|
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.
Either interpretation is valid IMO. Whatever fits your game.
The reason I go with "in hand" as opposed to "worn" for channel energy, in my game, is due to its ability to be used as an attack. If a caster needs a free hand to cast spells or a fighter needs to hold his weapon, I think it only fair that to channel energy you also need to have your symbol in hand. But that's just me. 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.
I see "presenting" exactly like VanHelsing shoving a cross in Dracula's face, i.e. forcefully with symbol in hand.
|
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.I see "presenting" exactly like VanHelsing shoving a cross in Dracula's face, i.e. forcefully with symbol in hand.
In my campaigns it is assumed that the cleric has his holy symbol emblazoned on his shield, which he can then "present" to Dracula. I've also seen clerics emblazon it on the hilt of their weapon, tattoo it on their skin or emblazon it on their armor.
While this is cool for flavor, I simply require it to be clearly visible on their person and at least as big as a regular holy symbol.
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?
A primary reason we play a roleplaying game such as PFRPG or 3.5 is so that we can do things we can't in computer and video games. What's the point if the DM just looks at you and says "There's no rules that say you can emblazon your holy symbol on your shield and use it to channel energy so you can't do it."
The DM should instead allow the player to do just that as a reward for creative thinking. Not punish them because the DM has the power to do so. Cold Napalm clearly never played during the era of 1st and 2nd edition where there was no such thing as a rules lawyer and the DM's responsibility was to make the game entertaining, not limiting.
|
|
This whole holy symbol presentation issue is easily fixed by taking the "Birthmark" trait, is it not? Any Trait that fixes a whole host of mechanics issues is one that I'll take everytime. And I play Clerics almost exclusively.
The thing is, this issue is but a small part of the larger "problem" of people various interpretations of actions. People have many different ideas about what actions (standard vs free vs move etc) are required to perform a whole myriad in game actions.
It isn't just about Clerics and holy symbols.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The only problematic ability for the Paladin is the swift lay on hands when used on oneself. The sticking a weapon in the ground, lay on self and picking up weapon seems to be a bit more than what a swift action would cover.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.
There's a dirty joke in there somewhere...
|
|
The only problematic ability for the Paladin is the swift lay on hands when used on oneself. The sticking a weapon in the ground, lay on self and picking up weapon seems to be a bit more than what a swift action would cover.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.
I don't see why the paladin needs to drop his weapon at all to "lay on hands" when I played a paladin and when I run a game with paladins in it they can just touch their fist to their body like a salute with the weapon in it and get the lay on hands effect. It doesn't say Lay on Empty open palms"
I don't see why the paladin needs to drop his weapon at all to "lay on hands" when I played a paladin and when I run a game with paladins in it they can just touch their fist to their body like a salute with the weapon in it and get the lay on hands effect. It doesn't say Lay on Empty open palms"
Head-butt o' healing
|
|
I don't see why the paladin needs to drop his weapon at all to "lay on hands" when I played a paladin and when I run a game with paladins in it they can just touch their fist to their body like a salute with the weapon in it and get the lay on hands effect. It doesn't say Lay on Empty open palms"
According to the rules on page 61 you do indeed need one free hand.
"Despite the name of this ability, a paladin
only needs one free hand to use this ability."
That being said... we house rule that away and allow the paladin to lay on hands (self only) without a free hand. Whatever your campaign style desires is the best answer.
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.
FAQ me.
Switching weapons in hands has been clarified as a move in 3.5.
I don't recall anyone asking for a source on this, so I will. I don't see it listed as a move action in the reference table for actions in combat. Nor can I imagine simply moving an object from one hand to the other taking as much as a move action.
|
|
Switching weapons in hands has been clarified as a move in 3.5.I don't recall anyone asking for a source on this, so I will. I don't see it listed as a move action in the reference table for actions in combat. Nor can I imagine simply moving an object from one hand to the other taking as much as a move action.
It isn't a defined what action is required in the core 3.5 rule books. The final 3.5 FAQ includes a number of statements/rulings regarding transfer of weapons between hands and/or the use of free hands for somatic components and material components. See pages 11 and 17.
Switching weapons in hands has been clarified as a move in 3.5.I don't recall anyone asking for a source on this, so I will. I don't see it listed as a move action in the reference table for actions in combat. Nor can I imagine simply moving an object from one hand to the other taking as much as a move action.
In pathfinder switching weapons in hands is a free action, i clearly remember a post of James Jacobs that said so, unfortunately i can't find it.
In pathfinder switching weapons in hands is a free action, i clearly remember a post of James Jacobs that said so, unfortunately i can't find it.Switching weapons in hands has been clarified as a move in 3.5.I don't recall anyone asking for a source on this, so I will. I don't see it listed as a move action in the reference table for actions in combat. Nor can I imagine simply moving an object from one hand to the other taking as much as a move action.
I just posted it in another thread. I will see if I can find it.
Link to my post that links to James' post
edit:Wrong link, stand by
edit2: correct link
James-->Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action, so the end result is the same whether or not you use the light shield hand to lay on hands or your weapon hand after switching your weapon to the off hand, and then back to your weapon hand.
That said, yes, I think a feat that allows you to somatic with your bonded weapon is a good idea.
Doesn't Still Spell get this done? You trade a +1 slot for the specific bonded weapon requirement.
|
|
In pathfinder switching weapons in hands is a free action, i clearly remember a post of James Jacobs that said so, unfortunately i can't find it.Switching weapons in hands has been clarified as a move in 3.5.I don't recall anyone asking for a source on this, so I will. I don't see it listed as a move action in the reference table for actions in combat. Nor can I imagine simply moving an object from one hand to the other taking as much as a move action.
The situation in PF is somewhat analogous to the situation in 3.5. The rulebook says nothing about what move action is required; the two rule systems are identical in this regard. In D&D 3.5, the clarification was made in the FAQ, a document produced by the the publishing organization. In PF, the clarification was made in a forum post by James. The FAQ format has taken on a higher degree of authority and durability than a forum post. On the other hand, for some readers, the D&D 3.5 FAQ has no weight at all.
Functionally, the difference is that the PF ruling provides more flexibility for a character's action at cost of reducing tactical problem solving and meaningful differentiation between different types of equipment. Various PF rules resources may be written in such a manner that assume either casual clarifications, such as this one, or which require a given interpretation in order to make sense. Examples include class abilities that involve spellcasting and two-handed weapons, as well as the Shield Master fighter archetype and fighting with two weapons.
I removed an offensive post and a reply to it.
Flag it and move on.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That said, yes, I think a feat that allows you to somatic with your bonded weapon is a good idea.Doesn't Still Spell get this done? You trade a +1 slot for the specific bonded weapon requirement.
Damn, talk about trying to remember what you wrote... ;-)
Still spell is kind of like that. The difference I see is that you can still spell when <i>held</i> or chained up, or when you have your fork and knife in hand and eating dinner, as well as when you're using your bonded greatsword.
I'd say a 'somatic weaponry' feat (I think that's what it was called in the 3.5 PHB II) shouldn't have the spell level adjustment. It's very specialized. I can still spell for a variety of situations. I can 'cast somatic spells with my two handed weapon' only when I have that two handed weapon in both hands.
Back to the Shield debate.
What if my Cleric uses a Mithral Heavy Shield of 7.5 or Darkwood Heavy Shield of 5 pounds - both would be light in terms of encumbrance. Plus, according to the Core rulebook Mithral armor is considered one category lighter. Hence, a Mithral Heavy Shield would be treated like a Light Shield, right?
Could the Cleric caste somatic spells using a special material heavy shield?
Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light.
This is referring to actual armor, not shields.
Shield don't impact your movement, nor do they have a medium category.PS:I really wish they would have said suits of armor when talking about the armor that does not include shields.
Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light.This is referring to actual armor, not shields.
Shield don't impact your movement, nor do they have a medium category.PS:I really wish they would have said suits of armor when talking about the armor that does not include shields.
Thanks for the clarification. However, could my Cleric still caste a somatic spell using a special material Heavy Shield? I'm just curious to know if there are any errata or FAQ about this issue. Thanks.
Only if your other hand is free otherwise nope.
Check with your GM on light shields and how he wants those handled if you size down.
I dont like the wording of 'the heavy shield is too heavy to hold anything'
surely thats down to strength?
In our games we let clerics cast with HS and weapon, and wizards with a QS in there hand.
At some point the game has to move passed 'backwards compatibilty'....if backward is so go good why move forward anyway!!!!
I ignore the heavy shield also since I see no reason to have the shield if it interferes with spell casting.
The quarterstaff is not an issue since you can remove one hand from it to cast a spell as a free action. That shield however is strapped to your arm.
At least a feat that allowed you to cast with the heavy shield in hand, other than still spell should have been made, IMHO.