Arcane Bond (Su): At 1st level, you gain an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to your sorcerer level. Your sorcerer levels stack with any wizard levels you possess when determining the powers of your familiar or bonded object. This ability does not allow you to have both a familiar and a bonded item.
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).
Does this text mean that a sorcerer with a bonded item via this bloodline power can carry a spell book and spontaneously cast any one spell in that spellbook once per day?
I thought I would ask for clarification.
Arcane Bond (Su): At 1st level, you gain an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to your sorcerer level. Your sorcerer levels stack with any wizard levels you possess when determining the powers of your familiar or bonded object. This ability does not allow you to have both a familiar and a bonded item.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).Does this text mean that a sorcerer with a bonded item via this bloodline power can carry a spell book and spontaneously cast any one spell in that spellbook once per day?
I thought I would ask for clarification.
I believe so, yes. Gives them a heck of a lot of versatility if they are willing to spend the time and resources on it, though only once per day.
The other alternative is just that it's one extra spell per day, and has nothing to do with spellbooks when a sorcerer takes it. I'm not sure it's ever been clarified which was intended.
I suspect that Bobson has the correct interpretation of this, making a bonded object a particularly poor choice for a sorcerer.
I believe so, yes. Gives them a heck of a lot of versatility if they are willing to spend the time and resources on it, though only once per day.
I wouldn't give them any versatility at all seeing as a sorcerer cannot add spells to a spellbook. RAW, this ability does nothing if you use it to take a bonded item.
I think it makes more sense that the RAI is to alter bonded item to function with the way in which a sorcerer casts, rather than giving the sorcerer an entirely different class ability, i.e. Spellbooks.
I believe so, yes. Gives them a heck of a lot of versatility if they are willing to spend the time and resources on it, though only once per day.I wouldn't give them any versatility at all seeing as a sorcerer cannot add spells to a spellbook. RAW, this ability does nothing if you use it to take a bonded item.
I think it makes more sense that the RAI is to alter bonded item to function with the way in which a sorcerer casts, rather than giving the sorcerer an entirely different class ability, i.e. Spellbooks.
I am actually really glad I asked this question, because it leads to another.
Is the spellbook a Wizard class feature?
a 'Spells' entry does not appear on the "special" section of table 3-16: Wizard. Spells
The subject seems ambiguous.
The chapter on magic outlines that a wizard can write spells into his spellbook, but it does not say that a sorcerer cannot create a spellbook, only that sorcerer spellcasting is not tied to spellbooks.
|
and is capable of casting. Unless what is in the spellbook is on his spell list, than he cannot cast those spells. If they are on his spell list, than the spellbook is not needed at all.
I read it as +1 spell per day.
Probably right, but the sorcerer spell list (not the spell know) include almost all wizard spells. So it is conceivable that a sorcerer with a bonded object and a spellbook can cast once day any spell in the speelbook even if it is not one of his know spells.
Adding 1 level of wizard (as a wizard can add any level of spells in his spellbook, even the ones he can't cast) would overcome the limitation.
Interesting question.
Edit: removed most of the post as you can always fall back to "I was a wizard so I have the feature" when playing a PrC.
It seem that Paizo preference for spontaneous spellcasting class is increasing the number of this kind of rule problems.
I believe so, yes. Gives them a heck of a lot of versatility if they are willing to spend the time and resources on it, though only once per day.I wouldn't give them any versatility at all seeing as a sorcerer cannot add spells to a spellbook. RAW, this ability does nothing if you use it to take a bonded item.
I think it makes more sense that the RAI is to alter bonded item to function with the way in which a sorcerer casts, rather than giving the sorcerer an entirely different class ability, i.e. Spellbooks.
I am actually really glad I asked this question, because it leads to another.
Is the spellbook a Wizard class feature?
a 'Spells' entry does not appear on the "special" section of table 3-16: Wizard. Spells
The subject seems ambiguous.
The chapter on magic outlines that a wizard can write spells into his spellbook, but it does not say that a sorcerer cannot create a spellbook, only that sorcerer spellcasting is not tied to spellbooks.
Text trumps table. Since there is "spells" entry in the writeup wizards get spells, and the spellbook is a wizard class feature. The main heading is Class Features. Under that in the text it list all the class features.
RAI is that spellbooks can only be made by wizards. The book does not stop fighters from making spellbooks either, but I doubt any GM would allow it. The book would also be written in legalese and cost a lot more if every possible method to get around a rule intention were to be block.
The dead condition does not state I can't continue to take actions either by RAW.
SPellbook is NOT a wizard class feature. However, rules text everywhere pertaining to spellbooks (that I could find) exclusively refers to wizards using them.
That might be because, at the time of the writing, wizards were the only ones expected to use them (no other class traditionally used them, so it makes sense to say "wizard" rather than "anyone"). It also might mean that it was the INTENT that only wizards could make use of them.
I personally like to believe that sorcerers COULD have spellbooks and could make use of them for their arcane bond ability, but I do not believe the RAW supports me in this.
SPellbook is NOT a wizard class feature. However, rules text everywhere pertaining to spellbooks (that I could find) exclusively refers to wizards using them.
That might be because, at the time of the writing, wizards were the only ones expected to use them (no other class traditionally used them, so it makes sense to say "wizard" rather than "anyone"). It also might mean that it was the INTENT that only wizards could make use of them.
I personally like to believe that sorcerers COULD have spellbooks and could make use of them for their arcane bond ability, but I do not believe the RAW supports me in this.
I think the arcane bond allows the sorcerer an extra casting per day RAI, but not RAW. I would allow it anyway.
How is the spellbook not a class feature? It is in the class features sections, and no other class gets it. What I mean is that the wizard is the one that gets to use it, and that is who it is intended for. In that sense it is a class feature. Another class can get one, but it won't do them any good.
Class FeaturesThe following are the class features of the wizard......
Spellbooks:.......
|
|
SPellbook is NOT a wizard class feature. However, rules text everywhere pertaining to spellbooks (that I could find) exclusively refers to wizards using them.
That might be because, at the time of the writing, wizards were the only ones expected to use them (no other class traditionally used them, so it makes sense to say "wizard" rather than "anyone"). It also might mean that it was the INTENT that only wizards could make use of them.
I personally like to believe that sorcerers COULD have spellbooks and could make use of them for their arcane bond ability, but I do not believe the RAW supports me in this.
Lots of PrC use them. Simply they fall back to "I was a wizard, so I have the feature" when they need to add spells.
RAI is that spellbooks can only be made by wizards. The book does not stop fighters from making spellbooks either, but I doubt any GM would allow it. The book would also be written in legalese and cost a lot more if every possible method to get around a rule intention were to be block.
Why would you stop a fighter from making a spellbook? Why stop anyone who is not a wizard from making a spellbook?
Spellbooks by RAW can only ever be sold back for half the price of the raw materials consumed to scribe them. In addition to this, a fighter could never gain any mechanical benefit by scribing a spellbook. It is hardly a rules exploit to be able to make something you can only sell at a loss and can't use personally.
The dead condition does not state I can't continue to take actions either by RAW.
The dead condition says that your soul leaves your body. I would assume that your soul should continue to take actions after you die, since you no longer have the dying condition, which explicitly states that you cannot take actions. If you could not take actions after you died and your soul passed on then incorporeal undead and petitioners would be rather underpowered. I've been in campaigns where death is only the beginning. This is tangential to my question though.
How is the spellbook not a class feature? It is in the class features sections, and no other class gets it. What I mean is that the wizard is the one that gets to use it, and that is who it is intended for. In that sense it is a class feature. Another class can get one, but it won't do them any good.
Class Features
The following are the class features of the wizard......
Spellbooks:.......
That is the same place where "associates" is listed in the class feature section of the paladin.
Does this mean that other classes are not allowed to have associates, as only rules governing those with whom a paladin can associate with are outlined? No, it does not.
Nor does the rules text for spellbooks showing up under the wizard class features list mean that spellbooks are exclusive to wizards. If spellbook was exclusive to wizards it would have the (ex) or (su) tag before the colon. I expect the rules about spellbooks will become clearer when we see the final version of the magus class, as there will now be two classes that prepare arcane spells from spellbooks; however I am curious about this now.
Why would you stop a fighter from making a spellbook? Why stop anyone who is not a wizard from making a spellbook?
My point was that they can't use the spellbook.
The dead condition says that your soul leaves your body. I would assume that your soul should continue to take actions after you die, since you no longer have the dying condition, which explicitly states that you cannot take actions. If you could not take actions after you died and your soul passed on then incorporeal undead and petitioners would be rather underpowered. I've been in campaigns where death is only the beginning. This is tangential to my question though.
If you must be technical your nothing in the book says the soul is you(the character) and the book does not say your body can not continue to be used after the soul has left. Of course I am not advocating anyone try that at any games, but those are the kind of arguments you get when you say to paraphrase "the rules don't say I can't so I can"
That is the same place where "associates" is listed in the class feature section of the paladin.Does this mean that other classes are not allowed to have associates, as only rules governing those with whom a paladin can associate with are outlined? No, it does not.
Nor does the rules text for spellbooks showing up under the wizard class features list mean that spellbooks are exclusive to wizards. If spellbook was exclusive to wizards it would have the (ex) or (su) tag before the colon. I expect the rules about spellbooks will become clearer when we see the final version of the magus class, as there will now be two classes that prepare arcane spells from spellbooks; however I am curious about this now.
Actually associates is under Code of Conduct which is the class feature, and it goes on to tell you how your associations with people apply to the code of conduct. You will notice the smaller print that associates has.
Every class feature should have an EX or SU the same way all the SLA's for the classes should have designated spell levels. The fact that they were not printed does not mean they are not supposed to be there.
Seems like the point is, yes, this is stupid, but it will make my sorcerer more powerful. Some people really like cheese.
Should we now say that if a bard with arcane duelist (which gives a bonded item) has a spell book, he could also cast a spell from it? Seems cheesy.
The dead condition does not state I can't continue to take actions either by RAW.
And that's why everyone loathes the undead; they're just cheesy munchkins exploiting a RAW loophole. ;)
The chapter on magic outlines that a wizard can write spells into his spellbook, but it does not say that a sorcerer cannot create a spellbook, only that sorcerer spellcasting is not tied to spellbooks.
Well, the wizard studied some kind of ritualistic magic, learning "magical structures" or something like that and a spellbook is basically writing down such structures - in my opinion (not RAW), reading in a spellbook without having studied ritualistic magic (which the sorcerer hasn't necessarily, he casts by intuition) is like opening "advanced algebraic geometry" without having studied math, you just don't have a clue what that stuff means
I'd possibly allow it for characters with ranks in Arcana, Spellcraft and/or UMD but it's kind of expensive doing such stuff without being able to cast it (tough a rogue with UMD who creates his own scrolls and wands sounds stylish, I'd allow that for sure) (however that is exotic stuff, not the usual, some exception a DM might consider to make - rules in the book are made for more usual cases)
Well if this works out as the original poster said, it could be used as a cool background for an arcane sorcerer. The book belonged to your now dead parent, and was given by your only alive parent as a heirloom, with no one to teach you around, you tried to practice the spells inherited in the book, but could only decipher a few of them (your spells known represent this), your alive parent gave you a (bonded object) that belonged to your dead father, that allows you to concentrate the arcane energy needed to cast spells better, and as a result, once per day, you are able to understand the secret found in the book to allow you to cast one spell per day from it.
Should we now say that if a bard with arcane duelist (which gives a bonded item) has a spell book, he could also cast a spell from it? Seems cheesy.
Yes, you are forgetting one of the limiting factors though, according to the rules:
Magic[/b]]Wizard Spells and Borrowed Spellbooks
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured.
Since arcane bond refers to a spellbook belonging to the wizard, a wizard cannot use arcane bond to cast a spell that he has not written himself.
Seems like the point is, yes, this is stupid, but it will make my sorcerer more powerful. Some people really like cheese.
Cheese is delicious. In the case of the character that I am planing, however, its more like I am trying to steal bread to feed a starving orphan.
I plan on playing a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/Eldritch knight X. I am going charisma based caster because I am joining a party that needs a face. I'm picking the trait that gives +2 to caster level as long as CL doesn't exceed HD where my character was practically raised by his parents' familiars. He keeps a bound tome of useful spells even as he is trained in the ways of the paladin, in case some day he is to follow in his parent's footsteps, painstakingly scribed himself so that he understands how they work theoretically. He will have ranks in UMD to activate wands and things, which will become a class skill when he gains levels in sorcerer.
Through careful planning, and the power latent in his blood, he will use the magic of his parents, through force of will, even though the study and preparation from the arcane formulae is beyond him. He learned from magical creatures, not wizards. His parents seemed to have better things to do than to teach an average child the gifts gleaned through their genius intellect. I really want to pick a full prepared caster class, but this seems the best alternative. Creating an optimized utility generalist with charisma being the primary stat is generally how I ingratiate myself with new groups. Honestly, not having to spend gold on a spellbook and just getting an extra spell per day and an enchant-able rod without the feat tax would be nice, being able to add more mechanics and flavor would be better, though.
|
|
Arcane Bond (Su): At 1st level, you gain an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to your sorcerer level. Your sorcerer levels stack with any wizard levels you possess when determining the powers of your familiar or bonded object. This ability does not allow you to have both a familiar and a bonded item.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).Does this text mean that a sorcerer with a bonded item via this bloodline power can carry a spell book and spontaneously cast any one spell in that spellbook once per day?
I thought I would ask for clarification.
No, the sorcerer cannot use the spellbook for this purpose.
As others have pointed out, spellbook is a class feature for wizard. It can also be a class feature for other classes. Using the accepted term wizard for the guy of a class that has a spellbook class feature....A wizard's spellbook is not merely a spellbook in his possession. It generally is a spellbook that he has copied spells into himself, although it is reasonable for him to be able to make it "his own" in other ways, along the lines of what is done in Complete Arcana. The spells he is capable of casting in this context reasonably refers to those that he is reasonably able to prepare from the spellbook. He might have spells in the spellbook that he can't prepare. These can be spells of higher level than he can cast, spells that require a higher intelligence than he has, etc.
Giving the sorcerer an additional casting of a spell that is one of his known spells seems to be a reasonable way to apply the arcane bond. A strict reading of the RAW would be that he gets no extra resource from this part of the rule.
|
|
I plan on playing a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/Eldritch knight X. I am going charisma based caster because I am joining a party that needs a face. I'm picking the trait that gives +2 to caster level as long as CL doesn't exceed HD....
Weapon Proficiency: Must be proficient with all martial weapons.
Spells: Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells.
Your character will need 6 levels of sorcerer to be able to cast 3rd level arcane spells. The bump in CL from the trait doesn't change what spells he can cast. At paladin 2 / sorcerer 4, his spells known and spells per day are as a 4th level sorcerer; this includes cantrips, 1st level, and 2nd level spells. Each one he casts has caster level 6, which improves the damage dice, range, etc.
The background story is nice.
From a game design standpoint, if the only reason for not allowing for something has to do with it emulating a class ability, it is reasonable to handle it through a prestige class, archetype/bloodline/variant class, feat, or trait, depending on how extensive the benefit is. If your thought is that the sorcerer arcane bloodline already provides the spellbook use, and if your GM agrees, you're good to go.
My original rules question has been addressed to my satisfaction.
The rules are more clear to me, after gathering responses and looking up spellbooks in the chapter on magic.
Since the character I plan to use this with isn't unreasonable, paying for and paying to maintain a spellbook is not an unreasonable thing to request GM approval for. If the GM finds the request unreasonable I will go with a different bloodline. Gm disapproval is not a big deal as I plan to start out as a first level paladin and won't take a sorcerer level until 3rd.
I'll mainly make use of UMD and wands to cast spells so the bonded item drawbacks would be somewhat mitigated. Mostly I was going to pick up a light mace bonded item, so that I could enchant it as a weapon and craft it into a metamagic rod without being feat taxed to do so. Paladins and sorcerers are fairly feat starved as it is.
I don't think I would ever pick a bonded item as a single classed sorcerer. Bonded item has too many drawbacks as it is, even for a wizard.