Arcane Bond - Bonded Object?

[DarkPhoenixx]

Quote:

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, if i have bonded quarterstaff i can at level 3 make it into Staff of Minor Arcana without having any item creation feats whatsoever?

Can i then disenchant it and make it into Staff of Dark Flame? There is no rules for disenchanting magic items for what i know, but are there rules that does not let me enchant staff to be Staff of Minor Arcana and Staff of Dark Flame at the same time? Can i enchant it as double weapon so each end bears different enchantment?

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

"Meet the level requirements of the feat"
So you would have to be 3rd level before you can enchant it as a wonderous item, level five to enchant it as a magic weapon, and 11th level to enchant it as a staff.

Also you wouldn't have to enchant as a specific magical staff. You could add any spell you were capable of enchanting a staff with. (Does that sentence make sense? I can't tell anymore.)

[DarkPhoenixx]

Ah, you right CL 3 is for crafring wondorous items, crafting staves require CL 11.

Anyway, could i enchant staff with some spells and then add more later as i get more gold? Can i somehow remove the spells?

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Yes you can add more spells later. I do not know of a way to remove spells.

[DarkPhoenixx]

Nice, thanks.

[Diego Rossi]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Yes you can add more spells later. I do not know of a way to remove spells.

I think that it can be done with a arcane bond object, but it is costly.

PRD wrote:

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. For example, a wizard with a bonded dagger must be at least 5th level to add magic abilities to the dagger (see the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat in Feats). If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its wand abilities when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties and can be used to craft a new wand. The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it. If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.

So you can designate a new staff as your bonded object (or a wand, ring, etc., paying 200 gp/level for the ritual, and the old bonded object will become "an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type".

[DarkPhoenixx]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Yes you can add more spells later. I do not know of a way to remove spells.

I think that it can be done with a arcane bond object, but it is costly.

PRD wrote:

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. For example, a wizard with a bonded dagger must be at least 5th level to add magic abilities to the dagger (see the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat in Feats). If the bonded object is a wand, it loses its wand abilities when its last charge is consumed, but it is not destroyed and it retains all of its bonded object properties and can be used to craft a new wand. The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it. If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.

So you can designate a new staff as your bonded object (or a wand, ring, etc., paying 200 gp/level for the ritual, and the old bonded object will become "an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type".

Or i can blow myself up with a fireball, that should work too! Thanks :)

[CraziFuzzy]

The temporary/personal nature of the enchantment is the trade-off for not having the feat - but yes, in this case, you'd be able to bond to a new object, leaving the poor old stave out in the rain, and give the new girl all your new tricks.

[MorganS]

Don't forget to take the "restrictive" discount when crafting your bonded object! By RAW, you should get a 30% discount, but considering that no one else can ever use it and you can't reclaim any of the investment by selling it later, IMO you should get 50% off.

Magic Item Gold Piece Values:

Other Considerations:
Once you have a cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies:
Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.
Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.

[MorganS]

Of course, that really just offsets the 50% you have to add to the cost when adding a second or later ability to an item, assuming your item isn't a weapon (i.e. it takes up a specific slot).

[Quantum Steve]

MorganS wrote:

Don't forget to take the "restrictive" discount when crafting your bonded object! By RAW, you should get a 30% discount, but considering that no one else can ever use it and you can't reclaim any of the investment by selling it later, IMO you should get 50% off.

** spoiler omitted **

You should probably run this by your GM before trying this, OP. It's shady and exploits the GM Guidelines for pricing magic items.

[seebs]

I would never give you the "restrictive" discount on an item, since for player characters, that's a bonus.

Also, the wording on the arcane bond thing is ambiguous, and some people read it as meaning "as if he had the feats and were of sufficient level", while other people read it as "as if he had the feats, but only if he is of sufficient level".

[MorganS]

woah, crafting staff first level would be… Silly. but what is the logic behind and not giving a restrictive bonus? That seems pretty clear-cut.

[MorganS]

Quantum Steve wrote:

You should probably run this by your GM before trying this, OP. It's shady and exploits the GM Guidelines for pricing magic items.

Since I was quoting the guidelines themselves, I'm curious as to what you're talking about? But as for running it by the GM, wouldn't that always be case for crafting?

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

MorganS wrote:

woah, crafting staff first level would be… Silly. but what is the logic behind and not giving a restrictive bonus? That seems pretty clear-cut.

Agreed. It's pretty clear cut how thoroughly restrictive it is in this case.

[ryric]

seebs wrote:

I would never give you the "restrictive" discount on an item, since for player characters, that's a bonus.

Also, the wording on the arcane bond thing is ambiguous, and some people read it as meaning "as if he had the feats and were of sufficient level", while other people read it as "as if he had the feats, but only if he is of sufficient level".

The example, in the ability itself, of needing to be fifth level to enchant a dagger pretty much indicates which interpretation is the correct one.

MorganS, making anything that is not a "pure out of the book item" is a custom item, which needs GM approval. Adding a "restriction" to your item makes it a custom item. Most experienced GMs will not let you get "something for nothing" by making your own magic items restricted to yourself. The favored way to interpret that section of the item creation guidelines seems to be that restrictions affect only the sale price(it's tougher to find a buyer), not the cost to create.

So for your 30% discount, a base 10000gp item costs 5000gp to create and can now be sold for 3500gp.

Basically, adding restrictions to a homemade item is a bonus for the creator, and if anything should require a price increase not a discount. Those guidelines are intended for GMs to design items for use as treasure, not for PCs to use to design perfect toys. In fact very often the "math" version of the guidelines is the worst place to be, which is why it's a last resort when designing items.

[MorganS]

ryric wrote:

seebs wrote:

I would never give you the "restrictive" discount on an item, since for player characters, that's a bonus.

Also, the wording on the arcane bond thing is ambiguous, and some people read it as meaning "as if he had the feats and were of sufficient level", while other people read it as "as if he had the feats, but only if he is of sufficient level".

The example, in the ability itself, of needing to be fifth level to enchant a dagger pretty much indicates which interpretation is the correct one.

MorganS, making anything that is not a "pure out of the book item" is a custom item, which needs GM approval. Adding a "restriction" to your item makes it a custom item. Most experienced GMs will not let you get "something for nothing" by making your own magic items restricted to yourself. The favored way to interpret that section of the item creation guidelines seems to be that restrictions affect only the sale price(it's tougher to find a buyer), not the cost to create.

So for your 30% discount, a base 10000gp item costs 5000gp to create and can now be sold for 3500gp.

Basically, adding restrictions to a homemade item is a bonus for the creator, and if anything should require a price increase not a discount. Those guidelines are intended for GMs to design items for use as treasure, not for PCs to use to design perfect toys. In fact very often the "math" version of the guidelines is the worst place to be, which is why it's a last resort when designing items.

Ryric... your opinion is no doubt based on years of gaming experience, but with all due respect, I didn't find anything rules-based in your post based to back up your opinion.

I have no doubt that your opinion is founded on years of experience (only experienced players appreciate the extent to which item creation can skew the balance of the game), but I don't agree with your analysis. Please note that I'm focusing on "RAI" now, and whether or not the "restrictive" discount fits in with "game balance" below. You didn't cite or interpret any specific rule, and when it comes to RAW, the rule states pretty clearly you'd get (at least) a 30% discount, so I don't see anything to argue when it comes to RAW.

But in terms of game balance (i.e. RAI interpretation), giving the player some kind of "cost" discount for "restrictive" seems reasonable for bonded objects because:

• the gold put into crafting the item can never be recovered by the player
  
• the object's abilities can never be used by anyone else (friend, familiar, or hireling)
  
• subesequent additions (if allowed by the GM) all have a 150% ability cost multiplier
  
• adding even slightly dissimilar abilities (if allowed) also has a cost multiplier
  
• if a player changes bonded objects (i.e. to a staff at level 12) the player has to pay 200 gold per level in addition to losing the old object's abilities
  

To recap, I appreciate that you are extremely cautious of the item creation feats, but with an experienced GM who enforces all the item creation rules, following the rule that allows a restrictive bonus fits in perfectly and only goes to balance the game.

[MorganS]

Hmm... since an arcane bonded object starts off having an ability, adding even a single ability to it would qualify as a "second" ability and incur the +50% surcharge for adding to a specifically slotted item.

[LazarX]

MorganS wrote:

Don't forget to take the "restrictive" discount when crafting your bonded object! By RAW, you should get a 30% discount, but considering that no one else can ever use it and you can't reclaim any of the investment by selling it later, IMO you should get 50% off.

** spoiler omitted **

Nice try, but that would never pass by me... if the restriction does not impact YOUR use of the item, you don't get a discount.

[seebs]

ryric wrote:

seebs wrote:

I would never give you the "restrictive" discount on an item, since for player characters, that's a bonus.

Also, the wording on the arcane bond thing is ambiguous, and some people read it as meaning "as if he had the feats and were of sufficient level", while other people read it as "as if he had the feats, but only if he is of sufficient level".

The example, in the ability itself, of needing to be fifth level to enchant a dagger pretty much indicates which interpretation is the correct one.

... yes, yes it does. Well, now I wonder why I didn't spot that when I saw this argument in the past.

[seebs]

MorganS wrote:

woah, crafting staff first level would be… Silly. but what is the logic behind and not giving a restrictive bonus? That seems pretty clear-cut.

The logic is that the purpose of the guidelines is to give a starting point for evaluating the value of an item.

For most items, a restriction on usage reduces the market value of the item, because it reduces the pool of people who might be able to buy it. It's not immediately obvious that this should imply a reduced cost to create the item.

It's interesting to note that the cost/price equivalence is implied directly by that block of text:

PRD wrote:

Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.

Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.

And yet, there's a sort of interesting point here: An item which requires a given skill is more restrictive on the owner, they can't retrain out of that skill. An item which requires a specific class or alignment, however, is still just as useful to them if it has any use at all, it's just harder to sell. So maybe the distinction between cost and price is intentional.

The reason I wouldn't let you get the "restrictive" discount on your arcane bond is the same reason I generally wouldn't let PCs get it on anything. While it reduces the market value of the item, for a player character it's pretty much a pure win to have an item your enemies can't steal and use against you. It violates the point of the rules to let you get all your stuff 30% off.

[MorganS]

seebs wrote:

The reason I wouldn't let you get the "restrictive" discount on your arcane bond is the same reason I generally wouldn't let PCs get it on anything. While it reduces the market value of the item, for a player character it's pretty much a pure win to have an item your enemies can't steal and use against you. It violates the point of the rules to let you get all your stuff 30% off.

So what about the other pricing rules? Do you add the 50% dissimilar penalty when players want put a non-utility / non-spellcasting ability on a bonded object, and do you add the 50% slotted item penalty when adding to a bonded object?

If the answer is no, then I can see why you'd never give the "restrictive" benefit... but then you're not really using the rules, are you.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh. Your view is completely valid, but I want to be sure you see my perspective as well. I consider a 30% (or even 50%) restrictive discount quite reasonable, because it offsets what is typically a 50% or 100% penalty.

[Sarrah]

ryric wrote:

So for your 30% discount, a base 10000gp item costs 5000gp to create and can now be sold for 3500gp.

Fail.

30% discount does not apply to arcane bonded objects.

[seebs]

MorganS wrote:

seebs wrote:

The reason I wouldn't let you get the "restrictive" discount on your arcane bond is the same reason I generally wouldn't let PCs get it on anything. While it reduces the market value of the item, for a player character it's pretty much a pure win to have an item your enemies can't steal and use against you. It violates the point of the rules to let you get all your stuff 30% off.

So what about the other pricing rules? Do you add the 50% dissimilar penalty when players want put a non-utility / non-spellcasting ability on a bonded object, and do you add the 50% slotted item penalty when adding to a bonded object?

The dissimilar penalty doesn't apply to the first ability, because the bonded object's bonded-object powers are not part of its enchantment for purposes of item creation rules. I would indeed use the 50% penalty for adding additional powers.

Quote:

If the answer is no, then I can see why you'd never give the "restrictive" benefit... but then you're not really using the rules, are you.

I am, actually.

Quote:

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh. Your view is completely valid, but I want to be sure you see my perspective as well. I consider a 30% (or even 50%) restrictive discount quite reasonable, because it offsets what is typically a 50% or 100% penalty.

That's a complete non-sequitur. What penalty are you talking about? Why do you think that penalty should be "offset"?

The reason for the penalties is to make it expensive to bypass the designed limitations on magic items produced by the standard slot allocations.

The reason for the restrictive discount is to reflect market conditions, a concept which is inapplicable to the bonded object, and which generally doesn't have much applicability to items that a player character is intending to use.

[MorganS]

Quote:

What penalty are you talking about? Why do you think that penalty should be "offset"?

Interesting... custom item pricing and even allowing a given item is a GM prerogative, but what I find interesting is that we're both arriving at a similar conclusion (numerically) though we're getting there in different ways.

I'd say 2 penalties are likely: 1 for adding a dissimilar ability, 1 for adding to a slotted item.

Quote:

The reason for the penalties is to make it expensive to bypass the designed limitations on magic items produced by the standard slot allocations.

I disagree - IMO you should ONLY allow abilities that follow the theme of the slot. The penalty for adding to a slotted item is to balance an item that is overloaded with many abilities that are appropriate for the slot. In appropriate abilities generally shouldn't be allowed.

Quote:

The reason for the restrictive discount is to reflect market conditions, a concept which is inapplicable to the bonded object, and which generally doesn't have much applicability to items that a player character is intending to use.

No, I totally disagree. You can justify it that way for RP purposes, but like all rules, the rule exists to to keep the game balanced in some way and it shouldn't be applied selectively unless you as the GM think it necessary.

The funny thing is, In my case I don't have a problem with the restrictive pricing discount rule because I'm harsher on other points, but we both seem to arrive at the same end number.

[seebs]

All of the guidelines are purely advisory -- they are not "rules" in the sense that you are expected to use them as-such without making judgment calls. The entire section starts with the observation that first you should compare with similar items, and only use those rough guidelines when you think the item needs special treatment.

Letting player characters make everything they want for 30% less, with the only disadvantage being that now their enemies can't steal those items, does not fit at all with the described purpose of the pricing guidelines.

Seriously, which is more valuable to you:
1. A vorpal sword which your enemies can attack you with.
2. A vorpal sword which your enemies cannot use against you at all.

Seems to me like the second is more valuable!

So just as a general rule, I can't imagine real-world circumstances under which a player would be enchanting an item for their own use and I'd give the 30% discount for restrictions. Although I'm sorta tempted to ask my GM about this now because in our long-term PF game, I'm about 175k into a 500k+ item, and I would totally be okay with restricting it by alignment. :)

As to the slot limitations: The penalty for adding has nothing to do with appropriate or inappropriate. It has to do with bypassing the way the slot system limits the total number of active magic items. Ring slots are really valuable; you only get two, and a lot of really good items are only available as rings. Doubling up powers in a ring slot is effectively giving you an extra slot, and that's what makes it cost extra.

The arcane bond item, while it is relevant to your spellcasting, starts out as an item which does not have any existing enchantments. The first enchantment you put on it should go for straight book value, not be penalized for being an "addition". Now, if you want to add additional powers to it, then you should probably pay the penalty for adding additional powers to an item.

[Diego Rossi]

MorganS wrote:

ryric wrote:

seebs wrote:

I would never give you the "restrictive" discount on an item, since for player characters, that's a bonus.

Also, the wording on the arcane bond thing is ambiguous, and some people read it as meaning "as if he had the feats and were of sufficient level", while other people read it as "as if he had the feats, but only if he is of sufficient level".

The example, in the ability itself, of needing to be fifth level to enchant a dagger pretty much indicates which interpretation is the correct one.

MorganS, making anything that is not a "pure out of the book item" is a custom item, which needs GM approval. Adding a "restriction" to your item makes it a custom item. Most experienced GMs will not let you get "something for nothing" by making your own magic items restricted to yourself. The favored way to interpret that section of the item creation guidelines seems to be that restrictions affect only the sale price(it's tougher to find a buyer), not the cost to create.

So for your 30% discount, a base 10000gp item costs 5000gp to create and can now be sold for 3500gp.

Basically, adding restrictions to a homemade item is a bonus for the creator, and if anything should require a price increase not a discount. Those guidelines are intended for GMs to design items for use as treasure, not for PCs to use to design perfect toys. In fact very often the "math" version of the guidelines is the worst place to be, which is why it's a last resort when designing items.

Ryric... your opinion is no doubt based on years of gaming experience, but with all due respect, I didn't find anything rules-based in your post based to back up your opinion.

I have no doubt that your opinion is founded on years of experience (only experienced players appreciate the extent to which item creation can skew the balance of the game), but I don't agree with your analysis. Please note that I'm focusing on "RAI" now, and whether or not the "restrictive" discount fits in...

PRD wrote:

Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.

Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.

Prices presented in the magic item descriptions (the gold piece value following the item's slot) are the market value, which is generally twice what it costs the creator to make the item.

Notice the difference.

Cost is what you pay to make an item.
Price is what you get when you sell it.

Limiting a item to a class or alignment don't reduce the crafting cost, it reduce how much you get when you sell the item.

[Diego Rossi]

MorganS wrote:

Quote:

The reason for the penalties is to make it expensive to bypass the designed limitations on magic items produced by the standard slot allocations.

I disagree - IMO you should ONLY allow abilities that follow the theme of the slot. The penalty for adding to a slotted item is to balance an item that is overloaded with many abilities that are appropriate for the slot. In appropriate abilities generally shouldn't be allowed.

Actually paying only 150% of the standard price to add magical abilities that normally require a item that use a body slot to a existing item is a discount, not a increase in cost.

Compare:

PRD wrote:

Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.

against:

PRD wrote:

No space limitation3 Multiply entire cost by 2

3 An item that does not take up one of the spaces on a body costs double.

Making a ring of invisibility a [/i]g of invisibility and protection +1[/i] has the same final effect of getting a item that allow you to get a +1 deflection bonus without consuming body slots but cost only 150% of the base cost instead of 200%.

[LazarX]

CraziFuzzy wrote:

The temporary/personal nature of the enchantment is the trade-off for not having the feat - but yes, in this case, you'd be able to bond to a new object, leaving the poor old stave out in the rain, and give the new girl all your new tricks.

Actually the "new girl" would have to be enchanted from scratch. The work and expense you put into your old bonded object does not transfer over.

[MorganS]

Diego - Yeah, it's crazy. Stepping back, I wonder why they even bother writing 10% and 30% rules. It seems ridiculous. Maybe it's a nod to the old AD&D days when none of the rules were logical ;-)

[ryric]

MorganS wrote:

Diego - Yeah, it's crazy. Stepping back, I wonder why they even bother writing 10% and 30% rules. It seems ridiculous. Maybe it's a nod to the old AD&D days when none of the rules were logical ;-)

That's easy. The custom item guidelines are there for the GM to estimate the costs of unique items he or she places into the game. If the GM wants to design a dagger only usable by Chaotic Good rogues, those guidelines help assign a price to that item. The custom item rules were really never meant to be used by players. Treasure hoards, not item creation feats.

Even adding additional features to a bonded object at the +50% cost makes it into a custom item that requires GM approval.

[seebs]

Yes, exactly. Although the more I look at it, the more I think it may be intentional that it's the price, not the cost, which is reduced for a restricted item.

[Redneckdevil]

I always thought the 10% and 30% was for selling and buying items that normally would be found or have a market for. Ex. Buying or selling magic wands in a town of superstitous barbarians who distrust magic over pure steel etc etc.
i didnt think they effected crafting rules whatsoever.

[Diego Rossi]

Read this part of Ultimate Campaign. It explain a bit how pricing and crafting magic items work.

The fist step is always comparing the item to an existing item. All the other stuff if to find a price when that passage don't give a price for the item.

[blackbloodtroll]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Read this part of Ultimate Campaign. It explain a bit how pricing and crafting magic items work.

The fist step is always comparing the item to an existing item. All the other stuff if to find a price when that passage don't give a price for the item.

That Fist Step is the hardest.