|
Hey Cold, did you ever decide what you're gonna play?Yeah, I´m gonna use a sword and shield and just bind the shield. It´s a really less cool and thematic accurate solution since I´m gonna have weapon focus, greater focus, spec and greater spec for the sword and pretty much nil for the shield...but rules are rules. Course this doesn´t solve my issue of drawing an AoO everytime I wanna cast a spell as I have to sheath my weapon. But hey, the cleric is in the same boat as me. We both hate the druid and his natural spell SOOOOOO much right now.
Quick question ... what do you mean by "just bind the shield"?
Quick question ... what do you mean by "just bind the shield"?
I believe that he is saying that he will have the shield as his bonded item, rather than a sword, as the shield technically qualifies as a weapon.
|
|
Quick question ... what do you mean by "just bind the shield"?I believe that he is saying that he will have the shield as his bonded item, rather than a sword, as the shield technically qualifies as a weapon.
Ah, I was wondering if that was the case.
I'm not sure the shield would count as an eligible bond item. I do see how it might be interpreted that way though, since you can use a shield as a weapon, but normally a shield is considered Armor, and not a Weapon. Since the list of eligible Bond items specifically says "amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon" and does not include armor, I'm thinking that, according to a strict reading of the rules, a shield would not count as a weapon.
Not that I necessarily have an issue with allowing it. In fact, if I was the DM, I would most likely allow it. I'm just pointing it out mainly since it sounds like this player's DM is a very strict stickler for the rules and, as I said, I suspect that strictly speaking a shield might not count as a weapon ...
Update: I was just looking on the Pathfinder PRD ... I had forgotten that things like spiked shields are listed on the weapons tables, so I guess a shield could be considered a weapon and taken as a bond item. That's actually a pretty interesting way to go ...
Of course, spiked armor is ALSO listed as a weapon on the same weapons table and armor is NOT allowed as a bond item, so this probably still falls into a bit of a murky area it would seem ...
My "solution" was the following.
At level 1 (and only level 1) PCs are assumed to be a gestalt of a PC class and a NPC class. Arcane Warrior concepts are typically constructed via Wizard + Warrior.
Example non-optimized build:
Melf the Magician (20 pt Build)
Elf Wizard 1
Str-15 (7 points)
Dex-14 (12 +2 Racial: 2 Points)
Con-10 (12 -2 Racial: 2 Points)
Int-16 (14 +2 Racial: 5 Points)
Wis-12 (2 Points)
Cha-12 (2 Points)
HP-11 (10 Base + 1 Favored Class)
Skill Points- 5 per level
BAB +1
Fort +2 Ref +2 Will +3
Proficient with all martial weapons and armors and shields. Casts 1st level spells.
The arcane warrior build doesn't have to multiclass to access EK, can actually enter EK one level earlier (woot!). Let's look at 10th level Melf to see how he stacks up.
Melf the Magician
Elf Wizard 5/ EK 5
Str-16 (4th level stat boost)
Dex-14
Con-10
Int-17 (8th level stat boost)
Wis-12
Cha-12
HP- 57 (67 with Toughness if taken)
Skill Points- 5 per level
BAB +8
Fort +6 Ref +5 Will +7
Proficient with all martial weapons and armors and shields. Casts 5th level spells.
Melf trades 1 spellcasting level for increased BAB, better armor and weapon choices. His HPs are higher than they would be otherwise giving him increased durability. His casting stat is weakened some because he needs to focus on strength as well but overall this is a decent enough Gish character.
Other options for the wizard would be to be a bookish type (Wizard + Expert) for the skill points, the aristocratic wizard (Wizard + Aristocrat) which can also be used to construct an arcane warrior, or a Hedge Wizard/Witch doctor (Wizard + Adept), which is admittedly not great but gives the wizard the ability to do limited healing with CLW.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
An arcane bonded weapon must be wielded in order for it to have effect. This, unfortunately, does mean that two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components. Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object.
A feat or class ability that lets you use a 2H weapon's swings and stabs and motions as your somatic component would be pretty interesting... but nothing in the core currently lets you do that. Your best bet in this case is to only cast Still spells or spells without somatic components.
An arcane bonded weapon must be wielded in order for it to have effect. This, unfortunately, does mean that two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components. Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object.
A feat or class ability that lets you use a 2H weapon's swings and stabs and motions as your somatic component would be pretty interesting... but nothing in the core currently lets you do that. Your best bet in this case is to only cast Still spells or spells without somatic components.
Nevermind, I misread what JJ was saying above.
Gonna have to go with my old fallback, 'Ask your GM how he thinks it should work.' Good point about Arcane Archers tho Moro.
I was wrong, the Arcane Archer would be fine, he just wouldn't be able to use his bow as his Arcane Bond.
|
I was wrong, the Arcane Archer would be fine, he just wouldn't be able to use his bow as his Arcane Bond.
It does beg the question of if the AA is able to use spells with somatic components as a part of his Imbue Arrow ability. He fires the arrow as part of the casting, which requires the bow to be wielded.
This is incredibly nitpicky, but I think the question is still valid even if not as crucial as first thought.
I was wrong, the Arcane Archer would be fine, he just wouldn't be able to use his bow as his Arcane Bond.It does beg the question of if the AA is able to use spells with somatic components as a part of his Imbue Arrow ability. He fires the arrow as part of the casting, which requires the bow to be wielded.
This is incredibly nitpicky, but I think the question is still valid even if not as crucial as first thought.
I think the wording of Imbue Arrow is pretty clear on that one, but I'm not exactly looking at the text this moment. As far as I can recall, the AA is fine there.
|
|
I think the wording of Imbue Arrow is pretty clear on that one, but I'm not exactly looking at the text this moment. As far as I can recall, the AA is fine on that one.
Just pointing it out. It does say that he can fire the arrow as part of the standard action of casting. So this is the one exception to 'you can't wield a 2-handed weapon while casting a spell.'
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
An arcane bonded weapon must be wielded in order for it to have effect. This, unfortunately, does mean that two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components. Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object.
A feat or class ability that lets you use a 2H weapon's swings and stabs and motions as your somatic component would be pretty interesting... but nothing in the core currently lets you do that. Your best bet in this case is to only cast Still spells or spells without somatic components.
Like I said earlier. Go for Bastard Sword. Hot blond Russian tested, Darkchylde approved.
Besides can a room full of dead X-men be wrong? ;-)
An arcane bonded weapon must be wielded in order for it to have effect. This, unfortunately, does mean that two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components. Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object.
A feat or class ability that lets you use a 2H weapon's swings and stabs and motions as your somatic component would be pretty interesting... but nothing in the core currently lets you do that. Your best bet in this case is to only cast Still spells or spells without somatic components.
Thematically I understand what you're saying here, but in terms of common sense I just can't reconcile the wielder of a 2 handed sword being unable to let go for a moment with one hand and wiggle some fingers. Most two handed swords are "wielded" in a hand-and-a-half manner anyway, and I can't see the harm in allowing a player to attempt to use a heavier weapon in one hand.
The implication that concerns me is that a character cannot choose to wield a weapon in a manner that differs from its intended purpose. Would a two handed sword wielded in one hand become an improvised weapon? It would still technically count as being wielded in that case.
I think it would be better to amend this as a function of the Arcane Bond then to say that it has anything to do with the item being "wielded".
Just my two cents, because CLEARLY my opinion is VITAL and MUST be considered.... :-)
... what i really wanted was a fighter/mage base class that could cast from level 1, wear armor, and progressed as such. on top of that i would rather have evoker magic so the bard isn't an option there and no other option for that matter as a base class. ...I think right there you hit on the 2 biggest problems with the gish builds. Either they are limitted to the restricted spell lists, or they don't get to be what you want until too high a level. By the time you hit lvl 10-12, the eldrich knight does pretty much what I want, but its lvls 1-6, when I am pretty much a straight wizard, that bother me.
I would like to see an arcane ranger/paladin variant that gets full BAB and 4th lvl spells, preferably with combat spells, and a bard variant that gets evocation spells.
I would like to see 2 improved arcane strike feats. These, I feel, would fill the gap of of being unable to combine magic and physical combat.
Imrpoved Arcane Strike: Full round action: cast a spell with a single target and make a melee attack. You do not provoke an AoO from the target.
Prereq: arcane strike, BAB + 62. When using Improved Arcane Strike, increase the save DC of the spell by 4.
Prereq: improved arcane strike, BAB + 11
This is exactly what I'm looking for too!
|
|
An arcane bonded weapon must be wielded in order for it to have effect. This, unfortunately, does mean that two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components. Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object.
James,
I have to ask for a bit of clarification on this, since, based on what you are saying, the actual text of the Arcane Bond would then seem to contradict itself (and, to my reading of it, goes against what the spirit of the rules are going for)
According to the rules:
"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."
It seems clear that the rules are treating the phrases "wielded" and "in hand" as meaning the same thing, otherwise these rules contradict themselves, as "in hand" simply means holding something. The intent here seems to be saying that, for instance, if your bond item is a sword, you can't have it in the scabbard and cast spells - you have to draw it and hold the sword in your hand.
As others have mentioned, what you are saying would also mean that, for instance, a bow could not be used as an Arcane Bond unless the Wizard was ... firing it? Actively drawing back the bow string?
Please don't take this as a disrespectful question ... but are you sure this is what the rules are intending? I know asking one of the games developers that question comes off bad ... it's just that, to me the phrases "wielded" and "in hand" are clearly being used interchangeably here.
Thanks!
|
Creative Director
|
I have to ask for a bit of clarification on this, since, based on what you are saying, the actual text of the Arcane Bond would then seem to contradict itself (and, to my reading of it, goes against what the spirit of the rules are going for).
Doesn't change my ruling. 2H weapons get in the way of waving hands around when spellcasting.
not to argue but isn't a staff a two handed weapon?
|
|
not to argue but isn't a staff a two handed weapon?
Only when used as a double weapon. It can be used as a non-double weapon with one hand.
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.
I have to ask for a bit of clarification on this, since, based on what you are saying, the actual text of the Arcane Bond would then seem to contradict itself (and, to my reading of it, goes against what the spirit of the rules are going for).Doesn't change my ruling. 2H weapons get in the way of waving hands around when spellcasting.
Also, according to the way Somatic Components are described, only one hand must be free to fullfill that requirement. Why does it matter WHAT you have in the other hand, so long as you have the one hand free?
Also, if the short version of what you are saying is that you can't cast spells with Somatic components while holding a 2h weapon in one hand, then my initial reaction to the tone of your other post was correct, and I do now have to ask if you plan on getting rid of the Arcane Archer, because that ruling pretty much hoses the class.
I have to ask for a bit of clarification on this, since, based on what you are saying, the actual text of the Arcane Bond would then seem to contradict itself (and, to my reading of it, goes against what the spirit of the rules are going for).Doesn't change my ruling. 2H weapons get in the way of waving hands around when spellcasting.Also, according to the way Somatic Components are described, only one hand must be free to fullfill that requirement. Why does it matter WHAT you have in the other hand, so long as you have the one hand free?
Also, if the short version of what you are saying is that you can't cast spells with Somatic components while holding a 2h weapon in one hand, then I do now have to ask if you plan on getting rid of the Arcane Archer, because that ruling pretty much hoses the class.
By my reading, the arcane archer now must have 2 hands wielding the bow and 1 hand free for any material and somatic components. This only matters if his arcane bond is his bow. If he has something else as his arcane bond that is not a ring or amulet, he must have that in his hand to cast spells, along with a free hand to perform the somatic components. Good luck finding 4 free hands to use his shoot while casting ability.
|
|
By my reading, the arcane archer now must have 2 hands wielding the bow and 1 hand free for any material and somatic components. This only matters if his arcane bond is his bow. If he has something else as his arcane bond that is not a ring or amulet, he must have that in his hand to cast spells, along with a free hand to perform the somatic components. Good luck finding 4 free hands to use his shoot while casting ability.
It also matters in the case of my question on Imbue Arrow being allowed to work with somatic spells. 2-handed weapons interfere with somatics, so does IA allowing you to fire an arrow as part of the spell make an exception?
By my reading, the arcane archer now must have 2 hands wielding the bow and 1 hand free for any material and somatic components. This only matters if his arcane bond is his bow. If he has something else as his arcane bond that is not a ring or amulet, he must have that in his hand to cast spells, along with a free hand to perform the somatic components. Good luck finding 4 free hands to use his shoot while casting ability.I have to ask for a bit of clarification on this, since, based on what you are saying, the actual text of the Arcane Bond would then seem to contradict itself (and, to my reading of it, goes against what the spirit of the rules are going for).Doesn't change my ruling. 2H weapons get in the way of waving hands around when spellcasting.Also, according to the way Somatic Components are described, only one hand must be free to fullfill that requirement. Why does it matter WHAT you have in the other hand, so long as you have the one hand free?
Also, if the short version of what you are saying is that you can't cast spells with Somatic components while holding a 2h weapon in one hand, then I do now have to ask if you plan on getting rid of the Arcane Archer, because that ruling pretty much hoses the class.
J.J. said succinctly: "Doesn't change my ruling. 2H weapons get in the way of waving hands around when spellcasting."
I'm not sure why any Wizard would be able to cast a spell with Somatic components with only one hand free UNLESS the object he is holding in his other hand is a 2H weapon that is also his bonded object, but that's what was said.
This is the type of ruling that will interfere with ALL Wizards.
To put it more clearly, what I am reading into this ruling and the way the rules currently interact with it is that a Wizard holding a Greatsword with one hand can cast spells with a somatic component just fine, but a Wizard with a Greatsword as his Arcane Bonded object suddenly has issues doing the same?
To put it more clearly, what I am reading into this ruling and the way the rules currently interact with it is that a Wizard holding a Greatsword with one hand can cast spells with a somatic component just fine, but a Wizard with a Greatsword as his Arcane Bonded object suddenly has issues doing the same?
Also, wizards can no longer cast spells while using an arcane staff, and AA's can't imbue their arrows.
Um.
Have we thought this ruling through all the way? ;p
To put it more clearly, what I am reading into this ruling and the way the rules currently interact with it is that a Wizard holding a Greatsword with one hand can cast spells with a somatic component just fine, but a Wizard with a Greatsword as his Arcane Bonded object suddenly has issues doing the same?Also, wizards can no longer cast spells while using an arcane staff, and AA's can't imbue their arrows.
Um.
Have we thought this ruling through all the way? ;p
I wasn't going to take it that far, but yes, I can see this ruling snowballing into something along those lines.
|
Creative Director
|
Also, if the short version of what you are saying is that you can't cast spells with Somatic components while holding a 2h weapon in one hand, then my initial reaction to the tone of your other post was correct, and I do now have to ask if you plan on getting rid of the Arcane Archer, because that ruling pretty much hoses the class.
You can ABSOLUTELY cast spells while holding a 2H weapon in one hand. But if that 2H weapon is your bonded object, you can't use it as a bonded object and may run into troubles. If you're playing a 2H weapon wizard, your best bet for arcane bond is something NOT your 2H weapon is all this means.
|
Creative Director
|
Staves are only 2H weaopns when you hit folks on the head with them. A magic staff is not a weapon. It's a magic staff; it's different than a quarterstaff (although some magic staffs can be USED as quarterstaves). You can use a staff and shoot spells from it with one hand (see Lord of the Rings or any other movie/story/picture of a wizard with a staff, pretty much), or cast spells, PROVIDED you're not wielding said staff like Little John (aka: Wielding the staff as a weapon).
|
|
Well since it looks like I officially got the I´m boned message...the spiked armor does sound like a really interesting idea...it IS a weapon...even if it´s also an armor. There is nothing that states the bonded item can´t be armor...just that it has to be a weapon. The downside is the in hand...spiked armor isn´t exactly in hand. Remember by RAW, both wielded and in hand must be met...so that´s probably not gonna fly...which would be for the best as I hate armor spikes on principle :P . Shields are still all good however.
Also, if the short version of what you are saying is that you can't cast spells with Somatic components while holding a 2h weapon in one hand, then my initial reaction to the tone of your other post was correct, and I do now have to ask if you plan on getting rid of the Arcane Archer, because that ruling pretty much hoses the class.You can ABSOLUTELY cast spells while holding a 2H weapon in one hand. But if that 2H weapon is your bonded object, you can't use it as a bonded object and may run into troubles. If you're playing a 2H weapon wizard, your best bet for arcane bond is something NOT your 2H weapon is all this means.
Thanks James, that is the clarification I was looking for. It's a far cry from "2H weapons get in the way of waving hands around when spellcasting".
Staves are only 2H weaopns when you hit folks on the head with them. A magic staff is not a weapon. It's a magic staff; it's different than a quarterstaff (although some magic staffs can be USED as quarterstaves). You can use a staff and shoot spells from it with one hand (see Lord of the Rings or any other movie/story/picture of a wizard with a staff, pretty much), or cast spells, PROVIDED you're not wielding said staff like Little John (aka: Wielding the staff as a weapon).
Now I'm going to open another can of worms, because technically a staff with a pointy end on it is a spear...
eh seems like to me if you can't use a two handed weapon as a bonded item , it should be stated you can not have one as such. Just seems like an odd double standard as a staff is a weapon unless your holding it one hand..then its not? So if ya hold a two handed sword one hand it's not a weapon? But the staff still works as a bonded item as long as ya hold it in your hand but the weapon{which like the staff} is now not a weapon in one hand is not?
Just a bit odd
|
|
To put it more clearly, what I am reading into this ruling and the way the rules currently interact with it is that a Wizard holding a Greatsword with one hand can cast spells with a somatic component just fine, but a Wizard with a Greatsword as his Arcane Bonded object suddenly has issues doing the same?Also, wizards can no longer cast spells while using an arcane staff, and AA's can't imbue their arrows.
Um.
Have we thought this ruling through all the way? ;p
Staffs are fine...it has been said over and over again. It is only not fine if you wanna ignore the rules.
The AA I do admit is screwed if he bonds his bow...Just like my sword and shield gish is screwed if I bond my sword...or a greatsword wielding gish bonds his greatsword.
Did I mention that somatic casting feat REALLY should have been core? If that feat was considered too overpowered, why the hell is natural spell in?
To put it more clearly, what I am reading into this ruling and the way the rules currently interact with it is that a Wizard holding a Greatsword with one hand can cast spells with a somatic component just fine, but a Wizard with a Greatsword as his Arcane Bonded object suddenly has issues doing the same?Also, wizards can no longer cast spells while using an arcane staff, and AA's can't imbue their arrows.
Um.
Have we thought this ruling through all the way? ;p
Staffs are fine...it has been said over and over again. It is only not fine if you wanna ignore the rules.
The AA I do admit is screwed if he bonds his bow...Just like my sword and shield gish is screwed if I bond my sword...or a greatsword wielding gish bonds his greatsword.
Did I mention that somatic casting feat REALLY should have been core? If that feat was considered too overpowered, why the hell is natural spell in?
except your sword and shield gish isn't screwed by bonding the sword. He can use a buckler and lose the shield bonus when he wants to cast spells.
That wasn't really a middle finger when i pulled back my arrow, that is just how I hold the bow and aim, honest.
Unfortunately, the middle finger is the most important for pulling back the string.
|
Creative Director
|
eh seems like to me if you can't use a two handed weapon as a bonded item , it should be stated you can not have one as such. Just seems like an odd double standard as a staff is a weapon unless your holding it one hand..then its not? So if ya hold a two handed sword one hand it's not a weapon? But the staff still works as a bonded item as long as ya hold it in your hand but the weapon{which like the staff} is now not a weapon in one hand is not?
Just a bit odd
Nah; you can have a 2H weapon as a bonded item. It's just not always the best choice. But if you're a wizard who specializes in non-somatic spells and Still spells it could work.
|
|
Shields are still all good however.I recommend a buckler. Keeps your hand free. Also, if you can get the Variable enchantment on it, you can adjust it to any shield you need as a swift action.
Can´t arcane bind buckler...they aren´t weapons. The issue with variable is that it uses up a swift...which your not gonna have any as a PF gish. Your gonna be using those suckers up for other tasty things. And it´s not core. If I could use none core stuff, I would just take the somatic casting feat and be done with it ;) .
Nah; you can have a 2H weapon as a bonded item. It's just not always the best choice. But if you're a wizard who specializes in non-somatic spells and Still spells it could work.eh seems like to me if you can't use a two handed weapon as a bonded item , it should be stated you can not have one as such. Just seems like an odd double standard as a staff is a weapon unless your holding it one hand..then its not? So if ya hold a two handed sword one hand it's not a weapon? But the staff still works as a bonded item as long as ya hold it in your hand but the weapon{which like the staff} is now not a weapon in one hand is not?
Just a bit odd
I'm not sure, it does really seem like an odd double standard to me. I mean, a 1-handed sword really isn't a weapon unless you're slashing someone with it along that line of thinking.
Also, having one 2-handed weapon having to follow one set of rules, and another 2-handed weapon follow a different set is going to wind up complicated and confusing down the road. What about double swords? Technically they are just staves with two sharpened ends, and can be held in one hand and wielded just fine, RAW? Are you guys at Paizo really THAT afraid of Fighter/Mage type characters that you're going to go out of your way to single out any option that even begins to look like one and nerf it?
|
|
Did I mention that somatic casting feat REALLY should have been core? If that feat was considered too overpowered, why the hell is natural spell in?It's not considered overpowered (if done right). In fact... it kind of IS already done: Still Spell.
Natural spell doesn´t increase the spell level of any spell with somatic components. The purpose of still spell is to cast spell while grappled or tied up...not so that a cleric using a heavy shield and a mace has to burn a 2nd level slot for CLW to be able to even do the basic thing of cast one round and fight the next. For a gish, it´s even worse because now your gonna be 2 spell levels behind at least with that solution. Somatic weaponry feat is natural spell for ALOT of characters.
On a side note, the feat that I have been yapping about is called somatic weaponry...sorry I just got my complete mage back like 2 seconds ago :P .
Did I mention that somatic casting feat REALLY should have been core? If that feat was considered too overpowered, why the hell is natural spell in?It's not considered overpowered (if done right). In fact... it kind of IS already done: Still Spell.
The problem here is that gishes already have reduced casting, and now you're saying they essentially lose an extra spell level of spellcasting if they use anything but a single one handed weapon (as their bond, at least).
It just seems a messy and unintuitive way to do things, and it punishes someone who, well, doesn't really need to be punished :/. It's like going out to reduce the power of monks.
|
|
Did I mention that somatic casting feat REALLY should have been core? If that feat was considered too overpowered, why the hell is natural spell in?It's not considered overpowered (if done right). In fact... it kind of IS already done: Still Spell.The problem here is that gishes already have reduced casting, and now you're saying they essentially lose an extra spell level of spellcasting if they use anything but a single one handed weapon (as their bond, at least).
It just seems a messy and unintuitive way to do things, and it punishes someone who, well, doesn't really need to be punished :/. It's like going out to reduce the power of monks.
Are we actually agreeing on something in this thread?!? :) .
everyone agrees on something at some point :) Anyhow I think that one will be houserules as it's just damned odd
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An arcane bonded weapon must be wielded in order for it to have effect. This, unfortunately, does mean that two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components. Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object.
A feat or class ability that lets you use a 2H weapon's swings and stabs and motions as your somatic component would be pretty interesting... but nothing in the core currently lets you do that. Your best bet in this case is to only cast Still spells or spells without somatic components.
This is a terrible rule design, and now immediately houseruled away in my home games.