I removed a rather lot of condescension and the replies to it. Flag it and move on.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
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.)
Which is why I specified monk in the example.
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.
(emphasis mine)
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a
manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
I'd say Arcane Bond is an 'effect that enhances or improves'. :P In either case it is clearly a weapon.
Is it cheese? Maybe, but IMHO you'd need a level of monk to 'bond' your fist.
|
Again, common sense is on the side of the general category, not the ultra-confined "only items with 'amulet' in the name" that doesn't jive with any of the other choices.
Until Paizo defines what an "amulet" is, an item designated "amulet" is the only real thing you have to go on.
Anything else is just wishing; and GMs love being a dream-crushers.
I'd say Arcane Bond is an 'effect that enhances or improves'. :P In either case it is clearly a weapon.
Is it cheese? Maybe, but IMHO you'd need a level of monk to 'bond' your fist.
Well, semantically speaking a monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon but says nothing about it being an object. Arcane Bond only affects objects in five categories, one of which is weapons.
Even if the character is level-dipping into monk, I'm sticking by the "kill the wizard" route of problem solving. :P