He would need to use his caster level. He could not craft the bow because he does not qualify for Craft Magic Arms and Armor.
- Gauss
Correct
- Gauss
Edit: also correct that you can craft the bow to +3 at Caster level 5 (10th level overall). You will need to add a +5 to the craft DC since you are not meeting the crafting requirement of 3 times the enhancement bonus.
|
The arcane bond ability doesn't use HD, it uses caster level. Your character only has a CL of 3 for ranger, and 2 for wizard. You need a CL of 5 to qualify for Craft Magic Arms and Armor. With Magical Knack, if you had applied it to your Ranger levels, you'd qualify. If applied to wizard, it's only 4 and you would not qualify. Based on your post, looks like it's applied to wizard.
Some GMs might require you use your wizard's CL. RAW, arcane bond doesn't restrict you to using your wizard CL, but it's fair to assume such a restriction is RAI.
@ Gauss - I take a really long time to type... :)
|
Not only that, but bonded bow is an EXTREMELY poor choice for a bonded item. You need to WIELD a bonded weapon to cast a spell without the concentration check. Bows are two handed weapons and so you have no hands free for somatic component . So unless your casting a lot of still spells...which I doubt for a CL 3 character, your basically boned.
If it matters SKR at one point stated they are going to change the text on that so that weapons like the staff just need to be held. It makes no sense for a staff to be a listed bonded item and be unable to be used while casting.
- Gauss
|
|
Correct
- Gauss
Edit: also correct that you can craft the bow to +3 at Caster level 5 (10th level overall). You will need to add a +5 to the craft DC since you are not meeting the crafting requirement of 3 times the enhancement bonus.
Umm...not really. It has been clarified that CL can not be ignored if it is the requirment line of the magic item entry...nor can anything else that shows up there. The 3x CL is a requirement...not a prereq.
Can you please show me the clarification because that is news to me.
- Gauss
|
|
You can hold the bow in one hand, but the rules for a bonded weapon is that the weapon must be WIELDED...not just held to be used as a bonded object. You wield a bow in TWO hands...so no hands free for you.
A quarterstaff if a double weapon. A double weapon can be wielded in one hand if your only attacking with one side of the weapon so...one hand wieldable.
Here is what SKR said:
Caster level is only a prerequisite for creating the item IF the caster level is LISTED in the Requirements section of the item (for an example, see amulet of mighty fists).
The text on page 460 is a little unclear and probably is derived from the (wrong) SRD text taken from the (wrong) DMG 3.0 magic item introduction (where Monte wrote it correctly, then someone changed it to something wrong and that's how it got published, and fixed in the errata for 3.0, and then 3.5 was written by updating the original 3.0 Word documents, which didn't incorporate the 3.0 errata, and thus went to print with wrong information again). Anyway, caster level is NOT a prereq unless the item's Requirement section specifically lists a caster level.
What he is talking about is the line in every magic item which says CL '#' doesnt mean that is a prerequisite or requirement. At no point does SKR state that a caster level requirement or prerequisite cannot be bypassed by adding +5 to the DC.
- Gauss
Dust Raven, that does not mean you cannot bypass that. It is another prerequisite or requirement...just like all other prerequisites and requirements. And just like all others it can be bypassed by adding +5 to the DC.
The CRB states on page549 that the ONLY prerequisite that is actually mandatory is the item creation feat unless the item is a spell-trigger or spell-completion item in which case you must have the spell.
- Gauss
|
|
No he is talking abou the line the creator MUST <insert the requirement here>. Look at the amulet of mighty fist.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, greater magic fang, creator's caster level must be at least three times the amulet's bonus, plus any requirements of the melee weapon special abilities;
You can ignore greater magic fang, but not the creator MUST part.
Rules for weapon enchantment...
Caster Level for Weapons: The caster level of a weapon with a special ability is given in the item description. For an item with only an enhancement bonus and no other abilities, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
Once again see the word MUST. You can't ignore anything with the word MUST.
Sigh, this argument again. It also says MUST 2 lines before it says you can ignore must.
Here:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
Allow me to extract the two relevant sentances:
These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created.And
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.
Like I said, one line also says 'must' and then 2 lines later cannibalizes 'must'.
- Gauss
|
|
The indication it is a special prerequisite (as opposed to just a prerequisite), trumps the general rule you can craft an omit a prerequisite if you increase the DC by 5.
EDIT: I suppose there is nothing RAW that confirms this, but it definitely seems like this is the correct interpretation. Just doesn't seem right character with only a CL of 5 should be able to make a +5 weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, there is no statement to that effect. For something to be a specific rule it must state something about it altering how it is normally done.
- Gauss
Edit: Anyhow, this is not going to be resolved between us today. It doesnt matter what the other thinks. It only matter's what the OP's GM believes. That is, until a clarification comes out. I do not feel like getting into another long drawn out debate on this topic. I have debated several threads on the topic already.
|
|
Edit: Anyhow, this is not going to be resolved between us today. It doesnt matter what the other thinks. It only matter's what the OP's GM believes. That is, until a clarification comes out. I do not feel like getting into another long drawn out debate on this topic. I have debated several threads on the topic already.
Fair enough. And since the OP can't craft the item right now anyway, he (or his GM) certainly has time to figure it out. :)
|
Gauss, I try to follow all the threads and posts by Devs about crafting magic items. SKR post has been quoted several times to support both positions. My opinion is that "creator must have X levels" mean that he must have them and can't bypass the requirement taking a +5 to the DC but I see how people can argue the other position.
Hopefully that question and several others will be resolved in the future sourcebook under development. For those that haven't seen the relevant thread, it can be found here
Diego:
I follow them also. It bugs me a bit though that the thread that was referenced earlier was SKR specifically dealing with the CL # issue that eventually came out in a FAQ. It had nothing to do with 'can you bypass Caster Level prerequisites'. I wont use it to say it does either because it didn't.
In that thread He even answered a question about caster level prequisites being bypassed with a 'nonanswer' and I chose to not use it because you cannot prove a positive with a nonanswer.
I am also hoping that sourcebook eventually resolves it. Personally, I dont care if the prerequisites can be bypassed or not. I just know what the book states and does not state. It states all prerequisites except for crafting feats and spells (for spell-trigger and completion items) can be bypassed. The sections often referenced do not say anything to the contrary. They use the same EXACT language that is neutered. That language being 'must'. Ergo: they are just another prerequisite.
Anyhow, I think many people argue the 'creature must have x levels' because of what Dust Raven said earlier. They do not like the idea of a low caster level creating a omg sword. My only response to that is: a non-caster can do the same thing. I have no problem with that.
Damn, Im getting into the argument again. *sighs*
- Gauss
|
|
A level 5 character (caster or no) can have a Craft or Spellcraft skill in excess of +18 (with a high INT, potential magic items, feats and traits), and a wizard using spellcraft can easily have a +24. The DC of crafting a +5 weapon is only 20. Assuming you can bypass the special prerequisite that's still only 25. That's not only possible it's all but guaranteed. About the only thing really stopping such a character from crafting such a weapon is how much gold they have on hand. If this is RAI I fully understand why crafting is banned in PFS.
*Must resist..commenting!* Bah, failed my Will save.
I dont really see the problem there. The 5th level character will not have the GP to do it. That is part of the balance.
Frankly, I have bigger fish to fry...such as a group with near permanent Barkskin due to cheap pearls of power and rods of extend. For 10,000gp per player they have (at level 11) 5 hours of barkskin each. That is the majority of an adventuring day.
A savings of 40,000gp for +5 barkskin. (Before you start doing that math and scratch your head: Pearl of Power 2, 1/3 of a Rod of Extend, 1/4th of a Bead of Karma per person)
Note: if they wanted to cover the entire adventuring day they only need to spend another 10,000gp and that is still a 30,000gp savings.
- Gauss
|
|
*Must resist..commenting!* Bah, failed my Will save.
My save DC is higher than 25. :p
I dont really see the problem there. The 5th level character will not have the GP to do it. That is part of the balance.
The 5th level character probably won't have the GP to do it, but they might, and it's certainly possible. It only takes 25K to craft a single +5 weapon, and should a group pool their resources that's relatively easy to muster up. Granted, you only get the one weapon, rather than a lesser weapon for everybody, but you could do it.
Really? God I hope I see a group do that someday just so I can show them the error of their ways. Smart players sell the high value stuff so they can get multiple cheaper small value items that add up to bigger bonuses.
Want a +5AC bonus? Well, I have this armor I can sell to you for 25,000gp OR you can get +1 from armor, +1 from an ioun stone, +1 from a helmet, +1 from a ring, and +1 from an amulet all for 15,000gp. For another 8,000gp I can give you another +2!
Gee....I wonder which one I will take. /humor :)
Weapons arent much different. For less than the price difference between a +3 and a +5 weapon I can get a +4 bonus to Strength or Gloves of Dueling both of which have the same attack/damage bonus (or more in the case of some strength builds).
I can get bigger bonuses by spreading them around on cheaper items. :)
One other question: where is this 5th level player getting 50days (25accelerated) to craft this? The only time I hand out that much time in most campaigns is at high levels. Yes, they can use tricks to craft while adventuring but by the time a 5th level crafter is done with a 50,000gp craft job he will be 7th level or higher already. Assuming the group didnt TPK because none of them have the appropriate gear.
- Gauss
Winterwalker:
There are two caster level statements. The first is 'CL #' which is not a prerequisite or requirement. This is in the FAQ. The second, the one up for debate, is when it states (as a sentance) in the prerequisites 'must be caster level X'.
because CL # was not intended as a metric for if you can craft it because the numbers are screwy. For example: A Pearl of Power 1 has a CL of 17 but a prerequisite of 'must be able to cast the level of the spell'. Which would you follow?
- Gauss
|
|
Diego:
I follow them also. It bugs me a bit though that the thread that was referenced earlier was SKR specifically dealing with the CL # issue that eventually came out in a FAQ. It had nothing to do with 'can you bypass Caster Level prerequisites'. I wont use it to say it does either because it didn't.
In that thread He even answered a question about caster level prequisites being bypassed with a 'nonanswer' and I chose to not use it because you cannot prove a positive with a nonanswer.
I am also hoping that sourcebook eventually resolves it. Personally, I dont care if the prerequisites can be bypassed or not. I just know what the book states and does not state. It states all prerequisites except for crafting feats and spells (for spell-trigger and completion items) can be bypassed. The sections often referenced do not say anything to the contrary. They use the same EXACT language that is neutered. That language being 'must'. Ergo: they are just another prerequisite.
Anyhow, I think many people argue the 'creature must have x levels' because of what Dust Raven said earlier. They do not like the idea of a low caster level creating a omg sword. My only response to that is: a non-caster can do the same thing. I have no problem with that.
Damn, Im getting into the argument again. *sighs*
- Gauss
To me "4th level wizard make +5 sword" or "gem of unlimited wishes" will be forever wrong, but that is a personal preference.
*Must resist..commenting!* Bah, failed my Will save.
I dont really see the problem there. The 5th level character will not have the GP to do it. That is part of the balance.
Frankly, I have bigger fish to fry...such as a group with near permanent Barkskin due to cheap pearls of power and rods of extend. For 10,000gp per player they have (at level 11) 5 hours of barkskin each. That is the majority of an adventuring day.
A savings of 40,000gp for +5 barkskin. (Before you start doing that math and scratch your head: Pearl of Power 2, 1/3 of a Rod of Extend, 1/4th of a Bead of Karma per person)
Note: if they wanted to cover the entire adventuring day they only need to spend another 10,000gp and that is still a 30,000gp savings.
- Gauss
Money will be a limit for the PC, not for the government of the city of Korvosa, Cheliax or Absalom, so with overcasting every decent sized government will have access to gems of infinite wishes, statues casting greater magic weapon on the army weapons at will and so on.
I really dislike the metamagic rods and have replaced in my game with books that allow you to use specific metamagic feats (if you study them while preparing your spells/recharging your spellslots) with all the effects of having the feat. No 13th level spells in my game thanks to metamagic rods.
|
|
Really? God I hope I see a group do that someday just so I can show them the error of their ways. Smart players sell the high value stuff so they can get multiple cheaper small value items that add up to bigger bonuses.
Want a +5AC bonus? Well, I have this armor I can sell to you for 25,000gp OR you can get +1 from armor, +1 from an ioun stone, +1 from a helmet, +1 from a ring, and +1 from an amulet all for 15,000gp. For another 8,000gp I can give you another +2!
Gee....I wonder which one I will take. /humor :)
Weapons arent much different. For less than the price difference between a +3 and a +5 weapon I can get a +4 bonus to Strength or Gloves of Dueling both of which have the same attack/damage bonus (or more in the case of some strength builds).
I can get bigger bonuses by spreading them around on cheaper items. :)
One other question: where is this 5th level player getting 50days (25accelerated) to craft this? The only time I hand out that much time in most campaigns is at high levels. Yes, they can use tricks to craft while adventuring but by the time a 5th level crafter is done with a 50,000gp craft job he will be 7th level or higher already. Assuming the group didnt TPK because none of them have the appropriate gear.
- Gauss
I suppose you know why greater bracers of archery are good at high level then. I hate seeing people stating "they are a useless item". :-)
|
|
Winterwalker:
There are two caster level statements. The first is 'CL #' which is not a prerequisite or requirement. This is in the FAQ. The second, the one up for debate, is when it states (as a sentance) in the prerequisites 'must be caster level X'.
because CL # was not intended as a metric for if you can craft it because the numbers are screwy. For example: A Pearl of Power 1 has a CL of 17 but a prerequisite of 'must be able to cast the level of the spell'. Which would you follow?
- Gauss
OK, I'm convinced to your way of thinking, thanks.
I thought it odd that as a player I could do a +2 'Holy' enchantment, before a +1 'Flaming.'
Reading the FAQ and Pearl of Power changed my mind.
|
|
Weapons arent much different. For less than the price difference between a +3 and a +5 weapon I can get a +4 bonus to Strength or Gloves of Dueling both of which have the same attack/damage bonus (or more in the case of some strength builds).
I can get bigger bonuses by spreading them around on cheaper items. :)
Eh, the +5 bypasses adamantine and alignment DR, the gloves/belt doesn't.
One other question: where is this 5th level player getting 50days (25accelerated) to craft this? The only time I hand out that much time in most campaigns is at high levels. Yes, they can use tricks to craft while adventuring but by the time a 5th level crafter is done with a 50,000gp craft job he will be 7th level or higher already. Assuming the group didnt TPK because none of them have the appropriate gear.
- Gauss
Depends on the campaign. Running the Second Darkness path, characters had enormous amounts of time and weren't on any sort of deadlines until the high levels. Given the initial bits also involve the potential to accumulate vast amounts of wealth... crafting top tier items may be well within reach. (The group I ran for ended up mithral and adamantine everything.)
I had a similar experience when playing in Kingmaker, though we never seemed to have the wealth to make use of it crafting.
With that cost savings the weapon can be made of Adamantine and then it will bypass most hardness too. As for Alignment, a 300gp potion (oil) of Align Weapon fixes that.
- Gauss
|
|
You can hold the bow in one hand, but the rules for a bonded weapon is that the weapon must be WIELDED...not just held to be used as a bonded object. You wield a bow in TWO hands...so no hands free for you.
A quarterstaff if a double weapon. A double weapon can be wielded in one hand if your only attacking with one side of the weapon so...one hand wieldable.
The next line contradicts two hand wielding.
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.A bow can be held in hand while casting a spell.
If two handed weapons couldn't be bonded objects, the rules would say so explicitly in the same way the magus can't use them for spell combat.
No it doesn't. Wielded weapon is ALWAYS in hand...in hand is NOT ALWAYS wielded. So NOTHING is contradicting the need to have an arcane bonded weapon be wielded...and as such making two handed weapons a POOR choice. Two handed weapons can perfectly well be an arcane bond...there is no rule that says you can not do it. It just sucks that you either have to make a concentration check...or use spells that don't have a somatic component...but you can do it all you want.
OR, you can just go with what SKR stated. Any GM states anything to the contrary dig up the reference and show them.
- Gauss
|
|
OR, you can just go with what SKR stated. Any GM states anything to the contrary dig up the reference and show them.
- Gauss
So originally, JJ ruling was wielded is weilded and two handed arcane bond people were just out of luck. He did seem to have a rather large disdain for the gish types and the ONLY reason he even remotely opened up about small shields having a hand free for spell casting was because to rule otherwise would have meant that paladins, clerics, druids et all could not use a shield. Honestly they should have just brought over the somatic weaponry feat from late 3.5 that was used to fix this oversight as many games just kinda ignored this bit. Even organized games I have been in had large shielded clerics with a weapon out casting spells with somatic components just fine...which technically without that feat was wrong. Anyways...SKR said in hand is fine after a much long awaited time afterwards...then RB goes and says that nope, JJ is right and greatsword arcane bond = your screwed.
So lets examine who said what:
JJ (self proclaimed not rules guy but I respect his opinion) states you are screwed.
RB (Software guy, he probably knows the rules as well as anyone working at Paizo though so I still trust him over most people) states you are screwed.
SKR (the second in command on rules) states 'oops we need to change that'.
Hmmmm, which one should we pay attention to?
- Gauss
|
|
So lets examine who said what:
JJ (self proclaimed not rules guy but I respect his opinion) states you are screwed.
RB (Software guy, he probably knows the rules as well as anyone working at Paizo though so I still trust him over most people) states you are screwed.
SKR (the second in command on rules) states 'oops we need to change that'.
Hmmmm, which one should we pay attention to?
- Gauss
Same as for any other none official stuff...until it's official...who ever said what last generally seems to stick. In this case, it's RB. But feel free to take the position of who ever you like best however. Personally I like SKR best...but like I said, until it is official, it's generally what was said last.
Actually, said last is not what should stick. Most people I think are not familiar with SKR's comment. Several posters above were not. My guess is RB and JJ may not be either.
It would be interesting to see what SKR would say on the topic. Find out if they still plan on making the change. Unfortunately, with how he has been treated he really doesn't get involved in the FAQ stuff anymore.
- Gauss
|
|
Actually, said last is not what should stick. Most people I think are not familiar with SKR's comment. Several posters above were not. My guess is RB and JJ may not be either.
It would be interesting to see what SKR would say on the topic. Find out if they still plan on making the change. Unfortunately, with how he has been treated he really doesn't get involved in the FAQ stuff anymore.
- Gauss
I agree that is not what should stick...but that isn't the point. The point is in murky issues like this one, until we get an official word via FAQ or errata, whatever gets said last tends to be what gets stuck as the "official" stance.
On as side note, my games have been using the in hand for arcane bond as a houserule since JJ made his comments...so it's not like I am in favor of the stupid wielded rule anyways.