If I have a weapon, let's say a longsword, as my arcane bond, then I have to be wielding the longsword. The way I read this, the sword must be drawn from its sheath and in my hand. Is this correct, or can the weapon still be in its sheath so long as my hand is on the hilt?
Yes, wielding a weapon means holding it in your hand ready to strike. That's also why 2handed weapons make for poor arcane bonds: You must wield it in both hands, preventing you from doing any somatic spell component.
Which is retarded...I really wish they would just let arcane bonded weapons do somatic...i mean honestly it's like the worst choice there is already...which is why I bind my shield :P .
Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond
must fall into one of the following categories: amulet,
ring, staff, wand, or weapon.
As for wielded, it just means you have to have it in your hand and held at the ready, whether you are casting Fireball or Fly.
|
Which is retarded...I really wish they would just let arcane bonded weapons do somatic...i mean honestly it's like the worst choice there is already...which is why I bind my shield :P .As for wielded, it just means you have to have it in your hand and held at the ready, whether you are casting Fireball or Fly.Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond
must fall into one of the following categories: amulet,
ring, staff, wand, or weapon.
shield is a weapon.
Thanks, everyone.
Remember that you must be WIELDING your bonded weapon every time you want to cast without to do a concentration check (DC 20+spell level), so it could be annoying during some events like a diplomatic encounter or in front of a King...
It's those diplomatic situations that raises the concern for me. That leads me to prefer some other arcane bonded item over a weapon, which sucks because I like the flavour of an arcane bonded weapon. It also sucks for the arcane duelist (bard archetype) and the magus, since they have to use arcane bond with a weapon.
Does anyone see any issues arise if I houserule this one somehow? What if you only need to have your hand on it, but it can be in its sheath? What problems, if any, might arise from that?
|
I can't possibly imagine an issue if you houserule it to be hand-on-the-weapon. Just make the ruling clear that you can't cheese it by having other stuff in that hand.
Also note that bonding a staff gets around this. Surely you wouldn't deny an old man his walking staff?
except then you have to have both hands on it and cant perform any of the somatic components
|
SRK recently quoted Monty Cook that the game allows you to make sub-optimal choices. I'm not saying that a weapon is a sub-optimal choice, and it has a lot of good flavor. However, it also brings some baggage along with it.
Personally, I wouldn't go with houseruling this away, but to each their own. That conversation might best be directed to the house rule forum.
One of the upsides for bonding with a weapon is that you can enchant it as if you had the CA&A feat without actually having that feat.
|
|
shield is a weapon.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with the bonded shield, but from the recent threads on enchanting shields, I think it's clear that not everyone shares that opinion. I wouldn't use it in a shared game environment, such as PFS, though.
Shield brings ASF with it, although this can be solved via masterwork and mithral.
Yes, wielding a weapon means holding it in your hand ready to strike.
Which is exactly why I chose an amulet for my arcane bond instead of my weapon. As a Sorceror, I really would almost never find the need to take my weapon out, much less having to always keep it in my hand to cast spells. And nevermind the fact it can be taken away/sundered much more easily that way.
except then you have to have both hands on it and cant perform any of the somatic componentsI can't possibly imagine an issue if you houserule it to be hand-on-the-weapon. Just make the ruling clear that you can't cheese it by having other stuff in that hand.
Also note that bonding a staff gets around this. Surely you wouldn't deny an old man his walking staff?
Double weapons can be wielded with one hand, see Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, pg. 141:
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.
It's not that it's a staff, it's that a staff is a double weapon.
was then wondering if there was a game balance reason for having to wave your sword about in order to cast spells.
Basically, it's treating a weapon (including a staff) the same as a wand. Using a wand to gesture when casting spells is a classic trope.
All wearable bonded items must be worn. All non-wearable bonded items must be held/wielded.
Personally, I would also prefer that the gestures with the held object satisfy the somatic casting component, without the need for the other hand to be free.
|
except then you have to have both hands on it and cant perform any of the somatic componentsIncorrect, you can cast with a staff, which is an exception.
Correct response, incorrect reason. ;-)
The staff is not an exception to the rule, a staff is a double weapon and therefore can be wielded in one hand normally without requiring an exception.