|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Does a bow have the same disadvantages as using a two handed melee weapon for a bonded object? RAW, they need to be wielded, not just held as per this thread :THREAD
Yeah, sadly as it stands you must have en in both hands to count, only a staff is allowed to bypass this for some odd reason.
For once... I think the official ruling should be utterly ignored. No reason to force out two-handed weapons (or bows) from being arcane bonds.
Yes, you would need to hold your bow in your hand, ready for use.
Which means that you can't hold any wands or metamagic rods or anything else in your other hand because you need one hand free for any somatic component. It will get awkward when you have to use a move action to get your wand or rod, a standard action to use it, a move action to put it away, all without being able to complete any spell with a somatic component while you do this.
And even if you do that, you still can't use metamagic rods because you'll need the rod in your hand while you use it to empower (etc.) your spell, which means you have to put down your bow, and if you do, then you'll have to make concentration checks to cast your spells until you get your bow back in hand.
A big pain in the backside.
I suggest sticking with amulets or rings. They're also a whole lot harder to find and sunder, or steal.
|
|
This comes up due to a debate we have as to the survivability of all wizard party starting at level 1. We are going to run the Serpent's Skull adventure using TTopRPG and Skype using 4 wizards. Here was the initiating player's proposal:
Hey,
Related to the previous thread regarding themed parties (using Pathfinder Rules, but not PFS)... I'd like to explore the idea of a party of 4 1st Level Wizards, mixed race, specialty, etc...
Basically, wizards with a slant... melee, stealth, range, AoE, etc...
Obviously, there is a given... It's a Wizard. So, we're trying to fill a niche as best we can within that contraint.
One person gave a sample build that had a bonded short bow that brought this question up.
Lemme try to clear this up.
You wield a bow with one hand; you operate it with two hands.
If you're a wizard with a bonded dagger, while you cast a spell you are simply standing there holding your dagger - you are not lunging with it, stabbing with it, slashing with it, cutting with it. Not while you cast a spell. You're just holding it.
Likewise with a bonded bow. While you cast a spell you are simply standing there hodling your bow. You are not nocking an arrow while you cast, you are not drawing the bowstring, you are not firing an arrow. Not while you cast a spell. You're just holding it.
There should be no difference here.
Sadly it is listed as a two handed weapon, so by the current ruling you must use both hands for it to count as Wielded, only staffs get a pass.
I do not agree, but it is two handed and not a staff, so it does not get a pass.
Edit: to be clear to count as wielded it must be combat wielded, for a bow that means with an arrow, not just held, you can just hold anything but it seems it does not count as wielded unless it is with both hands.
Make all bows elvencraft, there for count as clubs. Now you can wield them one handed to your hearts content
Make all bows elvencraft, there for count as clubs. Now you can wield them one handed to your hearts content
Genus!
Make all bows elvencraft, there for count as clubs. Now you can wield them one handed to your hearts contentGenus!
Species!
Bow, Elvencraft:
One of the biggest problems facing any
archer is deciding what to do when a foe gets within melee
reach. Does one stand fast and take the consequences (which
can prove painful if not deadly), fall back (not always practical),
or drop the bow and draw a melee weapon (inconvenient
at best). Elf bowyers have made the choice somewhat less
diffi cult by crafting bows that can stand up to melee combat.
Thanks to elven ingenuity, these weapons work just as well
as melee weapons as they do as ranged weapons.
An elvencraft bow is thicker and heavier than a normal
bow. An elvencraft shortbow functions as a club when
wielded as a melee weapon. An elvencraft longbow functions
as a quarterstaff when wielded as a melee weapon. The wielder
incurs no penalty on attack rolls when using an elvencraft
bow as a melee weapon.
A character wielding an elvencraft bow can freely interchange
melee and ranged attacks during the same round. When wielding
an elvencraft bow, the user threatens the squares around
him no matter how he last used the weapon.
Magical enhancements to an elvencraft bow only affect its
use as a bow. Enhancements to the melee capabilities of the
weapon must be added separately.
An elvencraft bow costs 300 gp more than a normal bow.
|
Yeah, sadly as it stands you must have en in both hands to count, only a staff is allowed to bypass this for some odd reason.
Which is funny since a staff is listed as a two-handed weapon in the book. So, if you are going to bond a staff, better specify if you are bonding a "Quarterstaff" (two-handed weapon) or a magic item staff (one handed weapon).
As for the bow, I agree that the RAI from James needs to be ignored for this case. For my games, I would rule that you would have to have the weapon in hand, but not that it would have to be wielded or readied.. Either that or state that the wizard has worked with this weapon enough to have it worked into their somatic components.
Oh I agree, it would be ignored in my games as well.
|
|
Oh I agree, it would be ignored in my games as well.
the more I think about it, the more I would go with the "You have worked that weapon into your spellcasting (including the somatic)." This also makes it make more sense for the concentration check when you do not have the weapon in hand. Also makes for some great cinematic casting images in my head (The archer traces a symbol in the air with the end of the arrow that he has notched, you see it glow briefly before it lets fly and the arrow passes through the symbol, gaining some of the glow on the way.)
Agreed, I house rule it the same. Its nice to know the official rule, but eh I always ignore the ones I disagree with :)
Yeah, sadly as it stands you must have en in both hands to count, only a staff is allowed to bypass this for some odd reason.Which is funny since a staff is listed as a two-handed weapon in the book. So, if you are going to bond a staff, better specify if you are bonding a "Quarterstaff" (two-handed weapon) or a magic item staff (one handed weapon).
As for the bow, I agree that the RAI from James needs to be ignored for this case. For my games, I would rule that you would have to have the weapon in hand, but not that it would have to be wielded or readied.. Either that or state that the wizard has worked with this weapon enough to have it worked into their somatic components.
Quarterstaff is a double weapon. As such, it can be wielded in 1 hand. So you could use either.
which was not the reason given, it was "its a wizard staff not a weapon"
P.S. it appears that according to RAW, all casters bonded to weapons (one OR two handed) will be unable to use metamagic rods. The easy way around this would be to have the casters peform scomantic components WITH the bonded object (wiggle the dagger around, twirl staff, Swing sword, etc) which will continue to explain why casters have such trouble when they don't have the bonded item. ("How can I cast Shield when I can't spin my staff five times clockwise?"?
Yes, this answer explains the RAW as to why it's harder to cast a spell without the bonded item, and it allows all bonded items to be equally useful.
I like it.
Though it's a little less meaninful when we ask how this explanation applies to a bonded amulet, since he's not likely to be waving his amulet about.
Still, it's better than the official solution that makes rings and amulets the only truly viable bonded items.
|
|
P.S. it appears that according to RAW, all casters bonded to weapons (one OR two handed) will be unable to use metamagic rods. The easy way around this would be to have the casters peform scomantic components WITH the bonded object (wiggle the dagger around, twirl staff, Swing sword, etc) which will continue to explain why casters have such trouble when they don't have the bonded item. ("How can I cast Shield when I can't spin my staff five times clockwise?"?Yes, this answer explains the RAW as to why it's harder to cast a spell without the bonded item, and it allows all bonded items to be equally useful.
I like it.
Though it's a little less meaninful when we ask how this explanation applies to a bonded amulet, since he's not likely to be waving his amulet about.
Still, it's better than the official solution that makes rings and amulets the only truly viable bonded items.
Maybe rings and amulets are just focus points or kind of a crutch. Heck maybe they do grab the amulet to cast as part of their somatic component. ("There is this one little bump on the left side of the amulet that, when I rub it, helps me focus on softening earth") They never do say exactly what you are doing for the somatic part of spell casting. The book just states:
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
It says nothing about wiggling fingers at all. For all we know, the arcane archer's somatic would be pulling back on the bow sting a specific way.
Quarterstaff is a double weapon. As such, it can be wielded in 1 hand. So you could use either.
Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
You can fight with a double weapon with TWF as if you were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon, or you can use it as a two-handed weapon. You can't wield a double weapon one handed unless you could normally wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. ex. a medium creature wielding a small quarterstaff. In this case, you could only attack with one end in any given round.
P.S. it appears that according to RAW, all casters bonded to weapons (one OR two handed) will be unable to use metamagic rods. The easy way around this would be to have the casters peform scomantic components WITH the bonded object (wiggle the dagger around, twirl staff, Swing sword, etc) which will continue to explain why casters have such trouble when they don't have the bonded item. ("How can I cast Shield when I can't spin my staff five times clockwise?"?
+1
after reading this thread, and the one who speaks about why quarterstaffs can be "wielded" one handedly and a longspear can't, I think I found a way around the dilemma.
Don't wield a bow, wield a curbed quarterstaff, with a string attached to both ends, so you can shoulder it more easily. If your GM asks "isn't that a bow", say "oh, well, I guess it's pretty similar, I might even shoot an arrow or two, but no sir, it's not bow, it's my custommade quarterstaff".
Another idea, don't wield a bow, wield a quite large amulet, it's got a string and a wooden thing, and you can hang it around your neck (well the whole back, but rules don't mention how big an amulet can be). When you're not casting, you might use the amulet to shoot arrows, but hey, it's still your very weird amulet. (a crossbow is easier to wear this way, but anything goes)
if you go strictly by the rules, I can't see how someone can deny you these bonded weapons. Altough I have to admit, that enchanting that amulet would get weird, because you can't enchant it as a weapon. And the curbed quarterstaff can't get enchanted like a ranged weapon.
enjoy bonding your bows... staffs I mean :)