And double weapons are all TH weapons, it does NOT say you can wield them in one hand as single weapons.===Aelryinth
Sure reads like you could have a shield and still use your two-bladed sword. Emphasis mine.
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
The last part of your post, the part about not being able to use a double-weapon as a double-weapon while using only one hand, seems like common sense to me... DnD/PF does not = Anime
|
And double weapons are all TH weapons, it does NOT say you can wield them in one hand as single weapons. The later posters are correct...if you are big enough or have taken a feat where you can wield a TH weapon in one hand, you can't use a double weapon as a double weapon in one hand.===Aelryinth
Before another person says this YET again...read page 144, last sentence. It is quite explicit that double weapons can be wielded one handed.
If going the EK route and want heavier armor, take a sorcerer with Arcane Bloodline. The Metamagic Arcana ability can be used to apply Still Spell to the spell you cast with the EK's capstone ability, giving the EK a lot more flexibility.this is an interesting idea, and would be all kinds of useful for grapples too. not quite as good as rune magic (Races of Stone), but not too bad. But, doesn't it make each and every standard action spell a full round? Is there a way to take away that action penalty in PF? PHBII and complete mage (IIRC) had some feats/class features to take care of this problem.
That's what Metamagic Adept (sorry, I mis-wrote it the first time) does. It turns the full-round action casting into a standard action, thus making using Metamagic for the EK's capstone ability possible:
Metamagic Adept (Ex): At 3rd level, you can apply any one metamagic feat you know to a spell you are about to cast without increasing the casting time. You must still expend a higher-level spell slot to cast this spell. You can use this ability once per day at 3rd level and one additional time per day for every four sorcerer levels you possess beyond 3rd, up to five times per day at 19th level. At 20th level, this ability is replaced by arcane apotheosis.
That's what Metamagic Adept (sorry, I mis-wrote it the first time) does. It turns the full-round action casting into a standard action, thus making using Metamagic for the EK's capstone ability possible:
aha, OK, I misunderstood. I though the adept ability reduced the metamagic level adjustment, rather than casting time.
meh, the low number of uses and basically casting one spell slot below max makes this less appealing than going armorless IMHO. but an interesting option to keep in mind, thanks for pointing it out!
|
The trouble with your logic is that you feel that the next sentence use of in hand somehow negates wielded. You can...and usually need...to have an item in hand to wield them. You can very well have items in hand and not be wielding them however...like with the two handed weapon...as for a staff...read the last page of 144 like I said. Hunter was nice enough to put up with me on this point and you all are just ignoring his hard work.I actually agree with {snip} In anycase, rules you THINK should work a certain way does not make it so. This is a very RAW oriented DM and group...so the whole houseruling is not gonna happen in this...
But that's the whole point. The text says explicitly "while staffs wands and weapons must be wielded." If that was the end of the passage, your reading of the rules would be RAW and I would have no bones with your interpretation.
BUT
The very next sentence is "If the wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand..." You can't wear a staff or 2H weapon. YOu can have one in hand. By any logical reading of the text having it 'in hand' is sufficient.
By the by, there are multiple definitions for wielded. Take a look at this one that is consistent with the in hand reading
"to handle (as a tool) especially effectively". Note that the definition is to handle, especially effectively, not exclusively so. Having something in hand, IS handling it.Now, you can choose to interpret the rules as you have and your dm can agree, but that doesn't make your position the only correct one. You may THINK the rules work the way you interpret them, but the RAW don't support that position. At best, the rule is muddled and open to multiple interpretations.
I'm not stating that 'in hand' negates wielded, but rather clarifies it, which is what i've been saying from my first post. Now, I know no one in this thread can refute this point, as it is a matter of semantics (and honestly, opinion) as to which term has precedence in the text. You can argue passionately that wielded is the key, and I 'in hand' and neither of us is more correct than the other RAW. it is a matter of interpretation , as i also pointed out above. When i initially challenged you to prove me wrong, it was because i knew that you could not without an official ruling. And that's ok.
If you remember back to your original post, you mentioned your RAW GM. i pointed out that the rules support multiple interpretations in this case and cited the text as evidence. If your DM does not accept that evidence, that's really just his issue. RAW, your campaign can go either way. And honestly, why say no to this unless yoru DM is simply power tripping? The RAW can support either interpretation, using a 2H weapon as a EK spell focus does not break the game, and its what the player wants.
I see no more need for discussion here, really. Its a shame that your GM takes such a draconian and strict interpretation of the rules. good luck with getting a reasonable shake at the table.
I'm still not sure where the word gish comes from, but the solution to that problem I've been using is Tejon's
Which is a damned fine class. Not core, of course; it's better than core. :D
I have a sneaking suspicion this thread was never intended to be a request for help building a Gish-type character but is an excuse to, once again, whine about the gish-y options in Pathfinder. I mean, all we have are the Eldrich Knight, the Summoner, the Bard, the Arcane Archer, the Inquisitor (sort of), the Alchemist, the Sorcerer with one level of Fighter, the Arcane Trickster, The Wizard with 4 levels of Rogue. So few options.
This argument is so 2009.
Paizo
Probably
Isn't
Making
A
Gish
More
Powerful
Than
The
Eldrich Knight.
That opinion is supported by the multitudinous comments which have been made by the designers on other threads. My guess is the best you can hope for are a few more arcane/arms feats.
Cry about it and move on.
|
|
I have a sneaking suspicion this thread was never intended to be a request for help building a Gish-type character but is an excuse to, once again, whine about the gish-y options in Pathfinder. I mean, all we have are the Eldrich Knight, the Summoner, the Bard, the Arcane Archer, the Inquisitor (sort of), the Alchemist, the Sorcerer with one level of Fighter, the Arcane Trickster, The Wizard with 4 levels of Rogue. So few options.
This argument is so 2009.
Paizo
Probably
Isn't
Making
A
Gish
More
Powerful
Than
The
Eldrich Knight.That opinion is supported by the multitudinous comments which have been made by the designers on other threads. My guess is the best you can hope for are a few more arcane/arms feats.
Cry about it and move on.
No I´m gonna b* and moan about it thank you very much...and if you bothered to actually READ instead of jumping to your usual concluesion, you would have understood that the basis of the issue isn´t even the bloody EK. It´s that you can´t even switch from casting one round to swing your sword with some choices...and there isn´t a natural spell to fix it. Are you secretly so against the gish because your afraid of anything that may even remotely get as powerful as the druid maybe? Somatic casting feat is THAT important to a gish...and a cleric actually.
A spellcaster can, in fact, hold a weapon in one hand, and cast spells with the other. So long as one hand is free. Even a two handed weapon can be held with one hand.
Refusing to acknowledge the fact over the definition of a single word doesn't change RAW, or it's intended purpose.
Why the h~!! is this still an issue..
Why the h~!! am I still following this thread?
|
|
A spellcaster can, in fact, hold a weapon in one hand, and cast spells with the other. So long as one hand is free. Even a two handed weapon can be held with one hand.
Refusing to acknowledge the fact over the definition of a single word doesn't change RAW, or it's intended purpose.
Why the h~!! is this still an issue..Why the h~!! am I still following this thread?
Because people like you just aren´t bothering to read what the argument is about...it´s about bounded items...NOT having a hand free for casting. So obviously your not really following this thread.
Because people like you just aren´t bothering to read what the argument is about...it´s about bounded items...NOT having a hand free for casting. So obviously your not really following this thread.A spellcaster can, in fact, hold a weapon in one hand, and cast spells with the other. So long as one hand is free. Even a two handed weapon can be held with one hand.
Refusing to acknowledge the fact over the definition of a single word doesn't change RAW, or it's intended purpose.
Why the h~!! is this still an issue..Why the h~!! am I still following this thread?
Yes, I know it's about the single word "wield" in the arcane bond entry. I also know that to wield = to hold.
|
|
Yes, I know it's about the single word "wield" in the arcane bond entry. I also know that to wield = to hold.Because people like you just aren´t bothering to read what the argument is about...it´s about bounded items...NOT having a hand free for casting. So obviously your not really following this thread.A spellcaster can, in fact, hold a weapon in one hand, and cast spells with the other. So long as one hand is free. Even a two handed weapon can be held with one hand.
Refusing to acknowledge the fact over the definition of a single word doesn't change RAW, or it's intended purpose.
Why the h~!! is this still an issue..Why the h~!! am I still following this thread?
Oh really...thats news to me since I was certain that I couldn´t wield two longswords with a small shield...nor wield a great axe one handed...but I certain one of those longsword or the great axe.
Oh really...thats news to me since I was certain that I couldn´t wield two longswords with a small shield...nor wield a great axe one handed...but I certain one of those longsword or the great axe.Yes, I know it's about the single word "wield" in the arcane bond entry. I also know that to wield = to hold.Because people like you just aren´t bothering to read what the argument is about...it´s about bounded items...NOT having a hand free for casting. So obviously your not really following this thread.A spellcaster can, in fact, hold a weapon in one hand, and cast spells with the other. So long as one hand is free. Even a two handed weapon can be held with one hand.
Refusing to acknowledge the fact over the definition of a single word doesn't change RAW, or it's intended purpose.
Why the h~!! is this still an issue..Why the h~!! am I still following this thread?
You can certainly wield them.
You just can't attack with them.
In fact, even that's false. You can totally wield a great axe one handed, you'd just take a hilariously large number of penalties.
Your argument is pedantic as all hell, more pedantic then I can imagine, and half my friends are english majors. Seriously.
Wow Loopy, your reasoned arguments and tone have really changed my mind.
I'm there for you, man.
I don't need to change minds. Being right is its own reward. ;)
No I´m gonna b* and moan about it thank you very much...and if you bothered to actually READ instead of jumping to your usual concluesion, you would have understood that the basis of the issue isn´t even the bloody EK. It´s that you can´t even switch from casting one round to swing your sword with some choices...and there isn´t a natural spell to fix it. Are you secretly so against the gish because your afraid of anything that may even remotely get as powerful as the druid maybe? Somatic casting feat is THAT important to a gish...and a cleric actually.
Wear a light shield to cast without putting away a 1-handed weapon.
You also don't need special rules to hold a staff in one hand. It's called common sense. People can hold things. We have hands. Thank you, primate ancestors; you rule.
I love the Gish.
Not all spell lists are created equally.
You can certainly wield them.You just can't attack with them.
In fact, even that's false. You can totally wield a great axe one handed, you'd just take a hilariously large number of penalties.
Your argument is pedantic as all hell, more pedantic then I can imagine, and half my friends are english majors. Seriously.
Thank you!!! I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees the insanity of this..
|
|
Wear a light shield to cast without putting away a 1-handed weapon.
You also don't need special rules to hold a staff in one hand. It's called common sense. People can hold things. We have hands. Thank you, primate ancestors; you rule.
I love the Gish.
Not all spell lists are created equally.
1) No, no you can´t. Small shields do NOT give you free hand for spell casting. Hence why the little blurb about bucklers and using that hand free for spell casting...and yes that means somatic casting is the natural spell for clerics and gish characters who want a shield. There is NO excuse to leave that feat out of core if your gonna keep natural spell.
2) once again it´s not about HOLDING bloody damn it.
3) obviously not.
4) Yeah the druids spells are better for a gish character...less good for GOD. In 3.x the druids spell was better...period. And I hope your not suggesting that cleric spell is soooo much superior to the druids that they also deserve this nerf?
|
|
You can certainly wield them.
You just can't attack with them.
In fact, even that's false. You can totally wield a great axe one handed, you'd just take a hilariously large number of penalties.
Your argument is pedantic as all hell, more pedantic then I can imagine, and half my friends are english majors. Seriously.
Okay so by your definition of wield...i.e. just to hold...what penalties do I get for holding a great axe in one hand again?
As for your english major friends...wield as per webster dictionary...
2 : to handle (as a tool) especially effectively <wield a broom>
Great axe in one hand, can´t even be used for the tools purpose...so I say it fails to meet this definition.
But then again english majors will argue about such things...it is what they do...so really the opinion of english majors really matters a lot less then you think. I have linguistics and english major friends who argue about the definition of every single word.
You can certainly wield them.
You just can't attack with them.
In fact, even that's false. You can totally wield a great axe one handed, you'd just take a hilariously large number of penalties.
Your argument is pedantic as all hell, more pedantic then I can imagine, and half my friends are english majors. Seriously.
Okay so by your definition of wield...i.e. just to hold...what penalties do I get for holding a great axe in one hand again?
As for your english major friends...wield as per webster dictionary...
2 : to handle (as a tool) especially effectively <wield a broom>
Great axe in one hand, can´t even be used for the tools purpose...so I say it fails to meet this definition.
But then again english majors will argue about such things...it is what they do...so really the opinion of english majors really matters a lot less then you think. I have linguistics and english major friends who argue about the definition of every single word.
I am horrified yet amused by this debate. Coldylocks, what are you wanting your gish character to do? If your character's arcane bond is a greatsword, (keeping in mind this is an imagination game) why could he not send his fireball flying from the tip of the sword at his enemies, deliver touch attacks with the flat of the blade, rend the earth as he thrusts the blade into the earth. While it is a very cool idea I might choose an arcane bond that is a bit less well.. sunderable, like a ring, an amulet, a weasel, or an imp. That's neither here nor there. If you told us what you wanted your character to do, perhaps it would help give you some suggestions you would like. If you don't want to have helpful suggestions and just want to complain that it isn't worded how you would word it, please tell me so I can stop reading the thread.
|
If you told us what you wanted your character to do, perhaps it would help give you some suggestions you would like. If you don't want to have helpful suggestions and just want to complain that it isn't worded how you would word it, please tell me so I can stop reading the thread.
I know, it's like watching that train wreck on the side of the road with all the body parts. You can't help but taking the occasional peek, no matter how much it horrifies you.
I am horrified yet amused by this debate. Coldylocks, what are you wanting your gish character to do? If your character's arcane bond is a greatsword, (keeping in mind this is an imagination game) why could he not send his fireball flying from the tip of the sword at his enemies, deliver touch attacks with the flat of the blade, rend the earth as he thrusts the blade into the earth. While it is a very cool idea I might choose an arcane bond that is a bit less well.. sunderable, like a ring, an amulet, a weasel, or an imp. That's neither here nor there. If you told us what you wanted your character to do, perhaps it would help give you some suggestions you would like. If you don't want to have helpful suggestions and just want to complain that it isn't worded how you would word it, please tell me so I can stop reading the thread.
Yes, but it does have cool factor, and coolness trumps RAW for me ...
send his fireball flying from the tip of the sword at his enemies, deliver touch attacks with the flat of the blade, rend the earth as he thrusts the blade into the earth
I like this.. I want to play an elven fighter/mage with an elven curveblade doing just this..
|
|
Okay so by your definition of wield...i.e. just to hold...what penalties do I get for holding a great axe in one hand again?-4 for non-proficiency? Even if it were -8, it would still be "wielded". And someone with a +9 att bonus weilds such a weapon just as well as someone with an att bonus of +1, so "effectively" is a nonsense requirement for this analysis.
There is no amount of penalties beyond a houserule thats lets you attack with a two handed weapon in one hand actually...hence the issue.
Cold,
I apologize for my aggravation. Please, tell us what you want to do. Also, what does the GM say about what you want to do? I'd be interested in hearing his input.
From my understanding, you want to play as a fighter/wizard that wields a 2-handed weapon, which also serves as his arcane bond. What does your GM say about this? Also, if you do, in fact, want to play what I said above, why are you arguing against being able to do so? It's almost like arguing against yourself..
Please explain your side, as well as your GMs.
|
|
I am horrified yet amused by this debate. Coldylocks, what are you wanting your gish character to do? If your character's arcane bond is a greatsword, (keeping in mind this is an imagination game) why could he not send his fireball flying from the tip of the sword at his enemies, deliver touch attacks with the flat of the blade, rend the earth as he thrusts the blade into the earth. While it is a very cool idea I might choose an arcane bond that is a bit less well.. sunderable, like a ring, an amulet, a weasel, or an imp. That's neither here nor there. If you told us what you wanted your character to do, perhaps it would help give you some suggestions you would like. If you don't want to have helpful suggestions and just want to complain that it isn't worded how you would word it, please tell me so I can stop reading the thread.
Well that is the idea...but I´m more of a sword and board fan myself. Although...the shield is a weapon...I can bind the shield...can´t disarm the shield very well now can they...and shield get higher enhancements more so then weapon as well. But the greatsword is also very cool...just can´t do it with the way it´s worded. Also having the spell effects come out of shield is less impressive then the weapon...boo.... Yeah mostly a gripe page. It´s not even just about the wording, it´s also about feats that should have made it into core. Somatic casting being on the top of that list.
|
I would definitely use Longsword(or any other one-handed weapon of your choice)/buckler with the weapon being bound to you. Then, get a locked Gauntlet for the sword so that it can't be disarmed. Then, if you're starting at higher levels, make that sword Adamantine just to be extra careful. Mithral Chain Shirt and Arcane Armor Training eliminates the Arcane Spell Failure, and mith buckler has none anyways. Arcane Strike for some extra damage when you won't be casting, plus weapon spec. for good measure. Pack spells like Enlarge Person, bull's strength, fly, haste, and you'll be a force to be reckoned with. Remember, an enlarged longsword is a greatsword, just without the 1.5 strength bonus.
EDIT: and guys, trying to convince him of the wording won't do anything because his DM is (apparently) a hard ass. I'm just trying to help solve his problems in other ways
|
|
Cold,
I apologize for my aggravation. Please, tell us what you want to do. Also, what does the GM say about what you want to do? I'd be interested in hearing his input.
From my understanding, you want to play as a fighter/wizard that wields a 2-handed weapon, which also serves as his arcane bond. What does your GM say about this? Also, if you do, in fact, want to play what I said above, why are you arguing against being able to do so? It's almost like arguing against yourself..
Please explain your side, as well as your GMs.
Well I play with 3 different groups and DM 2. This one is a very hardcore RAW group. I have made this character in two other groups...but I was allowed to take somatic casting and practiced spell caster (and shield caster and the old arcane strike with the change that it used a swift) in one and we houseruled that bonded items in hand count for somatic components in the other ¨because it was cooler that way¨...according to the DM. I was just absolutely flustered at how frustrating it was using core RAW. One of the reasons I play with the RAW group is so we can bounce these issues off each other...then fix them in the other two groups that are more reasonable and in my games. So unless you can find a RAW loophole, there isn´t really anything that can be done for this game/character. But I can rant at how annoying it is. I mean quite honestly the houserule that the bonded item in hand counts as somatic component is quite a good and easy fix and it fits thematically very well...so I like that solution for my games. I do kinda wanna rebalance the choices between familiar and the various item choices though.
|
|
FYI, PFRPG seems to equate "in hand" with "wielded":
If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand...Since they mean the same thing, I think we can assume that a THF/caster can hold the TH focus in one hand while casting with the other.
You can assume that...my group does not. Even my none hardcore RAW players and DMs didn´t assume that and we made houserules/work arounds for it.
When i see the statement in the prd about a wizards arcane bond, specifically the part about weapons, i see it like this:
if (weaponInHand == true && handsFree >= 1)
cast (spell);
else
makeCheck (concentration);
So, you can imagine my befuddlement when trying to decipher exactly what the 'argument' is about when referring to that passage.
You can assume that...my group does not. Even my none hardcore RAW players and DMs didn´t assume that and we made houserules/work arounds for it.FYI, PFRPG seems to equate "in hand" with "wielded":
If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand...Since they mean the same thing, I think we can assume that a THF/caster can hold the TH focus in one hand while casting with the other.
The fact that everyone else here is doing differently might be a hint that you're the ones in the wrong, you know.
|
|
You can assume that...my group does not. Even my none hardcore RAW players and DMs didn´t assume that and we made houserules/work arounds for it.FYI, PFRPG seems to equate "in hand" with "wielded":
If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand...Since they mean the same thing, I think we can assume that a THF/caster can hold the TH focus in one hand while casting with the other.
You know, I had a long post about this ridiculous thread, but what's the point? You hand wave away any inconvenient facts you can't refute, and continually ignore the evidence presented from the actual text in favor of the assumption made by your "strict RAW GM"
Did it ever occur to you that the dude is just plain wrong? Because it sure as heck has to a bunch of us.
Sorry if this sounds snarky. this was the nice version of the post. Repeating the same thing over and over is tiresome, especially when the points presented haven't been successfully refuted.
|
|
The points about the two-handed weapons and such are interpretations at best, though, because it is never clearly defined by the rules. He's obviously already talked to his DM, hence his original issue and why he keeps saying that interpreting the rules in a different way won't help, and neither will house-rules. The strict wording of THW's is that you need two hands to wield them, and if "in hand=wield" then it means that you need to have two hands on it to have it "in hand". Do you see how that works?
I tried.. I'm done.. Good luck and good bye
There is no amount of penalties beyond a houserule thats lets you attack with a two handed weapon in one hand actually...hence the issue.Okay so by your definition of wield...i.e. just to hold...what penalties do I get for holding a great axe in one hand again?-4 for non-proficiency? Even if it were -8, it would still be "wielded". And someone with a +9 att bonus weilds such a weapon just as well as someone with an att bonus of +1, so "effectively" is a nonsense requirement for this analysis.
Wait. I thought you were trying to cast a spell while you were holding a two-handed weapon in one hand?
I'm so confused.
There is no amount of penalties beyond a houserule thats lets you attack with a two handed weapon in one hand actually...hence the issue.Okay so by your definition of wield...i.e. just to hold...what penalties do I get for holding a great axe in one hand again?-4 for non-proficiency? Even if it were -8, it would still be "wielded". And someone with a +9 att bonus weilds such a weapon just as well as someone with an att bonus of +1, so "effectively" is a nonsense requirement for this analysis.Wait. I thought you were trying to cast a spell while you were holding a two-handed weapon in one hand?
I'm so confused.
They're trying to claim that in order to "wield" an item, you must be able to attack with it, and two handed weapons must be held in two hands to attack.
Furthermore, in order to use a bound weapon, you must be wielding it at the time.
Ergo, if your bound weapon is a two handed item - such as a staff - you can never cast with it.
...Yeah.
|
|
They're trying to claim that in order to "wield" an item, you must be able to attack with it, and two handed weapons must be held in two hands to attack.
Furthermore, in order to use a bound weapon, you must be wielding it at the time.
Ergo, if your bound weapon is a two handed item - such as a staff - you can never cast with it.
...Yeah.
Don't go there. Apparently because the staff is a double weapon it don't count. I, along with several others have already been yelled at several times for this thought.
|
|
How about this- Wield a Bastard Sword with the EWP so that you can use it one-handed, and use the shield spell (preferably Extended so as to cover multiple fights) to cover your AC issue. Then, whenever you want, you can use the sword in 2 hands for 1.5 strength damage. When you want to cast a spell, BAM! Open hand. Solve your problem?
EDIT: Gee, you guys are bitter. Here's what the whole double weapon thing is about-
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if
fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the
normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two
weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon
and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as
a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double
weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the
weapon can be used in any given round
emphasis mine
|
|
Did it ever occur to you that the dude is just plain wrong? Because it sure as heck has to a bunch of us.
Sorry if this sounds snarky. this was the nice version of the post. Repeating the same thing over and over is tiresome, especially when the points presented haven't been successfully refuted.
1) and did it ever occur to you that the people that are agreeing with you are wrong? Because there a lot of people here that either isn´t bothering to read the rules or are just abjectly ignoring them. Like with double weapons.
2) yeah I know how you feel.
|
|
The fact that everyone else here is doing differently might be a hint that you're the ones in the wrong, you know.
The fact that NOBODY around here agrees with you makes your point not only wrong (at least on local level)...butter utterly irrelevant(at least locally). Unless your speaking for paizo publishing itself...then lets talk.
|
|
How about this- Wield a Bastard Sword with the EWP so that you can use it one-handed, and use the shield spell (preferably Extended so as to cover multiple fights) to cover your AC issue. Then, whenever you want, you can use the sword in 2 hands for 1.5 strength damage. When you want to cast a spell, BAM! Open hand. Solve your problem?
Yeah it does kinda work for swords...less good for other two handed weapons you may want. I guess dwarven waraxe for the great axe as well. Honestly I think I´ll do a small shield and scimitar and just bind the shield...and have to deal with drawing AoO when I have to sheath the sword to cast and have quickdraw to pull it back out. Still having ball of fire coming from the shield seems less cool then the sword personally.
I decided to get an official answer here
They're trying to claim that in order to "wield" an item, you must be able to attack with it, and two handed weapons must be held in two hands to attack.
Furthermore, in order to use a bound weapon, you must be wielding it at the time.
Ergo, if your bound weapon is a two handed item - such as a staff - you can never cast with it.
...Yeah.
If I'd known we'd been arguing that, I'd never have wasted my time. I need to really work on my reading comprehension.
|
|
Did it ever occur to you that the dude is just plain wrong? Because it sure as heck has to a bunch of us.
Sorry if this sounds snarky. this was the nice version of the post. Repeating the same thing over and over is tiresome, especially when the points presented haven't been successfully refuted.
1) and did it ever occur to you that the people that are agreeing with you are wrong? Because there a lot of people here that either isn´t bothering to read the rules or are just abjectly ignoring them. Like with double weapons.
2) yeah I know how you feel.
I'm not really concerned with who's agreeing with me. I'm still waiting for you to show a rule from the book that expressly proves that 'in hand' does not satisfy the focus requirement as shown numerous times above.
you still haven't shown where the rules favor your interpretation over anyone else's. I'm not concerned if anyone agrees with me because if the RAW is unclear, your interpretation is no more valid than anyone elses'. Therefore, there is no issue here. holding a 2H weapon allows casting with the off hand. Its RAW.
You do know you can't refute the 'in hand' interpretation from the actual rulebook, right? I'm just going to chalk this up as a win for me (yeah!) and move along. I'll pop in from time to time to see if you ever admit that both interpretations are valid or produce some actual refuting evidence.
c ya,
'Ling
well i think can understand both sides cause the wording choices just aren't that clear in a LOT of pathfinder material. the use of wiled,use, and in hand seemed to have been used interchangeably with no regard as to how it would be interpreted and effect game play. Some things can just be interpreted different ways. in the end i guess you just have to obey the GM's interpretation cause that's the only voice that really effects YOUR game play.
for instance, shield,light states you cannot USE a weapon. ok...it doesn't clearly say i can't attack with a knife. it just says use, so does that mean i CAN attack with it but not use it to say....chop carrots lol
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two handed melee weapon effectively. it doesn't say i can't wield it or even NOT attack with it it ONLY says i can't use it effectively. if i can attack with it the penalty is NOWHERE in the book.
under actions in combat.
move action=Retrieve a stored item
free action=Prepare spell components to cast a spell
in all honesty wouldn't a spell component be a STORED item. which would make quick casting impossible....
Bonded items-
If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell.
now in this case you have to go with intent. the intent here is to CAST A SPELL. why would you have to WIELD a weapon (as if readying to attack) if the purpose is to use it as a spell focus to cast a spell?! it makes no sense what so ever. it CLEARLY states "If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell." SO, if a bonded two handed sword is in any hand he needs to make NO concentration check. that part is clearly stated.
IF there's any grounds for argument it is the part "If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded." now, since it's already been stated clearly in the rules you do not have to make a concentration check if you have the bonded weapon in hand how could this possibly be interpreted another way? well there is another bonded ability. "A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared." you could possibly interpret that THIS is the EFFECT mention above and the two handed weapon must be "wielded-as if the weapon is poised for attack" to use that effect. And i see less downfall to that so take it as you will.
|
Logically, it's a bonded item so you need to be in contact with it in some way. Whether that is one hand or two shouldn't matter. As a GM, I would never enforce a silly rule that the bond involved both hands at all time. If one of my players has a bonded greatsword and wishes to cast a spell, they will simply be taking a hand off and casting while holding it in the other hand.
|
|
Logically, it's a bonded item so you need to be in contact with it in some way. Whether that is one hand or two shouldn't matter. As a GM, I would never enforce a silly rule that the bond involved both hands at all time. If one of my players has a bonded greatsword and wishes to cast a spell, they will simply be taking a hand off and casting while holding it in the other hand.
I think it's pretty clear that THIS is what the rules intend.