| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can a wizards arcane bond, be an animated object?
No. Animated object are considered to be creatures(contructs).
A creature is not an item even if it can still has the properties of an item. An an example an animated dagger still has a sharp point to it, just like a regular dagger, but it is a creature if it is animated.
Even if you could, why would you want to?
If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell.
|
@wraithstrike: I'm going to have to disagree. An animated object is both a creature (construct) AND an object. Most constructs are simply creatures, but most constructs cannot be created with a standard action cast out of any random thing laying around.
My reasoning is basically this:
1) Unlike most constructs, animated objects can be temporary creations that go back to object form from duration lapsing. Even if hit with permanency, a simple dispel reverts them to an object. This is not true for any other construct type. (Some animated objects can be created via Craft Construct, but since that route is more feat intensive than using permanency, I would assume that there are many that are simply created via Animate Objects + Permanency.)
2) No other constructs, to my knowledge, gain hardness instead of DR as hardness is an object-only property. The topic of hardness is never discussed outside of the context of objects. As the animated object possesses hardness rather than an equivalent quantity of DR, it can be inferred that an animated object is an object. (Note that having hardness means that it resists energy as well, and will often halve the damage of energy sources BEFORE applying hardness, not to mention issues with ranged damage and the "ineffective weapons" rules.)
3) Although its possession of hardness means its an object, it also possesses a wis and cha score, which mean that it must also be a creature. This leaves us with "Both creature and object."
@wraithstrike: I'm going to have to disagree. An animated object is both a creature (construct) AND an object. Most constructs are simply creatures, but most constructs cannot be created with a standard action cast out of any random thing laying around.
My reasoning is basically this:
1) Unlike most constructs, animated objects can be temporary creations that go back to object form from duration lapsing. Even if hit with permanency, a simple dispel reverts them to an object. This is not true for any other construct type. (Some animated objects can be created via Craft Construct, but since that route is more feat intensive than using permanency, I would assume that there are many that are simply created via Animate Objects + Permanency.)
2) No other constructs, to my knowledge, gain hardness instead of DR as hardness is an object-only property. The topic of hardness is never discussed outside of the context of objects. As the animated object possesses hardness rather than an equivalent quantity of DR, it can be inferred that an animated object is an object. (Note that having hardness means that it resists energy as well, and will often halve the damage of energy sources BEFORE applying hardness, not to mention issues with ranged damage and the "ineffective weapons" rules.)
3) Although its possession of hardness means its an object, it also possesses a wis and cha score, which mean that it must also be a creature. This leaves us with "Both creature and object."
1. They have the construct type which makes them creatures. The game differentiates between creatures and objects. Just because animated object have special rules, just like intelligent magic items that does not mean they exist as both.
2. See 1
3. See 1.
So, if a wizard animates it, the bond breaks?
Pretty much, yes.
The d20 definition of object is something that doesn't have Wisdom and Charisma scores. Conversely, anything with Wisdom and Charisma scores is considered a creature.
By that official definition (shown clearly in the RAW here, and below), animated objects are creatures, not objects.
Wisdom (Wis)
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score. A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.
Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.
As you can see, it's pretty clear cut, and has been stated a number of times, a number of different ways, in a number of sources since the advent of D&D v3.0.
Wisdom and Charisma, more than anything else, is the determining factor on whether something is an object, or a creature. Wisdom is required for a creature to know the difference between itself and others, and Charisma is required to know one's self.
EDIT: As far as I know, you can make your bonded item into an intelligent magical item while retaining the bond, which is as close as you can get to having a hybrid between an object and a creature (in the end, it is technically considered an immobile construct creature at that point).
|
|
@wraithstrike: I'm going to have to disagree. An animated object is both a creature (construct) AND an object. Most constructs are simply creatures, but most constructs cannot be created with a standard action cast out of any random thing laying around.
My reasoning is basically this:
1) Unlike most constructs, animated objects can be temporary creations that go back to object form from duration lapsing. Even if hit with permanency, a simple dispel reverts them to an object. This is not true for any other construct type. (Some animated objects can be created via Craft Construct, but since that route is more feat intensive than using permanency, I would assume that there are many that are simply created via Animate Objects + Permanency.)
2) No other constructs, to my knowledge, gain hardness instead of DR as hardness is an object-only property. The topic of hardness is never discussed outside of the context of objects. As the animated object possesses hardness rather than an equivalent quantity of DR, it can be inferred that an animated object is an object. (Note that having hardness means that it resists energy as well, and will often halve the damage of energy sources BEFORE applying hardness, not to mention issues with ranged damage and the "ineffective weapons" rules.)
3) Although its possession of hardness means its an object, it also possesses a wis and cha score, which mean that it must also be a creature. This leaves us with "Both creature and object."
1. They have the construct type which makes them creatures. The game differentiates between creatures and objects. Just because animated object have special rules, just like intelligent magic items that does not mean they exist as both.
2. See 1
3. See 1.
Way to completely ignore my points in favor of a "it says construct, therefor you're wrong" approach. What exactly is wrong with it being both? Yes, the game differentiates between objects and creatures quite clearly in many cases, yet the lines get blurred all the time for other rules, so I see no reason why this one would not. For example, a morningstar deals bludgeoning AND piercing damage. The damage is not one or the other, or some split of X piercing then X bludgeoning; rather, all of the damage is both types.
Absolutely EVERY rule for how hardness works refers only to objects. Should I take that to infer that animated objects don't actually get hardness, since they're not an object? Or should I take that to infer that they are an object? Even some of the entries in the "Construction Points" section refer to the animated object *as* an object (using "the object" and "animated object" interchangeably).
The last thing I would need as a wizard is for the DM to be able to have a standard action no-save/no-SR cast make me mostly unable to contribute (easily a 30-50% chance to fail the concentration check) for a minimum of one week, in addition to stripping me of one of my magic items permanently (since arcane bond loses its properties when no longer bonded). If no other concession is made, it must be assumed that temporary forms of animation would not render the bond broken, if only to prevent from easily screwing wizards (both yours and that of the DM).
Of course, the fact that constructs are even creatures to begin with is strange in and of itself, but I suppose that's more of a philosophical problem.
|
|
The d20 definition of object is something that doesn't have Wisdom and Charisma scores. Conversely, anything with Wisdom and Charisma scores is considered a creature.
By that official definition (shown clearly in the RAW here, and below), animated objects are creatures, not objects.
** spoiler omitted **
As you can see, it's pretty clear cut, and has been stated a number of times, a number of different ways, in a number of sources since the advent of D&D v3.0.
Wisdom and Charisma, more than anything else, is the determining factor on whether something is an object, or a creature. Wisdom is required for a creature to know the difference between itself and others, and Charisma is required to know one's self.
And yet, it has hardness. An ability that, in no other context, is ever referred to as being on anything except an object. Even the animated object entry uses "object" and "animated object" interchangeably when talking about this creature/object.
I do agree that it must be a creature, but I disagree that this means it must not be an object.
StabbityDoom, last I checked, nothing anywhere states that hardness is limited to objects alone (though, in practice, that is generally the case).
|
|
StabbityDoom, last I checked, nothing anywhere states that hardness is limited to objects alone (though, in practice, that is generally the case).
Hardness
Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage.
By the strictest reading of the only section that describes hardness, a creature with hardness would gain no benefit as hardness is only subtracted "When an object is damaged".
While it does not come out and say "this is for objects only", the section is worded in such a fashion that (by RAW) a creature with hardness would gain no benefit.
In other words, by strict RAW, either an animated object is also an object for some list of purposes, or its hardness is meaningless and should just be removed from its entry.
While it can be implied that an animated object is treated as an object for the purposes of hardness, this is not directly stated. Being treated as an object for one purpose leaves the door open to the idea of it being treated as an object for other purposes, where it seems prudent and sensible to do so. I believe that being a bonded object may be one of those purposes, as the alternative is not a pretty situation for those who have them.
Or perhaps animated objects are the exception to the hardness rule (as this is an exception-based game system). Perhaps they simply have a racial ability by the same name, that happens to work the same. In either case, that doesn't necessarily mean they are considered objects as well.
(Though I do suspect they might be considered objects as well, since they can function in every way as their original form, I don't think your reasoning above is solid.)
|
|
Or perhaps animated objects are the exception to the hardness rule (as this is an exception-based game system). Perhaps they simply have a racial ability by the same name, that happens to work the same. In either case, that doesn't necessarily mean they are considered objects as well.
(Though I do suspect they might be considered objects as well, since they can function in every way as their original form, I don't think your reasoning above is solid.)
I believe that the exception would say "Treated as an object for ___ purpose." rather than attempting to redefine hardness.
Basically what I'm getting at here is that there is no reason that it could not be a creature but still be treated as an object in many ways. I'm not comfortable as either a DM or a player having bonded objects be disenchanted and unbonded because they spent a minute or two walking around. I'm basically using hardness as a way of saying "They're already implicitly being treated as an object for one purposes, who's to say that they shouldn't be for another?"
Either way, since it does not list an exception of any form, the animated object (by strictest "I'm a dumb computer reading this" RAW) gains no benefit from hardness as it is a creature and it does not list an exception that allows to to gain benefit from hardness. It still possesses the property, but hardness only reduces damage if an object is harmed, not if a creature is harmed.
I've seen a number of cases where things fall into more than one category. I am not sure why this wouldn't be one of those cases.
It's weird that animating a wizard's bonded object would break his bond.
What else breaks a wizard's bond?
Things falling into more than one category is a case by case basis thing. Some spells are divine and arcane as an example.
As a vampire you can be undead and humanoid.
As to breaking the bond I would say when the item steps outside its normal parameters of being an item I.
PS:Personally I feel like an animated item that is made that way permanently and one that only stays that way temporarily are not the same, but that is just my view on it, and not RAW.
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required Item Creation Feats. This would include Craft Construct, for creating an animated object.
Why would adding this ability, undo the bond?
Once the item becomes a creature it is no longer an item/object.
If a wizard wants a construct he can make a homunculus.
edit:If you can make your bonded item into a construct, then why can you not make a construct into your bonded item?
We are not talking about trying to stack abilities here.
With the second sentence I was saying that if the wizard desires a construct he would have to make a homunculus.
Having a bonded object, and having a familiar have different benefits. Just because your bonded object is animated, it does give you the benefits of a familiar. An animated bonded object will never gain the benefits of more hit points from leveling, a familiar will.
I agree. I am not arguing about the power of either one though. I am just saying the rules have never classified any one thing as a creature, and an object. It either has to follow the rules for one or the other unless exceptions are called out such as animated objects having hardness or intelligent items having intelligence.
Blackbloodtroll: What, exactly, is your goal here? Are you trying to find a way to get an animated, intelligent bonded object for your wizard or something? Or is this just a bit of theorizing fun? Or are you just trying to drive us crazy?
That's going to be real tricky, and will most certainly require GM input. I assume your GM is on board, or that you are the GM looking for some rules to support your idea?
EDIT: I'll see if I can come up with some creative ideas that fit your concept, but you may want to just use homunculus stats and reflavor it as an animated object.
I am looking to have a mobile, intelligent, animated object. I have a character concept, and this item would fit into the backstory.
If you want an intelligent mobile bonded item I would use the intelligent magic item rules. Just be aware that when the item is not being weilded by you that spellcasting becomes more difficult.
Is there a specific reason why it has to be an animated item also since intelligent items can walk and fly if you pay for them to have the power?*
*Other than cost.
|
|
I am looking to have a mobile, intelligent, animated object. I have a character concept, and this item would fit into the backstory.If you want an intelligent mobile bonded item I would use the intelligent magic item rules. Just be aware that when the item is not being weilded by you that spellcasting becomes more difficult.
Is there a specific reason why it has to be an animated item also since intelligent items can walk and fly if you pay for them to have the power?*
*Other than cost.
An intelligent item is a creature, sorry. By your own idea of "cannot be both creature and object", it cannot be an arcane bonded object.
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs.
I would allow an intelligent item to be an arcane bonded item, but not an animated object.
|
|
I would allow an intelligent item to be an arcane bonded item, but not an animated object.
Exactly how is this different from an animated object?
46–50 Item can sprout limbs and move with a speed of 10 feet +5,000 gp +1
The above is one of the abilities that an intelligent item can have. This means that an intelligent item can move, talk, listen, think, etc. It has absolutely all of the properties that makes a construct (and is, in fact, a construct by the rules), so exactly what line is drawn that makes the two different enough that one can be a bonded object and the other not?
In both cases you make them with an item creation feat and in both cases they are creatures. In fact, the intelligent item is *more* like a creature because it also has an int score and is meant to be treated as an NPC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would allow an intelligent item to be an arcane bonded item, but not an animated object.Exactly how is this different from an animated object?
An intelligent magic item is a magic item that ACTS LIKE a creature in many respects, but isn't.
An animated object is in all ways a creature that can in many ways ACT LIKE its original mundane object.
The former can be a bonded item (since it is still an item), whereas the latter can't (it's a creature).
I am looking to have a mobile, intelligent, animated object. I have a character concept, and this item would fit into the backstory.If you want an intelligent mobile bonded item I would use the intelligent magic item rules. Just be aware that when the item is not being weilded by you that spellcasting becomes more difficult.
Is there a specific reason why it has to be an animated item also since intelligent items can walk and fly if you pay for them to have the power?*
*Other than cost.
An intelligent item is a creature, sorry. By your own idea of "cannot be both creature and object", it cannot be an arcane bonded object.
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs.
No it isn't, not by RAW. The rules say they "can be" considered to be creatures and to treat them "as" constructs.