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.
:3c
Yes but do you really want a bonded object with a misfire chance to be broken or destroyed = And not usable as a bonded object ?
If it's a gun, and I can just stop firing it and start slinging spells with my free hand if it misfires, then cast Mending on it after combat? Yes!
Especially since I can enchant it later without needing the feats to do so.
If it's a gun, and I can just stop firing it and start slinging spells with my free hand if it misfires, then cast Mending on it after combat? Yes!
Especially since I can enchant it later without needing the feats to do so.
And if your DM say that once it has the Broken Condition, you need to make a Concentration check with DC 20 + spell level.
After all if your Bonded object is broken, why would it work.
.....
On the other hand the bonded object restores it hit-points the next time you memorized spells, so it would self repair its broken condition in a day. So might not be a bad option for a backup weapon.
The rules say nothing about the bonded object being broken causing it to cease to work - it merely says it must be in hand. Since this is a discussion about rules as written allowing a loophole, we can assume that the GM might not let you take a gun as a weapon in the first place.
I don't know, having a weapon that does a grand total of 1d8 plus some enhancement bonuses, with a nonproficiency penalty unless the wizard uses a feat... that doesn't sound particularly broken at all to me. Sure he'll hit the touch AC... maybe even with penalty... but without Gun Training, or the Gunslinger Deeds, he won't be doing much more than potting away every two rounds, each round he's not casting a spell.
Anyone in any class can do this with the heirloom weapon trait, right?
Anyone in any class can do this with the heirloom weapon trait, right?
yes but you still have to pay full price for it while the wizard get this free...though I have to ask why do you think this is unfair for the wizard to have a bonded gun?
If I could design a decent gun toting Magus I would so be using gun rules with him.
I don't know, having a weapon that does a grand total of 1d8 plus some enhancement bonuses, with a nonproficiency penalty unless the wizard uses a feat... that doesn't sound particularly broken at all to me. Sure he'll hit the touch AC... maybe even with penalty... but without Gun Training, or the Gunslinger Deeds, he won't be doing much more than potting away every two rounds, each round he's not casting a spell.
actually i don't think wizards need to take a feat to be proficient with their bonded item
I don't know, having a weapon that does a grand total of 1d8 plus some enhancement bonuses, with a nonproficiency penalty unless the wizard uses a feat... that doesn't sound particularly broken at all to me. Sure he'll hit the touch AC... maybe even with penalty... but without Gun Training, or the Gunslinger Deeds, he won't be doing much more than potting away every two rounds, each round he's not casting a spell.actually i don't think wizards need to take a feat to be proficient with their bonded item
No were on page 78-79 Pathfinder PHB, does it say that a wizard is proficient with there bonded item as a weapon.
If you take a weapon that you are not proficient with as a bonded item. Then you would suffer the normal non-weapon proficient penalty with it as a weapon -4 to hit.
As a bonded item, you could cast spells with it as normal
As a weapon item, you would use it as normal (If proficient = no penalty, If not-proficient = with penalties).
Considering that it doesn't say otherwise, what's stopping a wizard from selecting a rifle or shotgun for their bonded weapon? No misfire chance at all...
Yeah, if advanced guns are available, you can start with one right outta the box. Not even the gunslinger gets that option.
Yes, but there's nothing in the rules saying that the wizard can't do this otherwise.
Common sense does not need a rule.
Yes, but there's nothing in the rules saying that the wizard can't do this otherwise.
True, but the GM has the final say. If a GM allows it, then so be it. Personally, I wouldn't, but if I did, it would get stolen early on and becomes a 1st level quest for the PCs to recover the wizard's bonded item.
I had a GM in a GURPS fantasy game do something like that to one of the players. A dragon stole a greedy PCs huge reward to use the PCs as pawns against another dragon. It was an instant adventuring hook.
I'd like to remind you people that there's an upcoming wizard archetype called the Gunmage.
Should satisfy your needs.
I'd like to remind you people that there's an upcoming wizard archetype called the Gunmage.
Should satisfy your needs.
That would work better flavorwise as a Magus archetype wouldn't it?
Common sense does not need a rule.
Actually, yes it does, IMO. Half the point in a game system is to say what's fair and what's not, to give an authoritive judgement that everybody understands they're supposed to follow unless everyone else agrees otherwise.
There is nothing I hate more when playing rpgs than being told "No" when I try to do something allowed by the rules the group has agreed to use.That's almost certainly going to happen if the GM thinks common sense doesn't need a rule and he and I have different ideas of what "common sense" actually is. And we will have, because everybody does.
In this case, you see a wizard with a free masterwork rifle as silly and exploitative, but I see it as awesome. Rules settle that disagreement. They stop you forbidding me from playing a diviner with a free gun the same way they don't let me insist on playing a chaotic neutral paladin with a free heavy horse.
The reason I don't think it's exploitative is the gun would only be effective if I was willing to spend a feat to make it so. Otherwise I'd say it's an inferior choice. Guns are only really worth their listed price in a "Guns Everywhere!" setting and as has been pointed out, you can't really sell your bonded object, so you get no benefit from the inflated prices in a normal campaign. When you get down to it, it's just another weapon you're not proficient with.
A wizard who starts with a valuable toy that he must protect sounds like excellent plot fodder, stands out from generic wizards in an interesting way and can't even do anything better than the rest of the party, except what a wizard is supposed to do best.
I might be wrong about that, but even if I am, it's hardly clear cut; it comes down to your opinion verses mine. That's the problem with common sense: it's nothing more than opinion masquerading as fact.
Please don't let it into your games. Try using promoting each group member's enjoyment of the game (including facilitating their suspension of disbelief, assuming they care about that) as your guiding principle instead. It does the same job a hundred times better.
Guys remember that a wizards must wield his bonded weapon in order to cast the spells safely. And in order to wield a two-handed weapon you need two hands, so no somatic components for riflemages. Pistolmages and revolvermages are fine thougth.
The Family Heirloom trait will grant proficiency with the bonded item, a revolver ideally, and that will make it an ideal back up weapon at lower levels and at later it would be simply a +1 defending with greater magic weapon on it.
Humbly,
Yawar
Guys remember that a wizards must wield his bonded weapon in order to cast the spells safely. And in order to wield a two-handed weapon you need two hands, so no somatic components for riflemages. Pistolmages and revolvermages are fine thougth.
The Family Heirloom trait will grant proficiency with the bonded item, a revolver ideally, and that will make it an ideal back up weapon at lower levels and at later it would be simply a +1 defending with greater magic weapon on it.
Humbly,
Yawar
I am pretty sure it was ruled that for ranged weapons like a bow, it is considered wield when held in 1 hand but requires 2 hands to shoot. Why wouldn't the same ruling apply to rifles?
Yes it would. You need one hand to hold it but 2 to use it in combat. BTW , shotgun mages inc. *dives for cover*
Just gonna throw this out here since we have the subject of wizards with guns. In the description of ultimate combat It mentions Gun mage as a wizard archetype, So I think that what is being discussed has already been noticed by paizo.
I thought you needed to be proficient in the weapon to get it AS a bonded weapon?
The rules are mute on proficiency requirements. They just say you can choose any weapon.
Since guns are ranged touch attacks though that -4 penalty won't really be a big issue.. the cost of ammo and the time spent reloading will be though.
Why is it an issue to get a potentially 3300gp gun at first level? (aka. pepperbox- 3k +300 master work)
Player starts with 3300 gold item. It costs at minimum 350 to "bond" a new "master work" ring. (unless my pricing is off- aren't non-weapon master work costs 150? maybe 155- cost of the ring + the mwk cost +200 to rebond).
So he creates his character, sells the gun, buys the ring, bonds it, and is in the clear over 3000 gold.
'
Agreed with "No sane DM would allow this" but.. should the rules as written blatantly allow it as well? They went through some trouble rewording spells from 3.0 that no sane DM would let work as a "money farm" too. In this case though its just screaming "first level with 3k to spend, huzzah). Now granted as you level up this means less and less, but its still a problem at 1st level. Should the DM *have* to step in and block something the rules so clearly allow?
If you go down to "basic" instead of "early" firearms the guy ends up some what- (1900-550=1450) gold in the clear by getting a Musket and swapping it out. Awesome.
Easiest fix? Errata arcane bond to require proficiency with the weapon.
Exotic wep prof requires +1 BAB to take which means the wizard can never start out with it. (unless he multi-classes into wizard past 1st in which case its a DM call anyway as to whether an arcane bond suddenly materializes out of the ether or if he has to use something he has on hand already).
-S
Since this is a discussion about rules as written allowing a loophole
... it isn't really worth having. There are many loopholes. You can't close them all, and more will open all the time. Hooray for GMs with an actual intelligence plugging those holes :P
In this case, I'd allow that character. His first encounter would be with Djangandalf, greatest of all spellgunners. He's jealous and will nip all opposition in the bud. He's level 30 and will just kill that level 1 wizard dead.
So he creates his character, sells the gun, buys the ring, bonds it, and is in the clear over 3000 gold.I was always under the impression that, since once the choice is made, it's permanent, you also cannot change the type of bonded object that you have (and neither can you change whether it's a familiar or an object). Though, reading the rules over, it doesn't explicitly say that you must always keep the bonded object the same type (i.e. once a ring always a ring, once a necklace always a necklace, once a wand always a wand).
I wouldn't say that the RAW blatantly allows it, but it does leave some ambiguity (unless there's a post by the developers of some kind that I'm missing that deals with this specifically).
Even if we go by that though it only throws the math of 150 gold. Masterwork club is 300 gold even, so the PC gets 150 gold less. He is still clearing an obscene amount of cash for the level at absolutely no cost to himself. Heck he can make it a dagger or staff and still be perfectly reasonable looking. (no one looks askew at a mage holding a dagger or staff) and still have plenty of cash.
KeeYoss: Why not just tell the PC no? I mean- I don't think anyone is arguing this should be allowed or that any PC should be allowed to do it. (though if guns are allowed in the campaign and the PC wants the gun to *use* rather than to sell for leet lv1 cash, then I don't see the issue at all) then why murder him for making a perfectly valid choice?
Just tell him "that isn't an option in my campaign". Rule 0 is always better than "Yes you can do that, but oops rocks fall and you are dead.".
-S
|
How about, instead of requiring proficiency with the Bonded Item to prevent getting a rifle or shotgun at 1st level, you houserule that a wizard(or Arcane Sorcerer) that sells his bonded item of his own free will cannot ever again make a bonded item.
If he doesn't want to make those concentration checks, he had better not sell his cool rifle.
Since this is a discussion about rules as written allowing a loophole... it isn't really worth having. There are many loopholes. You can't close them all, and more will open all the time. Hooray for GMs with an actual intelligence plugging those holes :P
In this case, I'd allow that character. His first encounter would be with Djangandalf, greatest of all spellgunners. He's jealous and will nip all opposition in the bud. He's level 30 and will just kill that level 1 wizard dead.
I suppose Djangandalf has a machine gun. Which shoots Pit Fiends.
Common sense does not need a rule.
The GM guide clearly states that it does. ;-)
I suppose Djangandalf has a machine gun. Which shoots Pit Fiends.Since this is a discussion about rules as written allowing a loophole... it isn't really worth having. There are many loopholes. You can't close them all, and more will open all the time. Hooray for GMs with an actual intelligence plugging those holes :P
In this case, I'd allow that character. His first encounter would be with Djangandalf, greatest of all spellgunners. He's jealous and will nip all opposition in the bud. He's level 30 and will just kill that level 1 wizard dead.
+1 That made me laugh.
Does a trebuchet count as a weapon?
Slightly off topic but does anyone know where the ruling about a 2handed ranged weapon is being held in one hands still allows a wizard to cast without the concetration check?
Slightly off topic but does anyone know where the ruling about a 2handed ranged weapon is being held in one hands still allows a wizard to cast without the concetration check?
This Is the only ruling I could Find, and it says no you can't.
An arcane bonded weapon must be wielded in order for it to have effect. This, unfortunately, does mean that two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components. Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object.
A feat or class ability that lets you use a 2H weapon's swings and stabs and motions as your somatic component would be pretty interesting... but nothing in the core currently lets you do that. Your best bet in this case is to only cast Still spells or spells without somatic components.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/argGishIssues&page=6#256
Thats where I got it from.
|
|
*snip* Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object.
*snip*
Bow = 1-handed improvised club
You don't even need a Catch Off Guard unless you actually want to hit something in melee without the -4 penalty
Double Weapons can be weilded one handed, it's even in the rules for double weapons.
Can be weilded One Handed, though you can only attack with one end. You can also choose to use one side as a two handed weapon, you you can use it as if you are using a one-handed and a light weapon.
thusly Quaterstaffs can be used one handed.
That would work better flavorwise as a Magus archetype wouldn't it?I'd like to remind you people that there's an upcoming wizard archetype called the Gunmage.
Should satisfy your needs.
I want a Magus Gunslinger Archetype it would rock.
KeeYoss: Why not just tell the PC no? I mean- I don't think anyone is arguing this should be allowed or that any PC should be allowed to do it. (though if guns are allowed in the campaign and the PC wants the gun to *use* rather than to sell for leet lv1 cash, then I don't see the issue at all) then why murder him for making a perfectly valid choice?Just tell him "that isn't an option in my campaign". Rule 0 is always better than "Yes you can do that, but oops rocks fall and you are dead.".
-S
But then I don't get to tell my silly Djangandalf pun!
I'm usually not serious when I post these scenarios. However, I think there can be situations when I use them: Like someone repeatedly trying to break the system. Then I just let him write up his game-breaker character, waste the time, get it out of his system, and show him I can waste his time, too.
Doesn't happen with my usual players, though, and I guess I'd boot anyone before they can get me to that level of annoyed.
But: come on! Djangandalf!!!