RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello,
I have a question or two about enchanting my arcane bonded ring. I know I have to be Level 7 to do it. But then im confused and getting conflicting answers from GMs.
1) What are the restrictions on what enchantment(s) for the ring?
--Meaning, is my fame the restriction or money or caster level, or all 3?What I would love is a ring of regeneration for my mage, (90k, 45k for my arcane bonded ring) Could I ever get that, the CL is 15 or 17 I think.
2) If I upgrade my ring to a ring of protection +1 first, can I then upgrade it to a better +? Or could I just change to a totally different ring, like evasion or something?
---What are the costs in these examples if they are do able?
As per the Official FAQ:
1) "A bonded item that is enhanced must still conform to all the campaign rules for access to and upgrading of magical items. The final and total price of the item (not the cost) is used on the Fame chart to determine whether a caster can apply such an enhancement to a bonded item." So you need sufficient Fame to cover a 90,000gp item in your example.
As for Caster Level, the CL of a ring does not affect what level you have to be to craft it - that restriction is unique to weapons and armor, if memory serves.
2) Items with incremental "pluses" like a ring of protection can be upgraded along that path. However, you change it to a completely different item. On the other hand, the Arcane Bond class feature specifies that you can later bond with a different item instead, so you could just trash your ring of protection, pay a fee to bond with a new mundane item, and then enchant it into an item of your choice. For instance, my Eldritch Knight's first magical bonded item was an amulet of spell cunning, but that started getting less and less useful as he leveled, so eventually I bonded with a new mundane amulet and enchanted it as an amulet of natural armor. You'll eat some loss this way (I'll never get that original 5k back), but it's an option.
|
|
the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met
The two caster level requirements that is referring to are:
A) Two times the item's enhancement bonus
B) The level you must be in order to cast the required spell. You don't have to have the spell but you must be high enough level to cast it.
Edit: Dang. I just realized this means i can't make a ring of wizardy I until 13th level.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Some other magic items list a caster level under the "requirements" bit at the bottom detailing how to make them, but only if the caster level requirement is variable, usually due to scaling bonuses like a ring of protection. For those items, you DO need to meet the caster level in order to upgrade your arcane bond to that item in PFS.
That aside, the caster level is only ever a prerequisite as a general rule for magic armor and weapons. I think the caster level was supposed to be an implicit requirement, coming from 3.5 where you absolutely HAD to meet all the requirements, including caster level, but when they relaxed magic item creation prerequisites, they never explicitly made it so. But, PFS being the RAW campaign that it is, the implicit requirement doesn't work.
Now that's interesting to learn...
|
|
That aside, the caster level is only ever a prerequisite as a general rule for magic armor and weapons. I think the caster level was supposed to be an implicit requirement, coming from 3.5 where you absolutely HAD to meet all the requirements, including caster level, but when they relaxed magic item creation prerequisites, they never explicitly made it so. But, PFS being the RAW campaign that it is, the implicit requirement doesn't work.Now that's interesting to learn...
It's also not true. Caster Level was not a requirement (other than the exceptions SCPRedMage defined fairly well) in 3.5. The 3.5 *SRD* (well, d20srd.org) took a few rounds of errata to get that right. (Also one errata in the DMG to get rid of the last remnant of it).
Unfortunately, Pathfinder started from the original 3.5 SRD, so the mistake carried forth yet again, but has now been fixed.