Of the possible items that a wizard can choose to form a bond with (staff, weapon, ring, amulet, rod, wand), which would you choose and why? Assume you're starting at level 1.
Also, what effects would you look to craft onto your bond?
Of the possible items that a wizard can choose to form a bond with (staff, weapon, ring, amulet, rod, wand), which would you choose and why? Assume you're starting at level 1.
Also, what effects would you look to craft onto your bond?
I would take (and have in the past taken) a ring. It's easy to justify always having it around, and it does not limit you in as many ways as the other options. I would particularly stay away from bonded weapon, since this means you always have to have it in your hand (draw first in a battle, if you can!) and you cannot always have it with you ("Leave your weapons outside before you go into the throne room to talk to the king"...).
As soon as possible I would enchant it with something like featherfall, replace (or add) Wizardry later.
Treantmonk has written a good guide to wizards here, maybe that's interesting for you in case you do not know it :-)
Of the possible items that a wizard can choose to form a bond with (staff, weapon, ring, amulet, rod, wand), which would you choose and why? Assume you're starting at level 1.
Also, what effects would you look to craft onto your bond?
I would take (and have in the past taken) a ring. It's easy to justify always having it around, and it does not limit you in as many ways as the other options. I would particularly stay away from bonded weapon, since this means you always have to have it in your hand (draw first in a battle, if you can!) and you cannot always have it with you ("Leave your weapons outside before you go into the throne room to talk to the king"...).
As soon as possible I would enchant it with something like featherfall, replace (or add) Wizardry later.
Treantmonk has written a good guide to wizards here, maybe that's interesting for you in case you do not know it :-)
I'm leaning ring as well, but some of the other things look interesting. Having a cheap metamagic rod, possibly with multiple instances of metamagic rod functions on it seems interesting. Featherfall looks interesting. Wizardry...that's a bit expensive isn't it?
Of course, I'm also attached to the image of the wizard's staff, though staves aren't coming into play until much later in level, so they probably make for rather poor early game bonds.
Treantmonk basically panned the idea of a bonded object, citing the issues that come up if you lose (have stolen or broken) the item. Personally, I've never really cared for a familiar, and I like, if nothing else, the 1 free spell per day.
Right now my Wizard in LSJ is using an amulet. When he gets high enough and has the wealth to do so, he is going to switch to staff, mainly for flavor reasons as he considers a fine staff to be a mark of a master magus. (curse you paizo for hijacking this name for a class:)
Actually, that's an interesting point. I had thought about but never implemented the idea of changing the bonded item later. Though it would cost a lot of money and require some time, this is a real possibility.
I would still stay away from weapons, but wand or amulet at first, ring or staff at a later time does look like a viable option.
Featherfall looks interesting. Wizardry...that's a bit expensive isn't it?
Featherfall is one of those spells that you REALLY want to be able to cast if necessary (falling down a cliff or such), but is a complete waste to spend a spell slot on if you do not need it. Having it in a ring has saved at least two of my characters before.
Since you can enchant the ring as if you had the feat, you could also consider a ring of sustenance, but you'd need a divine caster (or a scroll and a very good use magic device check) for it.Invisibility is also a great option for a ring, but - as wizardry - quite expensive and likely not something you can afford during the course of the first few levels.
Later, however, you can save huge piles of gold if you can create those wizardry rings on your own. And you even have the option of packing several interesting abilities (like featherfall+resist energy+invisibility+wizardry I) onto one ring without paying the high costs or worrying about blocking multiple slots.
Treantmonk basically panned the idea of a bonded object, citing the issues that come up if you lose (have stolen or broken) the item. Personally, I've never really cared for a familiar, and I like, if nothing else, the 1 free spell per day.
Yes, I actually also prefer the spell slot. But I think he wrote a great guide and his spell and feat ratings often give me ideas, so I added the link :-)
We regularly pool party money (there for are hardly ever balanced WBL wise)
Usually, as soon as we can afford it, the party tank gets the best armor we can buy so he gets 20+ac very early on (we have done this at 1st level before).
So pooling party money to get the wizard to have a ring of wizardry is early on isn't a half bad idea, I've never viewed using bonded item this way.
Aneone ever thought of using a toe ring?
Aneone ever thought of using a toe ring?
Or some sort of piercing. ;-)
Like a tiny coffee golem on a chain ;).
Himmmm... I wonder where this chain goes?!!
Some really good ideas here. I don't know if I'll be taking any crafting feats at all. I probably should take one, since we're running King Maker and will definitely have a lot of downtime periodically. Still, feats are like toys, and taking a crafting feat is like giving one of my toys away to everyone else. Heh
|
It's not mechanically the best choice but I think I'll probably go with a wand next time I make a wizard.
It's thematic (Harry Potter BS aside)
Expendable items are arguably the best bet for something you want at a discount.
At first level it would likely be Magic Missile. Then once I burn that out upgrade to a Wand of Invisibility
Once you get beyond 8th level it's probably
Well, as the first bonded item, you should take whatever costs the most, like a musket or a composite longbow(+20), and sell it at the start of the game. Buying a new cheap item and paying the 200 gp to make your bonded item gives you a nice purse of coins to flaunt in the heads of the other level 1 characters ;-)
Abuse aside, I prefer a glove/gauntlet/spiked gauntlet. It is a rare item slot in my experience, while rings are usually dropping quite often. With the gauntlet you can both enchant it as a weapon (while you might not use it) or as a wondrous item on your hands slot.
For those considering a bonded weapon, remember that two-handed weapons don't work. You need to keep one hand free to cast, and you also need to be wielding the weapon. James Jacobs has confirmed that simply holding a two-handed weapon in one hand isn't good enough.
Luckily a (quarter)staff can be wielded in one-hand as per its description, so at least that iconic visual is in. Potential Arcane Archers are out of luck with their bow though.
Some really good ideas here. I don't know if I'll be taking any crafting feats at all. I probably should take one, since we're running King Maker and will definitely have a lot of downtime periodically. Still, feats are like toys, and taking a crafting feat is like giving one of my toys away to everyone else. Heh
Craft wondrous is the best feat to take. If your campaign allows enough downtime, everyone in your party will want some haversacks, boots, cloaks, etc. Making those items at 1/2 price is very nice.
For your bonded item, ring FTW. Why? Rings are the hardest items to lose. I imagine you're wearing gloves of some kind at least some of the time.
Rings are also very expensive. You can't even forge them until 7th. But, oh, look at the "multiple enchantment ring I can make at wholesale that only works for me." That's right. Unlike a regular magic item, your enemies can't take it and use it against you.
Ring of Sustenance can be made at 7th. For cheap. What a nice ring for a spellcaster! Invisibility, protection, spell storing, wizardry... All big-ticket things to pay full price for. And you can't wear 4 rings.
Like Treantmonk says, lose your bonded item, and you're in trouble. I'll take that risk. Being able to cast any spell you know might just save your bacon, say, before you get captured and de-itemed.
That's easier at higher levels, but still... It's an automatic feather fall at low levels, too. Not one you have memorized, usually. Almost as good as a ring of feather falling.
Amulets are cool, but not as good for a wizard as a ring he can enchant himself. If you lose it before 7th, you lost a masterwork ring. Make concentration checks, and you can cast spells, anyway. Losing your spell book is a bigger problem. I hope your familiar can bring it to you, if it's still breathing.
Of the possible items that a wizard can choose to form a bond with (staff, weapon, ring, amulet, rod, wand), which would you choose and why? Assume you're starting at level 1.
Also, what effects would you look to craft onto your bond?
My wizard in my friend's campaign (he does modules) has a wand bonded object and is going to go Dual Wand Wielder from complete arcane at 5. He'll be awesome!
I chose a longsword for my 1st level character. He'll be bouncing back and forth between wizard and fighter (until he qualifies for eldritch knight) so I figured I'll get some good use out of the weapon.
I normally choose a ring, but if I had a combat-oriented wizard I would use a weapon like a rapier.
For those considering a bonded weapon, remember that two-handed weapons don't work. You need to keep one hand free to cast, and you also need to be wielding the weapon. James Jacobs has confirmed that simply holding a two-handed weapon in one hand isn't good enough.
Luckily a (quarter)staff can be wielded in one-hand as per its description, so at least that iconic visual is in. Potential Arcane Archers are out of luck with their bow though.
I never understood that silly, silly ruling. You don't have to hold an amulet or ring. Why does the weapon have such a harsh restriction? It's there, you're channeling your magic through it (or from it, or whatever). What's the problem?
For those considering a bonded weapon, remember that two-handed weapons don't work. You need to keep one hand free to cast, and you also need to be wielding the weapon. James Jacobs has confirmed that simply holding a two-handed weapon in one hand isn't good enough.
Luckily a (quarter)staff can be wielded in one-hand as per its description, so at least that iconic visual is in. Potential Arcane Archers are out of luck with their bow though.
Well, you could still spell and eschew materials all your spells ;-P
At level 15 with spell perfection that's an actual possibility, though....
For those considering a bonded weapon, remember that two-handed weapons don't work. You need to keep one hand free to cast, and you also need to be wielding the weapon. James Jacobs has confirmed that simply holding a two-handed weapon in one hand isn't good enough.
Luckily a (quarter)staff can be wielded in one-hand as per its description, so at least that iconic visual is in. Potential Arcane Archers are out of luck with their bow though.
Can you please provide us with a link to James' post?
Because i faintly remember that one of the devs (can't remember who) had said the exact opposite.
For those considering a bonded weapon, remember that two-handed weapons don't work. You need to keep one hand free to cast, and you also need to be wielding the weapon. James Jacobs has confirmed that simply holding a two-handed weapon in one hand isn't good enough.
Luckily a (quarter)staff can be wielded in one-hand as per its description, so at least that iconic visual is in. Potential Arcane Archers are out of luck with their bow though.
Can you please provide us with a link to James' post?
Because i faintly remember that one of the devs (can't remember who) had said the exact opposite.
You can find a collection of these and other unofficial erratas including links here: Arcane Bond Questions. Hope this helps.
You can find a collection of these and other unofficial erratas including links here: Arcane Bond Questions. Hope this helps.For those considering a bonded weapon, remember that two-handed weapons don't work. You need to keep one hand free to cast, and you also need to be wielding the weapon. James Jacobs has confirmed that simply holding a two-handed weapon in one hand isn't good enough.
Luckily a (quarter)staff can be wielded in one-hand as per its description, so at least that iconic visual is in. Potential Arcane Archers are out of luck with their bow though.
Can you please provide us with a link to James' post?
Because i faintly remember that one of the devs (can't remember who) had said the exact opposite.
Thanks.
Optimal or not, I've taken Staff as my Bonded Item, because I like it thematically. I paid the extra to have it made of Darkwood, and I plan on getting one head shod in cold iron, and one head shod in alchemical silver (or possibly even mithril).
during downtime, I'll toss cash into enchanting it every way I possibly can.
Like a tiny coffee golem on a chain ;).
Himmmm... I wonder where this chain goes?!!
Depends on how much I've had to drink.
Things like sword and bows though are weapons in thier primary essence. The only way to use them is to wield them. If your arcane bond is a sword you're making sword passes with it to focus your magic.
Which is why you'll also want to take Still Spell if you want to cast with even the slightest bit of subtley. ;)
I also think that Ring is the best overall choice.
On the subject of weapons, it's a ridiculous assertion to claim that you are making combat style moves with the weapon as part of casting the spell when all other bonded objects are just conduits that have to sit there and do nothing.
You specifically use a bow as an example of this....how exactly does that work? Are you pulling the string back and shooting make believe arrows as part of the spell casting? That's ridiculous. Why would a spell suddenly have MORE somatic components because you channel your magic through a weapon as opposed to a ring?
Why can't you use a polearm in the same way as a piece of wood to channel a spell through? You have to be swinging it around? Meh. Even if the devs have stated that, it's ridiculous : )
If you're using a blade as a focus to your magic... Subtlety is not your aim. :)Things like sword and bows though are weapons in thier primary essence. The only way to use them is to wield them. If your arcane bond is a sword you're making sword passes with it to focus your magic.Which is why you'll also want to take Still Spell if you want to cast with even the slightest bit of subtley. ;)
Well, I had considered creating an Arcane Duelist Bard at one point who used a Flail. Going for flashy moves, disarming, tripping, that sort of thing. Of course being a Bard, there are still going to be some spells that you might want to cast in social situations. Flinging around a ball on a chain isn't exactly the right thing to do in those cases though. :D
Well, I had considered creating an Arcane Duelist Bard at one point who used a Flail. Going for flashy moves, disarming, tripping, that sort of thing. Of course being a Bard, there are still going to be some spells that you might want to cast in social situations. Flinging around a ball on a chain isn't exactly the right thing to do in those cases though. :DIf you're using a blade as a focus to your magic... Subtlety is not your aim. :)Things like sword and bows though are weapons in thier primary essence. The only way to use them is to wield them. If your arcane bond is a sword you're making sword passes with it to focus your magic.Which is why you'll also want to take Still Spell if you want to cast with even the slightest bit of subtley. ;)
Don't forget that arcane duelist bards can use the hand holding their weapon for somatic components.
Because the arcane bond object isn't just something you put in your pocket and forget about it until you need that extra spell. It's something to be used thematically as a general focus for your spellcasting. If the player makes the choice to bond to an item that requires two hands to use, he faces the consequences of doing so. Staves can be used one handed because like rings, and amulets the thematic function of a staff is not neccessarily as a weapon but as a traditional conduit of magic effects.
I never understood that silly, silly ruling. You don't have to hold an amulet or ring. Why does the weapon have such a harsh restriction? It's there, you're channeling your magic through it (or from it, or whatever). What's the problem?
Yes, I understand that a focus must be prominent (even though their are nor real rules to support that).
An amulet flashes from your chest, you hold your ring and cry for Captain Planet, you hold your weapon before you prominently, etc.
The thing is, I don't NEED to wield a weapon in both hands for it to be thematically prominent. I could take my greatsword, for example, thrust it into the earth, kneel down to one knee and focus my powers through it to the desired effect, all while only having one hand on its hilt.
THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE RESTRICTION WHATSOEVER.
It's a crappy and wholly arbitrary ruling. Nothing more.
The thing is, I don't NEED to wield a weapon in both hands for it to be thematically prominent. I could take my greatsword, for example, thrust it into the earth, kneel down to one knee and focus my powers through it to the desired effect, all while only having one hand on its hilt.
THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE RESTRICTION WHATSOEVER.
It's a crappy and wholly arbitrary ruling. Nothing more.
It's not really a ruling, it's what the rules say. Here's the definition of 'wield' from Dictionary.com:
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively]; handle or employ actively.
What you're describing is certainly evocative, and I'd certainly consider allowing it as a DM myself (especially for the aforementioned Arcane Archers) but the question was originally asked in a rules context. The rules say you have to wield the weapon, and two-handed weapons require two hands to wield.
The rules say you have to wield the weapon, and two-handed weapons require two hands to wield.
*Checks arcane bond rules again*
Oh. I guess they do. So it's not an arbitrary ruling, just a bad rule.
The rules say you have to wield the weapon, and two-handed weapons require two hands to wield.*Checks arcane bond rules again*
Oh. I guess they do. So it's not an arbitrary ruling, just a bad rule.
Agreed. That's a pretty stupid restriction. If using a weapon as a focus allowed you to make somatic gestures with the hand(s) holding the weapon, then it would be okay, I guess, but the way this has been ruled/described is overly restrictive for no reason.
|
|
The thing is... the original poster said specifically from level 1. You can't use craft magic ring until 7th level. Crafting an amulet at 3rd level you can gain the benefit of the item for a few extra levels. Plus there are a couple quite nice amulet options in the APG.
I still think if you are thinking about saving money the wand route is the best bet. Craft a ring/ amulet you save a little gold once. Craft a wand and you save all the time. A Wand of Dimension Door is pretty useful into higher levels. Eventually you can switch to a staff.
Rings are even less appealing in PFS where you can't create custom items.
Best bonded item...]
Broom masterwork think Micky Mouse with an unseen servant
:)
Lots of RP fun with Puns.
Shovel, Masterwork, think how much faster digging up your old GF will be. Lots more RP puns.
I actually think that craft wondrous item and craft magic arms and armor are the two most game breaking feats if the campaign allows frequent downtime and a fairly liquid wealth system. It essentially allows you to turn any item you find into the item you actually WANT, and any straight up GP treasure is actually doubled in value due to the feats. It annihilates the suggested wealth per character level and gives the party numerical benefits as well as hugely increased versatility.
If you consider the extra gear you have due to the feats to be the "mechanical" benefit of the feat, it would blow any other single feats out of the water numerically.
I actually think that craft wondrous item and craft magic arms and armor are the two most game breaking feats if the campaign allows frequent downtime and a fairly liquid wealth system. It essentially allows you to turn any item you find into the item you actually WANT, and any straight up GP treasure is actually doubled in value due to the feats. It annihilates the suggested wealth per character level and gives the party numerical benefits as well as hugely increased versatility.
They are also the two most essential feats if your game has limited wealth.