Questions about Iconic Paladin Seelah

[meabolex]

I have three questions about the iconic paladin, Seelah, in the blog preview:

Why would Seelah ever use a heavy shield?

The heavy shield means that in order to have a free hand to cast spells with somatic components or use Lay on Hands, Seelah needs to sheathe her sword or drop it. Both of those options are not good in melee. Sheathing a weapon provokes an attack of opportunity, so that's a bad idea. Dropping a weapon is usually a bad idea in melee, especially if it's a +3 defending longsword.

Was it intended to make Seelah use spells/lay on hands primarily out of melee? That's fine on paper, but since the paladin is usually at the front line of combat, they're going to be awkward at best to use during combat. I guess the question should read, "Should these abilities be intended to be used out of combat?"

Was Seelah playtested with the rules for somatic components for spells and/or the rule for requiring a free hand for lay on hands?

[stardust]

I think she just got used to using the shield from first level, when it would have been very useful. She would probably drop the shield if it becomes necessary to use spells, or lay on hands.

[Ninjaiguana]

I've always thought a paladin shouldn't need a free hand to use lay on hands on themselves, especially now it's a swift action to do. But as far as I can tell, yes, Seelah can't use lay on hands on anybody while carrying a longsword and heavy shield.

[Eric Tillemans]

meabolex wrote:

Was Seelah playtested with the rules for somatic components for spells and/or the rule for requiring a free hand for lay on hands?

The iconics weren't playtested or they'd all be dead :P

Seriously, the iconics were built to match the art and not for game mechanics.

[meabolex]

stardust wrote:

I think she just got used to using the shield from first level, when it would have been very useful. She would probably drop the shield if it becomes necessary to use spells, or lay on hands.

Yeah, dropping shield seems to be the best option because you can drop a shield as part of movement (assuming +1 BAB).

[eggellis]

(Slightly off topic, but only slightly)

I only recently realized that divine spells HAD somatic components. I had always assumed that they could be cast in armor because the caster was praying to their deity and the god was creating the actual effect and that there was no weird gestures involved. It doesn't really make any sense to me any other way. Anybody here got an explanation for me?

[stardust]

Well, if you ever saw Record of Lodoss War, the divine spellcasters did have to move around a little bit (kneel, bow their heads, put out their hands to release bolts of divine fury, etc)

[Ninjaiguana]

eggellis wrote:

(Slightly off topic, but only slightly)

I only recently realized that divine spells HAD somatic components. I had always assumed that they could be cast in armor because the caster was praying to their deity and the god was creating the actual effect and that there was no weird gestures involved. It doesn't really make any sense to me any other way. Anybody here got an explanation for me?

I figure they have to make signs of their faith and suchlike; crossing themselves, or a hand oustretched in blessing, or whatever. The able to cast in armour I see as a difference in the simplicity of the gestures; clerics just have to make simple movements, whereas the wizard is making math with his hands, contorting his fingers into bizarre shapes in a specific progression. the cleric is, however, still SOL if their hands are entirely occupied holding 4 feet of sword in the one, and 15 lbs of shield in the other.