|
I'm curious as to how many people when playing 3.5 properly applied the somatic component rules. Did everyone remember that the cleric and the druid (yes, and the wizard and the like, but having a hand free was never a chore for them) needed to put away their weapon or drop their heavy shield if they wanted to cast a spell? What were people's opinions on two-handed weapons; did they prevent the use of somatic components? Did everyone's clerics and druids use light shields so they would always have one hand free? Or did people just shrug and ignore it? Inquiring minds (well, mostly me) want to know!
|
In my games, as long as your arms aren't disabled in any way (restrained/cut off/broken/etc), you are good to go with Somatic components.
It would be otherwise rather silly if a naga could cast spells just fine, while a guy with a sword and shield couldn't. I envision that "somatic" means also "waving your arms wildly and making strange gestures", something I believe one can do even while holding something.
I'm curious as to how many people when playing 3.5 properly applied the somatic component rules. Did everyone remember that the cleric and the druid (yes, and the wizard and the like, but having a hand free was never a chore for them) needed to put away their weapon or drop their heavy shield if they wanted to cast a spell? What were people's opinions on two-handed weapons; did they prevent the use of somatic components? Did everyone's clerics and druids use light shields so they would always have one hand free? Or did people just shrug and ignore it? Inquiring minds (well, mostly me) want to know!
I always allowed two handed weapons to be held in one hand while casting a spell (changing grip being a free action in my mind). And yes, druids and clerics always used light shields.
|
|
I always allowed two handed weapons to be held in one hand while casting a spell (changing grip being a free action in my mind). And yes, druids and clerics always used light shields.
My thoughts on two handed weapons mirror yours, but the 3.5 games I've run and played have been very hand-wavy affairs when it came to somatic components, more in the style of Gorbacz's experience. Now that there's a new game in town, I'm thinking of having a fresh start and actually trying to enforce the somatic component rules.
I'm still curious to hear from more people on how they handle somatic components in their games!
On a related note, what're people's opinions on enforcing somatic component rules during con play, such as Pathfinder Society? Something that should be done, or something that's likely to engender ill will from your players? I'm trying to get a feel for how widespread useage of somatic components really was under 3.5; most of the people I know kind of ignored it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always assumed that clerics and druid could use the same hand for somatic components and their divine focus, since we know (via the arcane/armor rules) that divine somatic components are less complex than arcane ones.
|
|
I've always assumed that clerics and druid could use the same hand for somatic components and their divine focus, since we know (via the arcane/armor rules) that divine somatic components are less complex than arcane ones.
I would tend to concur with that, but then I've always been easy on the subject of divine foci. For example, I have no problem with characters incorporating a holy symbol into a shield or weapon if plausible, and thus not needing to free up a hand to hold it.
I would tend to concur with that, but then I've always been easy on the subject of divine foci. For example, I have no problem with characters incorporating a holy symbol into a shield or weapon if plausible, and thus not needing to free up a hand to hold it.
Same here. I even allow wearing it on chain around the cleric's neck, as long as it's in plain sight.
We did the "One Free Hand" thing as well.
Just need a hand to hold the Divine Focus/Holy Symbol.
I've always read "somatic component" as "grand operatic gesture," which of course you can easily do while holding a staff or a wand. Indeed, it looks a bit cooler if you do it with something like that.
Even a cleric with a mace and shield probably does have his holy symbol around his neck on a chain, so he probably has a second to touch it with his shield hand and say a paternoster before smiting the succubus.
My player's cleric has his holy symbol integrated into his shield. Solves that little dilemna.
-Steve
since drawing/sheathing a familiar weapon is free with your move action and most spells are standard actions this is almost never a problem.
technically the weapon should be sheathed during any potential attacks of opportunity until the next turn but it's a small enough detail that i don't bother to track it.
|
I always allowed two handed weapons to be held in one hand while casting a spell (changing grip being a free action in my mind). And yes, druids and clerics always used light shields.
Same here.
BTW, the torch/lantern/light source bearing character(s) face similar problems.
After a couple of times I enforced the rules (with a nasty surprise), checking for free hands to bring along at least two light sources has become a standard routine before entering a dungeon.
We always use the rules about one hand free : druids and clerics must use light shield and a 2-handed weapon can be hold in one hand for a casting.
For the torch bearer, at low levels, usually the rogue has a free hand if he's not specialized in TWF, or the wizard put a light spell on the fighter's weapon. At higher levels, everburning torches are worn around the neck or stuck on a shield.
|
|
For the torch bearer, at low levels, usually the rogue has a free hand if he's not specialized in TWF, or the wizard put a light spell on the fighter's weapon. At higher levels, everburning torches are worn around the neck or stuck on a shield.
My rogue player strongly refuses to be the light source bearer, as usually he's armed with a shortbow, and the lantern/torch is considered by him a messy hindrance when a quick Hide check is required. Many laughs ensue.
The light spell (and other similar ones) on a small item, easily hidden in a pouch, is an often used solution.
My rogue player strongly refuses to be the light source bearer, as usually he's armed with a shortbow, and the lantern/torch is considered by him a messy hindrance when a quick Hide check is required. Many laughs ensue.
It depends on the situation : when you are in a corridor searching for traps or hidden doors, you'd better got a light source with you !!
|
|
My rogue player strongly refuses to be the light source bearer, as usually he's armed with a shortbow, and the lantern/torch is considered by him a messy hindrance when a quick Hide check is required. Many laughs ensue.It depends on the situation : when you are in a corridor searching for traps or hidden doors, you'd better got a light source with you !!
That's the reason of quite a number of the laughs.
Having him bossing around other characters for some light and still refusing to have his own, is a fine recipe for some good-natured verbal fights at the table (and some nice roleplaying scenes).
What were people's opinions on two-handed weapons; did they prevent the use of somatic components?
I've always thought that while you can only attack with a two-handed weapon with two hands, you can easily ~hold~ it with one hand while making no attacks.
The lantern-carrier in our party is my wizard, who carries an everburning torch and can summon dancing lights (finally a useful spell) at will. We assume that he has no melee weapon out (and can make no AoO) unless stated otherwise.
Personally, I think of somatic gestures as one-handed versions of ninja finger magic, like kuji-in. Mostly because DMs threaten to make the spells fizzle if you lose fingers.
I've thought about house-ruling a system where, if you lose fingers, you gain an arcane spell failure chance equal to ((number of fingers lost squared) x 1%). It's a small chance if you've only lost a finger or two, but scales dramatically.
|
|
These discussions are important. A good GM should always have an answer ready when players ask these kinds of questions.
Kinda like parents.
I've thought about house-ruling a system where, if you lose fingers, you gain an arcane spell failure chance equal to ((number of fingers lost squared) x 1%). It's a small chance if you've only lost a finger or two, but scales dramatically.
So, if you get all five fingers chopped off, you get a 25% failure chance?
Btw, how come noone ever thought of a heavy shield with a convenient maceholder on the inside for spellcasting clerics? What would it cost to modify a shield like this?
|
I have tried like heck to figure out a mechanic for folding arcane spell failure chance into something else (like a Concentration check) because I don't like that it's a separate roll and I don't like that it doesn't scale with caster level, etc. Nothing satisfactory has come of my hours of scribbling :p
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Btw, how come noone ever thought of a heavy shield with a convenient maceholder on the inside for spellcasting clerics? What would it cost to modify a shield like this?
Are you referring to a sort of mount on the inside of the shield where you stick your mace when not wielding it? I don't see what the benefit of that would be; it would still be a move-equivalent action to draw or 'sheath' the mace, and having it on the inside of your shield wouldn't be much different from having it hanging by a belt loop.
If you refer to something that has the mace sticking up out of the shield, allowing you to attack with it via the shield-hand, then I suppose that might work, but you'd take a penalty to the attack roll for attacking with a burdened arm.
...
Btw, how come noone ever thought of a heavy shield with a convenient maceholder on the inside for spellcasting clerics? What would it cost to modify a shield like this?
Races of Stone pg158 has a Shield Gauntlet that goes one better. Its a heavy shield with a Gauntlet that allows casters(ie clerics) to cast with their shield hand. With the PRPG rules I guess you would now lose the AC bonus for a round, but in 3.5 you didn't.
Their is also an add on for heavy shields, again in races of stone, that adds a Shield Sheath. It can hold one light weapon that can be drawn as a free action.
I was never too fussed about spellcasters casting whilst using a shield. Sheild users are already fairly rare compared to two-handed and two-weapon warriors in my experience, and allowing their sheild hands to count as "free" does little to really affect balance.
In my games, as long as your arms aren't disabled in any way (restrained/cut off/broken/etc), you are good to go with Somatic components.
It would be otherwise rather silly if a naga could cast spells just fine, while a guy with a sword and shield couldn't. I envision that "somatic" means also "waving your arms wildly and making strange gestures", something I believe one can do even while holding something.
Ditto.
What about material components?
Purchasing all those insignificant little items is a major hassle, so our group pretty much ignores material components.
The exception is when a material component costs hundreds or thousands of dollars, then we just assume the spellcaster already has it in his inventory and we subtract the gold value from his overall wealth once the spell has been cast.
What about material components?
Purchasing all those insignificant little items is a major hassle, so our group pretty much ignores material components.
The exception is when a material component costs hundreds or thousands of dollars, then we just assume the spellcaster already has it in his inventory and we subtract the gold value from his overall wealth once the spell has been cast.
Spell component pouch 5 gp 2 lbs
A spellcaster with a spell
component pouch is assumed to have all the material
components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except
for those components that have a specific cost, divine
focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.
What about material components?
Purchasing all those insignificant little items is a major hassle, so our group pretty much ignores material components.
That's already addressed in the core rules. From the PRD:
Spell Component Pouch: A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn't fit in a pouch.
|
I go buy they must have one free hand ... so must use light shield, 2-handed weapon in one hand is fine.
As material components go, I go by what is in the book:
(Ninja'd but this is a slightly different quote form above)
"A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch."
Spell component pouch 5 gp 2 lbs
A spellcaster with a spell
component pouch is assumed to have all the material
components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except
for those components that have a specific cost, divine
focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.
So then what's the point of the Sorcerer's Eschew Materials feat? It just saves you from having to spend $5 on a component pouch? Lame.
So then what's the point of the Sorcerer's Eschew Materials feat? It just saves you from having to spend $5 on a component pouch? Lame.Spell component pouch 5 gp 2 lbs
A spellcaster with a spell
component pouch is assumed to have all the material
components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except
for those components that have a specific cost, divine
focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.
The Eschew Materials feat is also useful in situations where you don't have your gear (e.g. you're a prisoner in the dungeon) or, more importantly, when you're grappled and can't cast spells with material components unless they're in hand. Otherwise, it is a means of avoiding some bookkeeping.
Eschew Materials, Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Spell Mastery are all part of the "defensive array" of arcane feats.
Their job is to help the wizard cope with imprisonment, grappling, being swallowed by monsters, &c.
They're enormously helpful in situations that would otherwise make the wizard into a glorified commoner, as when the spellbook or spell component pouch gets stolen.
Those are the times when the quadratic wizard looks at the linear fighter with nothing but envy.
Makes sense.
The grapple rules are also why every wizard has a Ring of Freedom of Movement as their secondary ring.
There's also a significant benefit of a spell component pouch: partial proof against pickpocketing. Combine your component pouch with you money belt (it has hundreds of separate pockets) and while you know your filing system and know where you've stashed the 25,000 GP gem and where you've stashed the live crickets and bat guano, your average pickpocket won't, making pickpocketing far more entertaining (for the wizard at least).
Sorcerers, OTOH, only have their pockets brimming with the high ticket items, making a sensible pickpocket pick them over the stodgy guy with the books.
A wizard high enough level to afford a 40,000-gp magic item should have a variety of ways of dealing with grappling, since the half-orcs way back at 1st level can try to wrestle you down, too.
Grease is the big 1st-level one; just make sure to keep a lump of butter in hand, or get a ring make out of pork rind. Dimension door and teleport both have verbal-only components. Six seconds later, you're a thousand miles away.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BACK TO THE NETHERWORLD WITH YOU, ABOMINATION OF NATURE!
*Continues to smite down the undead thread*