearls of power, potions, etc...
So why make you wield/wear the object. What is your opinion of why they specifically required this, rather than just being in your possession like a spellbook?
wearing and showing are not the same thing. No other item that has to be worn requires a neon sign, so why should this one? Do rings of invisibility stop working when covered up by gloves?
|
|
I never saw the word expose. The wording was "held or worn". You can wear something and still have it hidden.
"If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded."
Maybe for the amulet or ring, but you have to "wield" the rest.
Wielded items can be sundered or disarmed.
|
|
I presented an RP scenario so you would see our point of view, but you refused. That is the only way I know to make you understand it. As long as we have been going at this the scenario probably would have been done by...
Your personal DM style isn't the question, and that is all that would be resolved by doing a play by post with you.
If you want to post a scenario of how you, as a DM, would have it able to be discovered by your players, I think that would be helpful.
Once again, you don't answer the question, you present a different question. You reword the original question by adding "Forcefully presented", to make it sound exaggerated rather that RAW.
.
The developers didn't have to require it to be worn or wielded. Pearls of power aren't. Neither are spell books. They didn't have to make you wield your dagger to cast, they could have just said you need to have it in your possession. They didn't have to make you wear your amulet to cast. They decided to do that, for some reason. They decided to make you expose those items for some reason.
.
What do you think that reason was?
And if you could answer my or any of the other posters questions who have been attempting to help, we probably wouldn't be having this debate...
Again you make my point and validate my questioning of your command of the English language.
A bonded item is no more EXPOSED than any other item that may or may not be a bonded item. It has to be worn, or in hand. That does not mean EXPOSED. In fact it can be UNEXPOSED in the case of choices such as a ring or amulet. They can in fact be hidden from sight with no extra effort on the part of the wizard. The wording I used is no worse than the wording you chose to prove a point, it isn't I who is exaggerating things nor reading meanings into the RAW. The designers in fact DO NOT REQUIRE YOU TO EXPOSE the bonded item beyond its original intended use.
Seeing as we are concerned with the rules for arcane bonded items, what anything else does it fairly irrelevant. What we have to deal with and what you seem to be failing to grasp is, that even if this item is in fact in hand doesn't make it any different than a normal item of that type. In combat a wizard doesn't hold his dagger any differently because it is a bonded item than if it was a regular dagger. A wizard doesn't hold his bonded quarter staff any differently than he would a regular quarterstaff that was NOT bonded. A wizard doesn't hold a bonded wand any differently than if it were a regular wand. By nature of being a bonded item, it does not change its intrinsic nature or use. It is still "that item" with an additional purpose with no outward indicators to anyone perceiving it other than being masterwork.
I'm again not going to answer your question, because it has no pertinence to the issue. The items are not in fact exposed, the designers made no such requirement, why are you hung up on something that doesn't actually happen? Why are you adding terms and requirements that don't actually exist?
ad nauseum +1
I presented an RP scenario so you would see our point of view, but you refused. That is the only way I know to make you understand it. As long as we have been going at this the scenario probably would have been done by...Your personal DM style isn't the question, and that is all that would be resolved by doing a play by post with you.
If you want to post a scenario of how you, as a DM, would have it able to be discovered by your players, I think that would be helpful.
If there are no identification rules, the only method left is investigation. My DM would have been for you to try to solve it as a mystery. I can just say make a knowledge check, but that is just me making stuff up since there is nothing to support it as a rule. If you want the designers to make up a rule for this I think you are about to be very disappointed.
I presented an RP scenario so you would see our point of view, but you refused. That is the only way I know to make you understand it. As long as we have been going at this the scenario probably would have been done by...Your personal DM style isn't the question, and that is all that would be resolved by doing a play by post with you.
If you want to post a scenario of how you, as a DM, would have it able to be discovered by your players, I think that would be helpful.
.... Um, he DID, you refused. And on top of that I think it was offered in private (I honestly don't care enough to look back and double check) so if for some reason you had an epiphany and realized where the issue has lain this entire time it wouldn't be public. He was being a "good guy (gender neutral)" and you declined.
|
|
If there are no identification rules, the only method left is investigation. My DM would have been for you to try to solve it as a mystery. I can just say make a knowledge check, but that is just me making stuff up since there is nothing to support it as a rule. If you want the designers to make up a rule for this I think you are about to be very disappointed.
This is helpful. Thank you.
I don't think figuring out what the bonded item is would be something I would likely role play if I wanted to fight the wizard. I would really only want to know if he was my enemy, and if he was my enemy, and I had that much access to him, I would just assassinate him. More likely I'm scouting him from a distance or confronting him in active combat.
Even then, what clues would you use to indicate it is a bonded item?
I would argue a character (other that a Wizard) would need a decent knowledge arcana check to even know bonded items exist, let alone be able to look for characteristics of one.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding that I want it to be easy to find it. I don't. I just don't want it to be impossible. If it comes down to divination spells of some sort, with saves and such by the wizard, that is fine with me.
I would suspect only other casters would be able to do it, with ridiculously high rolls or spells. And I would expect that Wizards would be able to use illusion or other spells to hide the item, in the same way a lich would hide/disguise a phylactery.
|
|
Another example of you posing a different questions, rewording the original question, then accusing me of not answering the questions I don't remember being asked in the first place, while saying you won't answer my question.
I don't think you are trying to be helpful. I think you are trying to "win".
How about, instead of saying 'you did', you find the post and reply to it so we can actually see that 'you did' is based on something?
Also, try to stay calm or I'm making you all take octopus familiars as your arcane bond and putting the game in the desert.
Or you could go through the posts and see where Wraithstrike made the offer to actually role play the situation with him. That would be the "He did" I was talking about. I'm not going to assume everyone has read the entire thread but I'm also not going to go digging for people who may not be at least putting in some effort to follow it sorry ;)
Needless to say the offer was made to do some sort of play by something (I don't remember the acronym used - PbM? or something) by WraithStrike where he DM'd and Cirtose would try, if he couldn't accomplish it, WraithStrike offered to switch roles. In effect WraithStrike was offering to "teach" him a way to do what he wanted without outright telling him. That the subtlety of it was lost on Cirtose is not any surprise at this point especially with his post of "that does nothing for me besides show your DMing style."
I don't think you are trying to be helpful. I think you are trying to "win".
Another example of you posing a different questions, rewording the original question, then accusing me of not answering the questions I don't remember being asked in the first place, while saying you won't answer my question.
....In which case you'd be wrong on both accounts...
Something I've been trying to hide but EXPOSED to anyone able to deduce via investigation by observing the lack of posts flaming anyone who doesn't agree with me.
This topic has been already flagged as a FAQ topic, and there seems to be a consensus that in the meantime, the GM should make a ruling in their own game as to how to identify an arcane bonded item.
I would appreciate if everyone returned to discussing this topic cordially and without personal attacks on each other.
That's how I would GM if a player of mine wanted to identify the arcane bonded item of a wizard. I think it is a legitimate use of the knowledge and diplomacy skills.
Gather Information:
You can also use Diplomacy to gather information about a specific topic or individual. To do this, you must spend at least 1d4 hours canvassing people at local taverns, markets, and gathering places. The DC of this check depends on the obscurity of the information sought, but for most commonly known facts or rumors it is 10. For obscure or secret knowledge, the DC might increase to 20 or higher. The GM might rule that some topics are simply unknown to common folk.
Using Diplomacy to gather information takes 1d4 hours of work, searching for rumors and informants.
as for where to set the DC...
Identify a monster’s abilities and weaknesses is usually
10 + monster’s CR, that should be the guideline.
That should be much more difficult but not impossible.
For a humanoid spellcaster Knowledge(local) should provide the right answer with a sufficiently high check.
In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
Let's remember that skill checks are abstractions and generalizations.
If some wizards use decoys or hide their bonded items, it should(substantially) increase the DC of the check, and I even might give misleading information if the roll wasn't high enough but that's not giving them blanket immunity in my game.
That's how I would GM if a player of mine wanted to identify the arcane bonded item of a wizard. I think it is a legitimate use of the knowledge and diplomacy skills.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Let's remember that skill checks are abstractions and generalizations.
If some wizards use decoys or hide their bonded items, it should(substantially) increase the DC of the check, and I even might give misleading information if the roll wasn't high enough but that's not giving them blanket...
Knowledge checks still have to available from some source. If the wizard never told anyone except his party members the information is not available. As an example certain monsters are easier to identify because they are common, and easier to escape from, and defeat. High CR dragons on the other hand have abilities that are not known to many people because the chance of encountering one and surviving is very slim.
If the DM throws a monster at you that is one of a kind, and you are the first adventurers to go against it you might be able to figure you the creature type, but knowing it's abilities, barring magical divination is impossible because nobody has returned to record the information. Knowledge local gives good general information, but it would be hard to find specific information.If the wizard was low level he only has a few items on him so figuring out the bonded item may not be that hard. It is perfectly reasonable, and possible to switch the arcane item later in your career without anyone knowing.
I am not against knowledge local giving hints as to what it might be, but saying it is specifically the ring or sword, as an example would not work.
By the rules knowledge local is strained to single out an individual. Gather information, which was mentioned in the previous post is better for finding the answer. The knowledge local check could be used outside of combat, but if you are in combat, and have no idea who you are fighting other than he/she is a wizard I don't see how it could help.
|
|
Knowledge checks still have to available from some source. If the wizard never told anyone except his party members the information is not available. As an example certain monsters are easier to identify because they are common, and easier to escape from, and defeat. High CR dragons on the other hand have abilities that are not known to many people because the chance of encountering one and surviving is very slim.
If the DM throws a monster at you that is one of a kind, and you are the first adventurers to go against it you might be able to figure you the creature type, but knowing it's abilities, barring magical divination is impossible because nobody has returned to record the information. Knowledge local gives good general information, but it would be hard to find specific information.
If the wizard was low level he only has a few items on him so figuring out the bonded item may not be that hard. It is perfectly reasonable, and possible to switch the arcane item later in your career without anyone knowing.
I am not against knowledge local giving hints as to what it might be, but saying it is specifically the ring or sword, as an example would not work.
By the rules knowledge local is strained to single out an individual. Gather information, which was mentioned in the previous post is better for finding the answer. The knowledge local check could be used outside of combat, but if you are in combat, and have no idea who you are fighting other than he/she is a...
I agree with most of this.
I think a high enough knowledge undead could figure out an undead variant and the like, so I don't agree with the unique monster thing. But that is off topic.
I don't like having a skill check alone ID the arcane bonded item, as no other item can be id'ed this way. All other uncommon (or magic...) items require a spell (like detect magic) combined with a check.
I would be shocked if Wizard's advertised what their bonded item is, so I would doubt any type of knowledge local/gather info would generally work.
But it's an fair idea and a good suggestion for some scenarios.
|
Knowledge checks still have to available from some source. If the wizard never told anyone except his party members the information is not available. As an example certain monsters are easier to identify because they are common, and easier to escape from, and defeat. High CR dragons on the other hand have abilities that are not known to many people because the chance of encountering one and surviving is very slim.
If the DM throws a monster at you that is one of a kind, and you are the first adventurers to go against it you might be able to figure you the creature type, but knowing it's abilities, barring magical divination is impossible because nobody has returned to record the information. Knowledge local gives good general information, but it would be hard to find specific information.
If the wizard was low level he only has a few items on him so figuring out the bonded item may not be that hard. It is perfectly reasonable, and possible to switch the arcane item later in your career without anyone knowing.
You get Knowledge (local) from the locals, most of whom won't know what a bonded object is for all the reasons given earlier. A good, not basic, Knowledge (local) roll might tell you notable items that the wizard typically wears or carries. An absolutely maxed-out roll might give you an anecdote about him being more than usually upset by loss of or threat to one particular item.
To put it another way, if a GM allows this as a monster knowledge check, whichever Knowledge skill he uses, a clear indication which item it is ought to fall under a tertiary or maximum-possible check result, DC +15 or higher.
That's how I would GM if a player of mine wanted to identify the arcane bonded item of a wizard. I think it is a legitimate use of the knowledge and diplomacy skills.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Let's remember that skill checks are abstractions and generalizations.
If some wizards use decoys or hide their bonded items, it should(substantially) increase the DC of the check, and I even might give misleading information if the roll wasn't high enough but that's not giving them blanket...
I'd say the best case scenario with Know: Local/Gather Info would be if the wizard has a familiar. Your typical local person who you might talk to might notice an animal hanging around all the time but even that isn't a given as with summons or a careful wizard it might not ever been seen (the toad is always in his breast cloak pocket). But for sake of argument a high DC Know: Local check might get you the fact that the wizard has a critter hanging around (though it could be a summoned creature too, untrained perspective wouldn't be able to tell honestly). That there is a critter around might point to an item, but doesn't actually give an absolute answer. It points you in the right direction.
A Know: Arcana could give you information such as, wizards have an arcane bond. A familiar or important item, but not what the item is as that is a personal choice. Arcana would give you something general which again, points you in a direction and gives you something to look for.
"Defeating" a class shouldn't come down to a simple roll.
"Defeating" a class shouldn't come down to a simple roll.
Well, a critical smite can defeat most casters, if evil.
Well, a critical smite can defeat most casters, if evil.
"Defeating" a class shouldn't come down to a simple roll.
I hope that is an attempt at levity...
Well, a critical smite can defeat most casters, if evil.
"Defeating" a class shouldn't come down to a simple roll.Or a charging Cavalier with a lance.
Or a Monk with Quivering Palm.
Or a caster with...well...a lot of different spells.
And completely ignoring the intent with which I made the remark, but at this point I know not to expect much. As I made the remark, I'm fully capable of saying what the intent was and you either missed the point or are willfully ignoring it.
|
|
And completely ignoring the intent with which I made the remark, but at this point I know not to expect much. As I made the remark, I'm fully capable of saying what the intent was and you either missed the point or are willfully ignoring it.
Hi pot, it's kettle. Black you say?
To the larger point, you don't get "defeated" with a roll.
If it could be identified with a combination of say, detect magic and spell craft, then "A" weakness could be discovered with a very high roll in conjunction with a spell that takes three rounds to even calibrate.
So let's follow that scenario. Not saying that is what it is, just saying let's follow it to logical conclusion.
In order to id an arcane bonded item, you would have to be able to cast Detect Magic. And you would have to be within a 60 foot cone of the Wizard you are checking. You would also have to concentrate on him for 3 rounds, being otherwise useless and vulnerable.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/detect-magic
Then, at the end of the 3 rounds, assuming you haven't been killed since you are just standing there staring, you can then make a spellcraft check. Let's say that the check is 15 + caster level, so it is an above average check.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/spellcraft
All of which can be thwarted by a misdirection spell or a thin piece of lead, or him moving out of the 60 foot cone...
Then, in round 4, I would know what the item was, and I could try to sunder or disarm that item, which would require a good CMB and attack roll. Unless I have improved sunder, this will provoke an attack of opportunity.
If your item doesn't have a lot hardness and I roll well, I may destroy it. Meaning it is harder for you to cast, here in round 5 of the combat where all I have been doing is staring at you and then hitting something on you with a weapon...
Or, since Wizards only get d6 hit dice, we can use those three rounds to, you know, try and kill you.
Even if it were a magic item (still to be determined) it wouldn't be game breaking. Only casters can detect magic, and likely only other wizards could both detect magic and have a spellcraft high enough to even have a shot. Then they would have to tell someone else to go sunder the thing, since a wizard with improved sunder makes no sense.
I think you think giving up this point would be game breaking somehow, but wasting 3 rounds in combat to find an object that decreases one wizards ability to cast...not that big a deal.
And again, I don't know if that is the solution or not.
"Defeating" a class shouldn't come down to a simple roll..
Well, a critical smite can defeat most casters, if evil..
Or a charging Cavalier with a lance.
.
Or a Monk with Quivering Palm.
.
Or a caster with...well...a lot of different spells.
I guess if the wizard was helpless and had not memorized spells nor cast any buffs that might be the case. I operate with the idea there is some sort of intelligent game play going on, my apologies if my npc's aren't simpletons and stand there for smites, charges, quivering palms and anything else that might be thrown at them.
|
|
I don't like having a skill check alone ID the arcane bonded item, as no other item can be id'ed this way. All other uncommon (or magic...) items require a spell (like detect magic) combined with a check.
Actually they need more.. the item needs to be carefully studied and gone over for that time rather than say being worn by someone across the room.
The process is for identifying items that you have in your hands and not for items in someone else's possession.
-James
Yup. My point being it's not "just" a roll.
|
|
I guess if the wizard was helpless and had not memorized spells nor cast any buffs that might be the case. I operate with the idea there is some sort of intelligent game play going on, my apologies if my npc's aren't simpletons and stand there for smites, charges, quivering palms and anything else that might be thrown at them.
"Defeating" a class shouldn't come down to a simple roll..
Well, a critical smite can defeat most casters, if evil..
Or a charging Cavalier with a lance.
.
Or a Monk with Quivering Palm.
.
Or a caster with...well...a lot of different spells.
Because your wizard always wins initiative and/or can resist fort save or die attacks?