| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Under the desription for the heavy shield it says "A heavy shield is so heavy that you cant use your shield hand for anything else". This leads me to this question, if a cleric has his mace in one hand and a heavy shield in the other, can he successfully cast a spell that requires a somatic componant?
No, you need a free hand to cast spells. So either you have to sheath your weapon and take Quickdraw or you have to use a light shield or a buckler.
Yeah I figured this was the ruling, thanks for the clarification.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you need a free hand to cast spells. So either you have to sheath your weapon and take Quickdraw or you have to use a light shield or a buckler.
No a light shield is NOT considered a free hand for spell casting. The buckler is, but you lose the buckler AC is you do use that hand for spell casting. Somatic weaponry in complete mage fixes this issue...unfortunately, this is not in PF core.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
No, you need a free hand to cast spells. So either you have to sheath your weapon and take Quickdraw or you have to use a light shield or a buckler.No a light shield is NOT considered a free hand for spell casting. The buckler is, but you lose the buckler AC is you do use that hand for spell casting. Somatic weaponry in complete mage fixes this issue...unfortunately, this is not in PF core.
But a light shield does allow you to hold items in the hand with the shield. So you can transfer the weapon to your shield hand, cast the spell then transfer back, which will allow you to cast with a light shield.
|
|
But a light shield does allow you to hold items in the hand with the shield. So you can transfer the weapon to your shield hand, cast the spell then transfer back, which will allow you to cast with a light shield.No, you need a free hand to cast spells. So either you have to sheath your weapon and take Quickdraw or you have to use a light shield or a buckler.No a light shield is NOT considered a free hand for spell casting. The buckler is, but you lose the buckler AC is you do use that hand for spell casting. Somatic weaponry in complete mage fixes this issue...unfortunately, this is not in PF core.
Not unless you have 2 moves and a standard in a round. No really, somatic weaponry is REALLY needed. If you wanna really push your luck you can try the 6 free actions method...but no DM ever allows that nonsense.
Not unless you have 2 moves and a standard in a round. No really, somatic weaponry is REALLY needed. If you wanna really push your luck you can try the 6 free actions method...but no DM ever allows that nonsense.But a light shield does allow you to hold items in the hand with the shield. So you can transfer the weapon to your shield hand, cast the spell then transfer back, which will allow you to cast with a light shield.No, you need a free hand to cast spells. So either you have to sheath your weapon and take Quickdraw or you have to use a light shield or a buckler.No a light shield is NOT considered a free hand for spell casting. The buckler is, but you lose the buckler AC is you do use that hand for spell casting. Somatic weaponry in complete mage fixes this issue...unfortunately, this is not in PF core.
How is it 2 moves and a standard?
Light shield specifically states you can hold a weapon in the hand of the arm the shield is strapped to, with the shield readied. I'm not asking for six free actions, I'm switch to cast, then switching back. That is two free actions.
You are overstating the problem.
|
|
Switching weapons in hands has been clarified as a move in 3.5. The 6 free is because readjusting a grip is a free...so you go through a series of these free actions to get your weapon swapped with 6 free actions...which no DM allows. Also read the drawing and sheathing rules...by RAW, switching the weapon to your shield hand to have a hand free is considered sheathing the weapon which takes a move and draw an AoO.
edit: Oppsy it should be 4 frees not 6...my bad...but still never seen it allowed.
...so you go through a series of these free actions to get your weapon swapped with 6 free actions...which no DM allows.
Objection! I do allow it.
|
|
Maybe not, but I would allow it as a split move or swift action at least. It doesn't take a lot of effort to switch which hand something is in.
And that would be a houserule.
As for realistically...it takes considerable effort actually to switch a weapon into a hand that has a shield. I just tried it right now with my sword and shield...yep still not easy. And quite frankly I wouldn´t be able to use the shield at all while doing this either.
We allow you to just use a light shield or buckler to use as your casting hand, no need to swap weapon hands.
Maybe my group is strange but clarics and druids tend to cast just fine when wielding a shield...I guess that would make it a house rule but I agree with A Man in Black.
I allow it. WTF, shields suck enough without making them completely useless to clerics, the one class who actually has a good reason to use them without TWFing.
+1 man in black. shields are already too lame in PF/3.5.
also, if realism or sense is involved, imagine this instead: the cleric carries a heavy shield and 10 weapons. whenever he decides to cast a spell, he drops the one in his hand (free), casts the spell (standard) and draws a new one (move). and does this throughout the combat. this is doable ruleswise, but totally uncool and cheesy.
i'd allow him to cast with at least a light shield instead.
I allow it. WTF, shields suck enough without making them completely useless to clerics, the one class who actually has a good reason to use them without TWFing.+1 man in black. shields are already too lame in PF/3.5.
also, if realism or sense is involved, imagine this instead: the cleric carries a heavy shield and 10 weapons. whenever he decides to cast a spell, he drops the one in his hand (free), casts the spell (standard) and draws a new one (move). and does this throughout the combat. this is doable ruleswise, but totally uncool and cheesy.
i'd allow him to cast with at least a light shield instead.
then let him take quick draw too :P
|
Ya, casting with a Light Shield is actually the norm. 3E FAQ allowed it and there is no reason to think PF has changed it. I have seen it done if organized play, as well.
A lot of home games though, do houserule that Clerics (and Paladins) can even cast with a Heavy Shield because it is kind of dumb not to for a Cleric.
Reading the buckler, light shield and heavy shield entries, only the buckler states that you can cast spells while holding it. Neither the light nor heavy shield state that, so in my campaign, the cleric uses a buckler, and the paladin just sticks his sword in the ground and uses that as his free hand and then grabs the sword. I count the sticking/grabbing as a move action and let him do the lay on hands or spell casting as a standard action.
However, YMMV.
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
|
Reading the buckler, light shield and heavy shield entries, only the buckler states that you can cast spells while holding it. Neither the light nor heavy shield state that, so in my campaign, the cleric uses a buckler, and the paladin just sticks his sword in the ground and uses that as his free hand and then grabs the sword. I count the sticking/grabbing as a move action and let him do the lay on hands or spell casting as a standard action.
However, YMMV.
-- david
Papa.DRB
That is true, but as was mentioned, you can hold an object with a Light Shield. You place your weapon in that hand for a moment to cast and than switch the weapopn right back once the spell is cast. The same way you can wield a two handed weapon, (like for instance a Wizard's staff), hold it in one hand and cast a spell.
|
|
Ya, casting with a Light Shield is actually the norm. 3E FAQ allowed it and there is no reason to think PF has changed it. I have seen it done if organized play, as well.
A lot of home games though, do houserule that Clerics (and Paladins) can even cast with a Heavy Shield because it is kind of dumb not to for a Cleric.
The 3.5 FAQ however says that you can´t. 3.5 FAQ trumps whatever 3.0 FAQ may have said. In RPGA you were not allowed to cast with a light shield and weapon unless the DM that was running wasn´t following the RPGA rules (which is a valid reason to get his DMing license revoked). And yes the shield and casting had ALL sorts of houserules...until somatic weaponry came around. Then people just used that feat and all was good...which is why I don´t know why PF kept the lame shield rules...in fact it´s more stringent then 3.5 and didn´t include somatic weaponry in the core book.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Monte Cook has a charcter class called the Mage Blade in Arcana Unearthed, a hybrid swordswinging caster who uses a form of bonded weapon called the athame. The passes the mage blade makes with his bonded weapon serve as the somatic component for his spells. I believe the intention of the Paizo folks is for effectively the Paladin to do the same.
I'd disagree, that's specifically a class ability for the Mageblade.
That said, yes, I think a feat that allows you to somatic with your bonded weapon is a good idea.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The 3.5 FAQ however says that you can´t. 3.5 FAQ trumps whatever 3.0 FAQ may have said. In RPGA you were not allowed to cast with a light shield and weapon unless the DM that was running wasn´t following the RPGA rules (which is a valid reason to get his DMing license revoked). And yes the shield and casting had ALL sorts of houserules...until somatic weaponry came around. Then people just used that feat and all was good...which is why I don´t know why PF kept the lame shield rules...in fact it´s more stringent then 3.5 and didn´t include somatic weaponry in the core book.
Maybe because the 3.5 faq doesn't apply for PFRPG?
|
Just for the record...
The stated that:
"Can a spellcaster, arcane or divine, cast a spell requiring
somatic or material components if he has a weapon in one
hand and a buckler in the other? A small shield? A large
shield?
somatic component (see page 151 in the Player’s Handbook).
You could drop the weapon (or the buckler or shield) as a free
action and then cast the spell."
and the stated:
"My DM says that my cleric has to drop his morningstar
to cast spells. Is he right?
you must gesture freely with at least one hand. (PH 140) A
cleric (or any caster, for that matter) who holds a weapon in
one hand and wears a heavy shield on the other arm doesn’t
have a hand free to cast a spell with a somatic component
(which includes most spells in the game). To cast such a spell,
the character must either drop or sheathe his weapon.
Another simple option is for the cleric to carry a buckler or
light shield instead of a heavy shield. The buckler leaves one
hand free for spellcasting, and you don’t even lose the
buckler’s shield bonus to AC when casting with that hand. The
light shield doesn’t give you a free hand for spellcasting, but
since you can hold an item in the same hand that holds the light
shield, you could switch your weapon to that hand to free up a
hand for spellcasting. (You can’t use the weapon while it’s held
in the same hand as your shield, of course.) The rules don’t
state what type of action is required to switch hands on a
weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the
equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t
provoke attacks of opportunity).
and states that:
"Buckler: ...You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler’s AC bonus until your next turn..."
and
"Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it."
and
"Shield, Heavy; Wooden or Steel: A heavy shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else."
Summation: The rules for heavy and light shields has not changed in regards to casting spells with somatic components (not allowed by any of the three rule sets). Bucklers on the other hand, have changed with all three rule sets (not allowed; allowed and retain shield bonus to AC; allowed but lose shield bonus to AC).
Cheers
PS As a DM, I house rule that switching weapons from hand to hand or removing and/or replacing a hand upon two-handed weapon is a free action. As a MiB stated, shields are already hardly worth the benefit as is...
|
|
Maybe because the 3.5 faq doesn't apply for PFRPG?
I disagree here. As has been stated repeatedly by Paizo, the Pathfinder rules are meant to be backwards compatible. Unless Pathfinder rules (whether they be changes within the core book, or via Pathfinder specific errata or FAQs) provide a definitive change from previous rules/rulings I see no reason to discount the precedence set by previous rule sets, FAQs or errata.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Maybe because the 3.5 faq doesn't apply for PFRPG?
I disagree here. As has been stated repeatedly by Paizo, the Pathfinder rules are meant to be backwards compatible. Unless Pathfinder rules (whether they be changes within the core book, or via Pathfinder specific errata or FAQs) provide a definitive change from previous rules/rulings I see no reason to discount the precedence set by previous rule sets, FAQs or errata.
*nods* But where in Pathfinder does it say you can't cast spells with a hand with a light shield? That's my point.
Buckler has specific mechanics, Heavy shield says "you can’t use your shield hand for anything else" but the light shield just says you can't use a weapon.
|
|
*nods* But where in Pathfinder does it say you can't cast spells with a hand with a light shield? That's my point.
Buckler has specific mechanics, Heavy shield says "you can’t use your shield hand for anything else" but the light shield just says you can't use a weapon.
I agree that the Pathfinder rules leave a potential loophole in this regard.
I think for the sake of word count, the fact that the light shield entry (in Pathfinder Core) does not include a bit about somatic casting infers that previous rulings are to be observed. In this case, one cannot use their (light) shield hand to cast spells with somatic components as per previous rulings.
If Pathfinder was going to change this rule, it should be explicitly stated within the entry for light shields, and specifically include the bit about losing the shield bonus to AC until the next round.
Otherwise, using the loophole as suggested, would also allow for people to interpret that not only can you cast a somatic spell while holding the light shield, but that you wouldn't even lose the AC bonus while doing so, as it "doesn't state that in the entry for light shield".
All in all, I'll be most interested when future Pathfinder errata and FAQs are released. Until then we'll just keep playing and doing what works for our group, as I'm sure you do as well.
Cheers
PS Congrats on another fine showing in the Superstar competition. Given your pattern, top 32, top 8 you should win the whole thing next year! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about using 2 handed weapons? Can a weapon be held unreadied in 1 hand while you gesture about?
I believe so, but have not seen anything to prove or disprove this.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I agree that the Pathfinder rules leave a potential loophole in this regard.
I think for the sake of word count, the fact that the light shield entry (in Pathfinder Core) does not include a bit about somatic casting infers that previous rulings are to be observed. In this case, one cannot use their (light) shield hand to cast spells with somatic components as per previous rulings.
If Pathfinder was going to change this rule, it should be explicitly stated within the entry for light shields, and specifically include the bit about losing the shield bonus to AC until the next round.
Otherwise, using the loophole as suggested, would also allow for people to interpret that not only can you cast a somatic spell while holding the light shield, but that you wouldn't even lose the AC bonus while doing so, as it "doesn't state that in the entry for light shield".
All in all, I'll be most interested when future Pathfinder errata and FAQs are released. Until then we'll just keep playing and doing what works for our group, as I'm sure you do as well.
Cheers
PS Congrats on another fine showing in the Superstar competition. Given your pattern, top 32, top 8 you should win the whole thing next year! :)
You say 'loophole' I say design feature.
Buckler perks, +1 to AC, spell failure chance. Can cast/use two handed weapon but sacrifice AC.
Small shield perks, +1 to AC spell failure chance. Can't use weapon two handed, but can shield bash. Can cast and hold items though.
Heavy Shield perks, +2 to AC, greater spell failure chance, greater shield bash. Can't hold anything, can't cast.
(This doesn't count Mithral/Masterwork/Darkwood et al)
Also the problem with 'lets default to the faq' is that it a) isn't going to be around forever and b) is for a different game system. You wouldn't default to the 3.x faq for Mutants and Masterminds, you shouldn't rely on it for Pathfinder
And thanks, but I can't enter again. Which I think means I can claim to have 'created or saved' a top 32 slot for someone else next year.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
What about using 2 handed weapons? Can a weapon be held unreadied in 1 hand while you gesture about?Please no! Not this again!
:)
:) I assume its ok as it seems fairly reasonable. I only ask as I've got a Dwarf cleric in my game who needs a visit from the "we're playing Pathfinder not 2E faery"
I swear I'm not trolling... here. :P
It's a reference to another thread that descended into 'the gish sucks' arguements.
For a cleric if they need a free hand, then yes, holding the two handed weapon in one hand is correct. If it's a bonded weapon like a greatsword, than TPTH have ruled that you must be 'wielding' the weapon to cast, so you can't one hand it while casting if a wizard.
|
|
You say 'loophole' I say design feature.Buckler perks, +1 to AC, spell failure chance. Can cast/use two handed weapon but sacrifice AC.
Small shield perks, +1 to AC spell failure chance. Can't use weapon two handed, but can shield bash. Can cast and hold items though.
Heavy Shield perks, +2 to AC, greater spell failure chance, greater shield bash. Can't hold anything, can't cast.
(This doesn't count Mithral/Masterwork/Darkwood et al)Also the problem with 'lets default to the faq' is that it a) isn't going to be around forever and b) is for a different game system. You wouldn't default to the 3.x faq for Mutants and Masterminds, you shouldn't rely on it for Pathfinder
And thanks, but I can't enter again. Which I think means I can claim to have 'created...
Just for the record, I'm not arguing with you. :)
All I'm saying is that if you were to scrap all backwards compatibility (of which I am a proponent of by the way), disregard all previous errata and FAQs that aren't Pathfinder specific (again, something I am in favor of) and look at the Core book with "fresh" eyes (meaning no previous play/rules experience whatsoever), I'm not sure that you can conclusively say that one interpretation is more valid than the other.
The same way that one can ascribe unwritten attributes to the light shield (via lack of contradictory text) , another can restrict the light shield.
Seeing as how Pathfinder is meant to be backwards compatible and no Pathfinder erratum or FAQs have addressed this issue, this is why I would think it reasonable to refer to a previous errata in this regard. Especially in the (temporary) absence of Pathfinder specific errata/FAQs.
Of course, as always, anyone can do as they please in their own game! That is what I do! :)
Cheers
PS That's right... I forgot about the top finishers not being able to compete again. Well, I still congratulate you sir on a fine job!
...If it's a bonded weapon like a greatsword, than TPTH have ruled that you must be 'wielding' the weapon to cast, so you can't one hand it while casting if a wizard.So by extension, indeed, a Wizard with a bonded quarterstaff can't cast somatic spells w/o the severe concentration check applied when trying to cast spells while not wielding his bonded weapon.
Does anyone else see something very very wrong with this?The penalty for not having the bonded item when casting is (imho) already insanely high, at least high enough that it is almost a complete gamestopper to lose.
It's a bit pathetic, as I see it.Have a familiar? It dies? Well, too bad, he was cute, I'll miss him, in a
week I can get a new one. Luckily I saved some cash for a rainy day.Have a bonded item? It's a weapon? Can't bring it into the audience with the king, can't cast in the surprise round without a high conc check (or use it to draw you weapon in the event that you didn't expect opposition), you've been imprisoned and thus "relived" of your weapons, too bad, suck it up and suck at getting out. It's a necklace? Too bad the thief spotted in the night, now you'll have to find it again while your spellcasting is in the gutter. Ditto for a ring.
And now on top of that, if if your chosen bonded item is a 2handed item, even if you liked the flavor, RAW will prevent you from casting somatic spells as a familiar-enabled Wizard would.
Just a note, as was discussed in the Eldrich Knight thread, the staff is a double weapon. Double weapons can be wielded in 1 hand but only 1 end can attack. I don't like that justification, but that is the way it works.
Just a note, as was discussed in the Eldrich Knight thread, the staff is a double weapon. Double weapons can be wielded in 1 hand but only 1 end can attack. I don't like that justification, but that is the way it works.
Correct, that is lamesauce.
Just a note, as was discussed in the Eldrich Knight thread, the staff is a double weapon. Double weapons can be wielded in 1 hand but only 1 end can attack. I don't like that justification, but that is the way it works.Correct, that is lamesauce.
The ruling was a staff was not a weapon unless ya used it as a double weapon...so it could be held one handed as it was not a twohanded weapon yet......yeah
|
Just a note, as was discussed in the Eldrich Knight thread, the staff is a double weapon. Double weapons can be wielded in 1 hand but only 1 end can attack. I don't like that justification, but that is the way it works.Correct, that is lamesauce.
Actually it really isn't. Double weapons are wielded at their middle, two-handed weapons are wielded at an end. The double weapon's balance point IS it's wield point and is much less cumbersome for one hand than a two-handed weapon's. You can hold a two-handed weapon at the middle, but you definitely aren't wielding it.
YMMV|
|
Both Golarion and the Scarred Lands had Paladin-tailored gods with the Longsword as a holy symbol. In the Scarred Lands, paladins and clerics of Corean could use a heavy shield and still cast if they were weilding a longsword, as it was their holy symbol. Iomedae is like that, but there is a specific magic item in Gods and Magic that allows this, so I assume it's not the default assumption. Kinda makes it a "must have" item, though.
Why not pay a few extra gold to have your holy symbol etched into your shield? Then wielding your shield IS wielding your holy symbol. End of problem for clerics and paladins.
|
|
Why not pay a few extra gold to have your holy symbol etched into your shield? Then wielding your shield IS wielding your holy symbol. End of problem for clerics and paladins.
Once again house rule...and the holy symbol issue isn´t the issue, it´s the somatic requirement. If a spell has V,S,DF, then you need a divine focus in hand AND a hand free to wiggle your fingers around along with the ability to talk. Did I mention somatic weaponry is a must have feat for clerics?
Why not pay a few extra gold to have your holy symbol etched into your shield? Then wielding your shield IS wielding your holy symbol. End of problem for clerics and paladins.Once again house rule...and the holy symbol issue isn´t the issue, it´s the somatic requirement. If a spell has V,S,DF, then you need a divine focus in hand AND a hand free to wiggle your fingers around along with the ability to talk. Did I mention somatic weaponry is a must have feat for clerics?
And since you must be holding your divine focus and performing somatic components with many spells, you need 2 free hands it seems like...
|
|
Why not pay a few extra gold to have your holy symbol etched into your shield? Then wielding your shield IS wielding your holy symbol. End of problem for clerics and paladins.Once again house rule...and the holy symbol issue isn´t the issue, it´s the somatic requirement. If a spell has V,S,DF, then you need a divine focus in hand AND a hand free to wiggle your fingers around along with the ability to talk. Did I mention somatic weaponry is a must have feat for clerics?
why? bucklers and light shields both make for perfectly fine uses for clerics, they just aren't going to be wielding heavy shields. Also somatic weaponry just isn't an option for a lot of games.
|
|
Once again house rule...and the holy symbol issue isn´t the issue, it´s the somatic requirement. If a spell has V,S,DF, then you need a divine focus in hand AND a hand free to wiggle your fingers around along with the ability to talk. Did I mention somatic weaponry is a must have feat for clerics?And since you must be holding your divine focus and performing somatic components with many spells, you need 2 free hands it seems like...
Which would also mean that casting a spell with somatic, material, or focus components is not possible with metamagic rods. So, Silent Spell and Still Spell Metamagic Rods are 100% useless, right, as you would need 3 or four hands to even use them?
Somatic Weaponry is good for a Cleric or Gish that wants to cast and use a Weapon and Heavy/Tower Shield. It is not needed other than that, though, and even then, really doesn't solve anything, according to yur house rule about only Bucklers, as you still need a "free" hand for components/DF.
|
|
Once again house rule...and the holy symbol issue isn´t the issue, it´s the somatic requirement. If a spell has V,S,DF, then you need a divine focus in hand AND a hand free to wiggle your fingers around along with the ability to talk. Did I mention somatic weaponry is a must have feat for clerics?
and
And since you must be holding your divine focus and performing somatic components with many spells, you need 2 free hands it seems like...
This is not in line with previous rulings.
The FAQ wrote:
"Many cleric spells have both a somatic component and a
divine focus. With a somatic component you must have a
free hand to cast, but what about a spell with a divine
focus? Do you need to have a divine focus in your hand to
cast spells? Could a divine focus be worn around you neck?
Or do clerics just need both hands to cast spells?
somatic component, no matter what other components the spell
has. In the case of a divine focus, it is sufficient to simply wear
the focus (usually a holy symbol). Other kinds of focus
components are manipulated during spellcasting along with any
material components the spell has, or they are simply carried on
the caster’s person."
Meaning that a holy symbol only needs to be worn. Additionally material and other focuses can either be merely on your person, or manipulated (read free action) as part of a somatic requirement. Only one free hand is required.
Nothing in the Pathfinder rules that I have found indicates that anything has changed.
The (possible) Pathfinder specific exception is with regards to channeling energy.
The entry for Clerics: Channel Energy (Su) from the core rules (pg. 40) states:
"A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability."
Depending upon your interpretation of "present", you either need to have the symbol in your possession and prominently displayed or you need to have it in hand. I rule the latter in my game. YMMV.
Cheers
Presenting sounds like it just needs to be visible for all to see, as in you can channel energy with your holy symbol openly hanging around your neck, but not if it is tucked into your shirt.