A wizards bonded object uses a slot if it's a ring or an amulet.
If the item were say a "Hand of the Mage" amulet, and I paid double because "An item that does not take up one of the spaces on a body costs double", would it then no longer use up a space on the body?
I'm thinking it would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That object would not use a slot on the body, but it wouldn't either qualify as a bonded item.
Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon
Amulets and rings take up slots, object not taking up slots are not amulets, nor rings.
You can't change a slotted item into an unslotted item normally, to my knowledge. It's a decision made when the item is crafted.
"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." The description of Arcane Bond goes on to note you need to be wearing or wielding the bonded item, so you can't get away with just levitating it in front of you somehow either, I suspect.
If you're trying to get out of the slot limitation, maybe just bond to a Hand of Glory?
I agree with ZG and nobu.
By the way, you can create any item for half price so long as you're crafting as your focus. You don't even need the Crafting skill.
Let me try to explain what I mean a little more..let me give you some references also.
Under Wizard for Arcane Bond: "If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect.." *snippet* it also says "if the item is a ring or an amulet, it uses up a slot like normal."
Now, say I either enchanted it myself, or am replacing my bonded object with a new magical one. Now it was enchanted as it says on page 550 CRB item 3 in the chart. "3 An item that does not take up one of the spaces on a body costs double.". Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values
Now, we only have 1 amulet slot and 2 ring slots per Pathfinder, but we've all seen people with multiple rings on their fingers, or wearing more than 1 necklace at a time. It's easily plausible. But is it acceptable for me to do?
I'm basically asking if by the rules of magic items, if I can free up the requirement of it "using a slot" stated under Arcane Bond. I'm in no way trying to get out of wearing the item, only leaving the slot open.
To me, the rules of Arcane Bond are so lop-sided towards you taking a familiar. If the familiar dies, nothing bad happens, you an cast spells, you can replace it or not.. But for an object, it takes up a slot while you have it, concentration checks to cast any spells if you lose it, and you have to replace it or your casting is never certain. I just want to level the playing field a little by making the item not use a slot.
Is that fair?
If your GM approves then you can do it. Some GMs will be happy to let you; others won't. It doesn't matter what this forum says, your GM's opinion is final.
Personally, I'd want to know exactly what you're looking to use that freed up slot for and then I'd hold you to it, unless I didn't like your answer.
I know the GM has final word, that's the way it ALWAYS is. I'm merely asking if this seems like a fair way to go about it, or if it's do-able by RAW considering all the side effects arcane bonded object has in comparison to familiar. It does say under Wizard that I can designate a magic item as my bonded object.. so if the item were already enchanted in the way stated above.. I don't see why it wouldn't work.
But if you must know Gilarius - I just don't like familiars, people abuse them and their abilities far too much in my opinion. There is absolutely no penalties anymore if a familiar dies, but with bonded object, your penalized for having it and worse if it gets destroyed!
The part I don't understand is why you're asking in this forum? It's a custom magic item, it needs to be approved by your GM. That's the only RAW you need to be concerned about.
I already gave my opinion, I'd want to know what you wanted the freed up slot for.
I don't really understand what you want? A bonded object which didn't use a slot, so you can use this slot for another item?
Why not simply enhance your bounded item into this item or change your bonded item (you cna do so for gold & time).
I think it's wanted that the bonded item "blocks" a slot, so removing this part isn't a good idea.
|
By the way, you can create any item for half price so long as you're crafting as your focus. You don't even need the Crafting skill.
Oh how I wish this were true! Unfortunately:
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat.
So, you can't craft your Amulet until you have Caster Level 3 (Prereq for Wondrous Items), and you can't craft a Ring until you have Caster Level 7 (Prereq for Forge Ring), and you can't craft a Staff until you have Caster Level 11 (Prereq for Craft Staff), etc.
Note also, the text doesn't relieve you of making a Spellcraft check to craft the item, or of other prerequisites. It just treats you as having the Magic Item Creation feat needed and only if you meet the prerequisites of the Feat.
Otherwise, I agree with the initial posters that you can't do what you wanted to do under the rules, BUT I also agree with the later posters that it's up to your GM if he wants to let you do it. I sense that you are also asking if it would be balanced or fair. I lean towards no, but all issues of balance and fairness tend to be subjective, so I wouldn't put a lot of weight on my "no".
Have fun!
Personally, I'd want to know exactly what you're looking to use that freed up slot for and then I'd hold you to it, unless I didn't like your answer.
Doesn't sound that complicated... I'd rather wear the ring of protection or natural armor or any other item in that slot that actually gives a bonus that all the other classes can do...
/shrug
I recently dipped into wizard and took bonded item wand, mostly because it doesn't take up a valuable slot I may need later.
I admit the wand was a bit different, but I never saw anyone else try it yet.
Out of curiosity, why does everyone lean toward famililar!?!? That seemed like such a BAD choice I didn't look twice at it. +1 to a random skill I wasn't focusing on attached to something with hit points...
Didn't seem a good choice to me.
Personally, I'd want to know exactly what you're looking to use that freed up slot for and then I'd hold you to it, unless I didn't like your answer.Doesn't sound that complicated... I'd rather wear the ring of protection or natural armor or any other item in that slot that actually gives a bonus that all the other classes can do...
/shrug
Yes, but either or both of those or any other effect could be added to the original bonded item; without needing the crafting feat; and being cheaper than buying them even with the extra cost for putting multiple effects into an item. So, why is it necessary to have the actual bonded item be slotless?
As a GM, I'd be wanting to know exactly what a player has in mind when asking for a 'special' for his/her character. Then I'd say 'yes' or 'no'.
I recently dipped into wizard and took bonded item wand, mostly because it doesn't take up a valuable slot I may need later.
I admit the wand was a bit different, but I never saw anyone else try it yet.
Out of curiosity, why does everyone lean toward famililar!?!? That seemed like such a BAD choice I didn't look twice at it. +1 to a random skill I wasn't focusing on attached to something with hit points...
Didn't seem a good choice to me.
I also like having a bonded item, but the rules support being able to use an improved familiar as a wand-wielding buddy (and other effects/actions), so you effectively get more actions per round.
A staff would almost always be better than a wand, if you wanted a slotless item. The reason for choosing a ring is the lack of versatility from the Craft Ring feat.
|
To me, the RAW is clear - the Bonded Object rules say it must be a specific item, and each of these items take up a slot. If you craft it into an item that doesn't take up one of those slots, then it no longer qualifies as a bonded object. An item that doesn't use the neck slot can't be an amulet.
As others have said, if your GM wants to override that, it's up to him.
That's what I was essentially wondering; If the rules under bonded object where it says the bonded object uses a slot (for amulets and rings) was a 'definite must', or just considered like most items that it does unless you magic it so it will not.
Your all saying by RAW, it's a must. Therefore, I'm not even going to try to argue it with my GM. If there's no argument by RAW for it, I have no chance of getting it with my group.
Exactly seebs. Oh well. *shrugs* I was hoping other people saw it the same way I did, but I guess not. That's why I asked.
A wizards bonded object uses a slot if it's a ring or an amulet.
If the item were say a "Hand of the Mage" amulet, and I paid double because "An item that does not take up one of the spaces on a body costs double", would it then no longer use up a space on the body?I'm thinking it would.
It wouldn't take a slot on the body, but then you wouldn't be wearing it, thus you would need to roll concentration checks when you cast spells. There are no loopholes.
You could invent a unique hand of the mage that bypasses this rule or an archetype that does that.