If an amulet bonded object is turned into a necklace of fireballs, or vice versa, does it take up that slot as the bonded object states? Or, no slot as per a normal necklace of fireballs?
Well... if a necklace of fireballs doesn't occupy a "slot" then it isn't an amulet. Therefore the point is moot.
Actually, the necklace of fireballs is still worn. However (as per the CRD, page 526, PDF):
This item appears to be a string of bads, sometimes with the ends tied together to form a necklace. (It does not count as an item worn around the neck for the purpose of determining which of a character's worn magic items is effective.)
It is the second part of that which is interesting. It does not count as an item worn around the neck for the purpose of determining which of a character's worn magic items is effective.
Although certainly not Rules As Intended, an argument could probably be made that RAW the Necklace of Fireballs is thus certainly eligible to become a bonded item. Personally, I would just Gibbs-slap my player on the back of their head and say no, but . . . there it is in black-and-white.
Master Arminas
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Necklace = amulet = peripapt. Right? I mean, seriously, you would tell a wizard he couldn't use a necklace of adaptation as his arcane bond item? Or a periapt of wound closure?
Staff and wands are temporary, yet can be selected for arcane bond (and can be recharged by the wizard). They retain their arcane bond abilities even if they are reduced to 0 charges. Why wouldn't the NoF?
Just playing devil's advocate, here.
Master Arminas
Necklace = amulet = peripapt. Right? I mean, seriously, you would tell a wizard he couldn't use a necklace of adaptation as his arcane bond item? Or a periapt of wound closure?
Those all use the Neck slot. The NoF doesn't.
Arcane Bond: "Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon... If the object is a ring or amulet, it occupies the ring or neck slot accordingly."
Necklace of Fireballs: "It does not count as an item worn around the neck for the purpose of determining which of a character's worn magic items is effective.
So either the NoF is not eligible because it does not use up the neck slot, or it is eligible, with the caveat that it -does- take up the neck slot. (Or rather, the magical necklace the wizard has bonded takes up the neck slot, and it's then further enchanted to have fireball beads attached.)
The real question is why you would do that. Why not just have your bonded amulet that does nothing (other than the bond) and wear a necklace of fireballs at the same time? Making fire beads is twice the cost of making scrolls of fireball.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
An NoF is neck slotted, thus it is eligible for a bonded object. It also has the added statement that it doesn't count as taking up the slot.Wrong:
Arcane Bond: "Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon... If the object is a ring or amulet, it occupies the ring or neck slot accordingly."
"If A, then B" is not equivalent to "If B, then A".
The items which can be arcane-bonfed are listed plain-as-day. No scarabs, no peripapts, no chokers, no necklaces, etc. In PFS or other by-the-literal-text game, it won't happen.
The items which can be arcane-boned are listed plain-as-day. No scarabs, no peripapts, no chokers, no necklaces, etc. In PFS or other by-the-literal-text game, it won't happen.
You are joking, right? That is taking the literal text a little too far, isn't it?
A magical amulet is exactly the same thing as a magical necklace, or a magical choker (not the monster), or a magical periapt. They provide exactly the same function and just have a different name. Or do mean to say that boots and sandals aren't interchangeable magic items either? Or cloaks and mantles? Or gauntlets and gloves? (And here I am talking about wondrous item gauntlets, such as the Gauntlet of Rust and not gauntlets as weapons).
As I said, I wouldn't allow it only because it appears to be gaming the rules, but as written, it appears to work. At least in my opinion.
Master Arminas
|
|
You are joking, right? That is taking the literal text a little too far, isn't it?No. "Literal text" is exactly that. -- It's the difference between an actual rule you can demonstrate exists, and a "wish" rule you invent in your head via extrapolation.
A magical amulet is exactly the same thing as a magical necklace, or a magical choker (not the monster), or a magical periapt.
You mean exactly the same except for the part where all the words are different?
There is no indication whatsoever in the text that you can arcane-bond any item you wear around your neck. -- The text very simply states that if you arcane-bond an amulet or a ring, it has to occupy the appropriate slot. If A, then B.
They provide exactly the same function and just have a different name.Obviously not, or we wouldn't be having the argument. Obviously you want to have something with a different function (i.e., a "named" Wondrous Item which is a lot more functional IYO than, say, a boring old Amulet of Natural Armor).
Or do mean to say that boots and sandals aren't interchangeable magic items either?
If "Boots" were a permissible item, it would exclude horseshoes, sandals, slippers, etc. -- save where your home-game's GM permits.
|
|
Arcane bond also lists staves and weapons separately, does that mean you can only enchant a quarterstaff as a magical staff(magic item type) or only as a magical weapon? Does that mean you could never turn your bonded staff into a Staff of Power or Staff of the Woodlands?
Since both staffs and weapons can be arcane-bonded items, and staffs are weapons, I don't see the reason for the question.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point I'm trying to make is that your interpretation of the rules is not the same as how the rules were intended to be read.
The grammar of the rule-text doesn't support the way you wish it were; and, not having a Paizo official interpreter on speed-dial, the text of the rule is what we go by.
"Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon.
-- Is a Necklace of Fireballs an "amulet"?
No.
A necklace is no more an amulet than a glove is a gauntlet or a circlet a headband or a slipper a boot.
So this is what it's like to be on the outside of these discussions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly the term amulet was a poor choice since there is no "Amulet" catagory where as i can easily look up Weapon, Wand, Staff, and Ring.
What about a Amulet that is in fact also a necklace thus showing that amulet is a bit of a open term?
Nah just take your fist your can wield it and have a hand free for casting since. Unarmed strike is listed in the weapons chart so your good to go.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
FYI:
An Amulet is not a necklace. It is something attached to a necklace, then worn around your neck.
Arguments stating that an Amulet is the same thing as a necklace (or choker, collar, etc.) are not valid.
A periapt, on the other hand, is a synonym for Amulet, so a better argument could be made for using a Periapt instead of an Amulet for a bonded object.
Thank you for your attention.
Carry on.
Amulet of Magecraft
Aura moderate universal; CL 9th
Slot neck; Price 20,000 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
Description
Each silver link that makes up this heavy necklace represents a well-known concept of arcane theory. A universalist wizard who selects the necklace as his bonded object (which counts as an amulet) may choose one school of spells each day when he prepares spells. He then can use the necklace to spontaneously convert any prepared wizard spell of that school into any other wizard spell of that school he knows; the desired spell must be of the same level or lower than the prepared spell. For example, if the wizard chose “evocation” when he prepared his spells that morning, until the next time he prepares spells, he can spontaneously convert a prepared fireball into any other evocation wizard spell of 3rd level or lower that he knows.Construction Requirements
Craft Wondrous Item, permanency, creator must be a universalist; Cost 10,000 gpAny necklace can be a bonded item or only this amulet/necklace? Head explodes ...
FYI:
An Amulet is not a necklace. It is something attached to a necklace, then worn around your neck.
No, it's not. The term "Amulet" is never defined in game terms, and it's English definition, as Lohengrin pointed out includes any object intended to bring good luck or protection to its owner.
@Mike Schneider: You go into great length describing what an Amulet isn't. If you would excuse my ignorance, would you mind describing what an Amulet is (in game terms) and direct me to where I could find a list of Amulets in the CRB?
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
No, it's not. The term "Amulet" is never defined in game terms,
Neither is "necklace." Or "periapt". Or "collar". Or "rations." Or "canatloupe" for that matter, but we all know what they are based on the actual English language and we easily apply them to our games. At some point you have to rely on the real world definitions of terms or the game itself will fall apart.
it's English definition, as Lohengrin pointed out includes any object intended to bring good luck or protection to its owner.
From Dictionary.com:
am·u·let /ˈæmyəlɪt/ Show Spelled[am-yuh-lit]
noun
a small object worn to ward off evil, harm, or illness or to bring good fortune; protecting charm.
I don't disagree at all with Lohengrin. Just pointing out that an Amulet is not the same thing as a necklace (although it may be possible for a necklace to be an Amulet).
|
|
The term "Amulet" is never defined in game termsDefinitions are unnecessary for the purpose of adjudicating the rule.
Mike Schneider: You go into great length describing what an Amulet isn't
For the purposes of a Pathfinder Society GM doing an audit of your character, it would be any item that is not spelled a-m-u-l-e-t wherever it is listed in the book.
Man, those guys are tough -- I'm tellin' ya.
Mike, you keep bringing up Pathfinder Society. This isn't a PFS thread; it is a general rules question on the basic core Pathfinder Rules. PFS is an option that has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.
Master Arminas
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Mike, you keep bringing up Pathfinder Society. This isn't a PFS thread; it is a general rules question on the basic core Pathfinder Rules. PFS is an option that has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.
Master Arminas
I think Mike keeps bringing up PFS because they are strict adherents to RAW (with some exceptions). I agree it's not a perfect way to make an argument for or against a rule in this forum, but I can see where he is coming from.
As right or wrong as Mike is, which I don't feel like debating, the obvious purpose of the rules, if we want to read the intent, is that your bonded item must take up a slot.
Since the necklace of fireballs does NOT take up a slot, you have one of two options.
1. You can't use a necklace of fireballs as a bonded item
2. Your necklace of fireballs can be a bonded item, but now takes up the neck slot, preventing you from using another magic item there.
If we'd like to read RAI into this, it seems like the obvious case to me.
|
|
I think Mike keeps bringing up PFS because they are strict adherents to RAW (with some exceptions). I agree it's not a perfect way to make an argument for or against a rule in this forum, but I can see where he is coming from.
I am simply forwarding the arguments you are likely to encounter in PFS -- but be under no illusions that you won't encounter the same argument outside of PFS from any GM remotely cognizant of both the rules and of how English grammar works.
I.e., if a rule says you need this to do that, then you better have this if you want to do that. -- If this is undefined to your satisfaction and the thing you do have isn't spelled "this", then you're SOL in terms of rule applicability just as soon as any GM anywhere cares to say so.
The term "Amulet" is never defined in game termsDefinitions are unnecessary for the purpose of adjudicating the rule.Mike Schneider: You go into great length describing what an Amulet isn'tFor the purposes of a Pathfinder Society GM doing an audit of your character, it would be any item that is not spelled a-m-u-l-e-t wherever it is listed in the book.
Man, those guys are tough -- I'm tellin' ya.
By that logic, any item not spelled w-e-a-p-o-n is not a weapon.
And while we're debating English grammar, by the English definition of amulet, just about everything you wear that grants "protection" could be called an amulet.
By that logic, any item not spelled w-e-a-p-o-n is not a weapon.
Agreed. You showed him! Except that all weapons in fact show up under a section called "Weapons" so I'm not sure where you're going with this point.
However that can as i pointed out earlier lead to the weirdness of picking my right fist as my bonded object as per RAW it is in fact a weapon.
However that can as i pointed out earlier lead to the weirdness of picking my right fist as my bonded object as per RAW it is in fact a weapon.You don't even have to be as specific as that. The entry in the chart is unarmed strike, which can be made with any part of the body (or, at the most literal, are not specifically tied to any single part of the body).
Except that Arcane Bond states it is to a bonded object, and a living creature is not an object. Perhaps if we kill the wizard, he can consider the unarmed strike of his inanimate corpse to be a suitable object for Arcane Bond.
(I find that "kill the wizard" solves a lot of game issues.)
By your logic, even items with "amulet" in their name aren't viable choices, as there is no "Amulets" section
Don't be absurd. I know what a weapon is based on it being in the weapons section. You're right. There is no amulet section. But what I do next is use some common sense, find any item with "amulet" in the name and then go by that.
However that can as i pointed out earlier lead to the weirdness of picking my right fist as my bonded object as per RAW it is in fact a weapon.
Your fist isn't an object and therefore you can't bond with it. There is no weirdness here.
Let me ask you guys a couple questions.
1) Do you know what a weapon is when referred to in the arcane bond section or do you need it explained to you?
2) Do you know what an amulet is when referred to in the arcane bond section or do you need it explained to you?
No really. Pretend we're in a world where all of us are about to sit down at a table and make a party of wizards. Are you going to ask the DM whether you can make your right fist an arcane bond? Are you going to ask them which objects in the book are amulets?
The rules need not say "or wondrous item worn in the neck slot." The game would work fine by swapping "neck slot items" for "amulets." It's a two word difference. I doubt they made the decision to save space.
It's possible they meant to include all neck slot items. But this isn't a case where the existing text doesn't work so it must be your common sense ruling. "Amulets" is the best to way to refer to all items with amulet in the name. It's certainly easier than "amulet, and yes we mean items with amulet in the name, not neck slot items" which would apparently be required to avoid common sense rulings overriding the written rules.