| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
In preparing to meet and defeat Liebdaga...
I ruled (interim-wise): NOT!, but I ain't sure.
What do you think?
Kind regards
|
In preparing to meet and defeat Liebdaga...
** spoiler omitted **
What do you think?
Kind regards
Interesting question. Like you, I'd have ruled no, but it could be argued the other way. Hadn'y thought about that. I would, however, say the Paladin has to be using the weapons and dual-wielding paladins are not common.
Should probably been in the rules forum, though
My DM ruled that you had to use multiple uses of the ability per weapon, but the class feature does say that the bond ONLY functions for the Paladin herself. So no handing off the weapon after it has a holy or bane property. :)
Thank you for your input so far. I searched the boards "Divine Bond" but no "official" answer is provided yet. You guess right - there are two different-minded parties...
The rules do not say anything about having multiple divine bonds and they usually explicitly state when you can only have one use of an effect at a single time.
I see no reason why the paladin could not have multiple divine bonds. The rules talk about "her weapon", but the stereotypical paladin does not dual wield (although that will easily change as optimizers enjoy the fun of full smite damage on both weapons).
In preparing to meet and defeat Liebdaga...
** spoiler omitted **
What do you think?
Kind regards
I don't think that was the intent, but I can't prove it with the rules so I hit the FAQ button. This might not help your group right now, but hopefully we can get an answer soon.
In preparing to meet and defeat Liebdaga...
** spoiler omitted **
What do you think?
Kind regards
I think you may be reversing your decision if you are trying to play by the rules. Divine Bond is an effect that can be used multiple times per day (at least 9th level) targeted on a weapon in possession of the Paladin. Those are pretty much the only restrictions. The description even mentions double weapons (only one end gets the effect) so the designers did take into account something other than a 1H or 2H weapon. Also if your idea of a typical paladin is a 1H and shield, technically they're using 2 weapons (shield bash).
What it comes down to is they need to be 9th level, use 2 rounds (2 standard actions) to prepare, and are blowing all (or most of the) resources of the ability for the day on 1 encounter, and have to use feats (something the paladin doesn't get for free). Far from broken.
I think you may be reversing your decision if you are trying to play by the rules. Divine Bond is an effect that can be used multiple times per day (at least 9th level) targeted on a weapon in possession of the Paladin. Those are pretty much the only restrictions. The description even mentions double weapons (only one end gets the effect) so the designers did take into account something other than a 1H or 2H weapon. Also if your idea of a typical paladin is a 1H and shield, technically they're using 2 weapons (shield bash).
What it comes down to is they need to be 9th level, use 2 rounds (2 standard actions) to prepare, and are blowing all (or most of the) resources of the ability for the day on 1 encounter, and have to use feats (something the paladin doesn't get for free). Far from broken.
+1
Nothing specifically prevents it, and it is not really unbalanced.
Although the RAW isn't clear on this, I think the RAI is that you can only have one celestial spirit bonded to a weapon at one one time. In fact, there are several indicators that this was the intention.
For instance, the power can only be used on the paladin's weapon and only functions while wielded by him. This put's paid to multiple characters using the weapons (and if that was the player's intention in the OP then Scharlata ruled correctly). Of course, the player might be a dual-wielder or use a weapon/shield combo so that's when RAW and RAI get fuzzy.
The paladin loses the ability to use divine bond for 30 days if his weapon is destroyed. Now assuming he can summon multiple celestial spirits at once why does this heavy restriction exist? Some might say that it's a penalty imposed by the paladin's god, but just as likely an explanation is that the paladin can only summon one celestial spirit at a time and if it is destroyed he must wait to summon another one. In fact, if the paladin follows a philosophical ideal rather than a god, this second reasoning suddenly makes much more sense.
Now this entire thread hangs on the fact that you can use the ability multiple times per day. Now I think the RAI here is quite clear. It was intended that the paladin can call the celestial spirit to inhabit his weapon more than once a day. A handy ability if the paladin is in multiple fights per day over an extended peroid of time. Unfortunately, since the RAW weren't more discerning we have arguments. I will leave you with this thought however. ;-)
The paladin's mount can be called multiple times a day at higher levels, so does that mean the paladin can call multiple mounts at once that all his friends can ride? Many people might feel I am playing with words, but technically there is nothing different between the abilities. They both summon a celestial servant, one which takes on a physical form and one which possesses a physical form. So what's the problem?
Although the RAW isn't clear on this, I think the RAI is that you can only have one celestial spirit bonded to a weapon at one one time. In fact, there are several indicators that this was the intention.
For instance, the power can only be used on the paladin's weapon and only functions while wielded by him. This put's paid to multiple characters using the weapons (and if that was the player's intention in the OP then Scharlata ruled correctly). Of course, the player might be a dual-wielder or use a weapon/shield combo so that's when RAW and RAI get fuzzy.
The paladin loses the ability to use divine bond for 30 days if his weapon is destroyed. Now assuming he can summon multiple celestial spirits at once why does this heavy restriction exist? Some might say that it's a penalty imposed by the paladin's god, but just as likely an explanation is that the paladin can only summon one celestial spirit at a time and if it is destroyed he must wait to summon another one. In fact, if the paladin follows a philosophical ideal rather than a god, this second reasoning suddenly makes much more sense.
Now this entire thread hangs on the fact that you can use the ability multiple times per day. Now I think the RAI here is quite clear. It was intended that the paladin can call the celestial spirit to inhabit his weapon more than once a day. A handy ability if the paladin is in multiple fights per day over an extended peroid of time. Unfortunately, since the RAW weren't more discerning we have arguments. I will leave you with this thought however. ;-)
The paladin's mount can be called multiple times a day at higher levels, so does that mean the paladin can call multiple mounts at once that all his friends can ride? Many people might feel I am playing with words, but technically there is nothing different between the abilities. They both summon a celestial servant, one which takes on a physical form and one which possesses a physical form. So what's the problem?
No offense, but arguing RAI is a fool's errand as none of us are the game designers. In the rules forum it is much better to figure out what the rules ALLOW than intend. If the DM wants to read their own intention into it, by all means that is always an option, they can make stuff up whenever (well maybe not in organized play).
You say it is RAI, I say it isn't; We're both right in the confines of our own game. Within the confines of RAW, only one of us is. The rules text state what you can do (enchant a weapon) and that only one end of a double weapon is enchanted (what kind of Paladin uses a double weapon?) per use. It doesn't say the other side of the weapon is a invalid target nor that two weapons isn't an option. I'd say my ruling follows the intent of the rules as written a lot closer than yours does.
My "side" actually is a penalty in response to the drawback of the ability. There are now 2 targets to sunder increasing the chances of something bad happening (losing the ability). Reading anything more into that than what is said doesn't make your case, it just means you are trying to rationalize something "your" way by making things up to make your case. It doesn't say you have 1 celestial spirit, it says your bond with a god allows you to gain the help of a celestial spirit. It doesn't say if "THE" weapon is destroyed it says "A" weapon, no where does RAW make your case.
As for the mount, it is a celestial spirit. It isn't necessarily the same spirit. It says nothing about that, nor does it say the mount shows up with gear or leaves with it. All it says is you get a mount (which apparently you need to gear up every time it is "summoned") with X stats every time you use it. Every time you use the ability you could in fact CHANGE which mount shows up (earlier in the day I had a horse, I get a camel this time as we're on the edge of the desert or some such) and change the stats around (feats). It is easier to keep the same thing (barding and saddle will work) and book keeping (feats and stat bumps) for combat. But it isn't a necessity by any means.
The problem with it, is you are reading things into the rules that don't exist and so aren't as useful for a rules discussion outside your game.
Although the RAW isn't clear on this, I think the RAI is that you can only have one celestial spirit bonded to a weapon at one one time. In fact, there are several indicators that this was the intention.
The paladin loses the ability to use divine bond for 30 days if his weapon is destroyed. Now assuming he can summon multiple celestial spirits at once why does this heavy restriction exist? Some might say that it's a penalty imposed by the paladin's god, but just as likely an explanation is that the paladin can only summon one celestial spirit at a time and if it is destroyed he must wait to summon another one. In fact, if the paladin follows a philosophical ideal rather than a god, this second reasoning suddenly makes much more sense.
Now this entire thread hangs on the fact that you can use the ability multiple times per day. Now I think the RAI here is quite clear. It was intended that the paladin can call the celestial spirit to inhabit his weapon more than once a day. A handy ability if the paladin is in multiple fights per day over an extended peroid of time. Unfortunately, since the RAW weren't more discerning we have arguments. I will leave you with this thought however. ;-)
The paladin's mount can be called multiple times a day at higher levels, so does that mean the paladin can call multiple mounts at once that all his friends can ride? Many people might feel I am playing with words, but technically there is nothing different between the abilities. They both summon a celestial servant, one which takes on a physical form and one which possesses a physical form. So what's the problem?
No offense, but arguing RAI is a fool's errand as none of us are the game designers. In the rules forum it is much better to figure out what the rules ALLOW than intend. If the DM wants to read their own intention into it, by all means that is always an option, they can make stuff up whenever (well maybe not in organized play).
Ignoring Phil's points means the restrictions have no merit. I think people come to the rules forum to find intent since many rules can be read in many different ways. It is easy to read what the rules say. The hard part is finding intent.
Ignoring Phil's points means the restrictions have no merit. I think people come to the rules forum to find intent since many rules can be read in many different ways. It is easy to read what the rules say. The hard part is finding intent.
When dealing with rules we're dealing with constructs created to allow for things to happen in a certain way in a game. Phil's points are fluff given to the mechanics. Strip away the fluff and the mechanics keep working. Alter the fluff and the mechanics still work in the way they are balanced with a differing perception of the ability. Strip away the fluff and nothing truly changes, strip away the rules and EVERYTHING changes. You are no longer playing a game, you're involved with a story. That is the difference between a campaign setting and the PRD/SRD used to play numerous differing settings. Fluff.
I'd say people come to the rules forum to see how the mechanics of the game work. If we're looking for reasoning we aren't looking for rules, we're looking for justification for our perception of things and a reason to change the rules to be one way or another. You don't need rules for a story, you need them for a game. You NEED rules for a game, for some sort of balance, the fluff is incidental.
It's even easier to say the rules work one way because you think they should instead of actually doing some leg work and think through things objectively.
Ignoring Phil's points means the restrictions have no merit. I think people come to the rules forum to find intent since many rules can be read in many different ways. It is easy to read what the rules say. The hard part is finding intent.When dealing with rules we're dealing with constructs created to allow for things to happen in a certain way in a game. Phil's points are fluff given to the mechanics. Strip away the fluff and the mechanics keep working. Alter the fluff and the mechanics still work in the way they are balanced with a differing perception of the ability. Strip away the fluff and nothing truly changes, strip away the rules and EVERYTHING changes. You are no longer playing a game, you're involved with a story. That is the difference between a campaign setting and the PRD/SRD used to play numerous differing settings. Fluff.
I'd say people come to the rules forum to see how the mechanics of the game work. If we're looking for reasoning we aren't looking for rules, we're looking for justification for our perception of things and a reason to change the rules to be one way or another. You don't need rules for a story, you need them for a game. You NEED rules for a game, for some sort of balance, the fluff is incidental.
It's even easier to say the rules work one way because you think they should instead of actually doing some leg work and think through things objectively.
How the game works is RAI not RAW. An example is the FAQ on rays being eligible for improved critical. By RAW it does not work but by RAI(the way the game works) it does. Now without an FAQ or errata it is impossible to determine RAI sometimes, but RAI should always be the goal. You can go RAW, but my dead character will still be taking actions.
How the game works is RAI not RAW. An example is the FAQ on rays being eligible for improved critical. By RAW it does not work but by RAI(the way the game works) it does. Now without an FAQ or errata it is impossible to determine RAI sometimes, but RAI should always be the goal. You can go RAW, but my dead character will still be taking actions.Ignoring Phil's points means the restrictions have no merit. I think people come to the rules forum to find intent since many rules can be read in many different ways. It is easy to read what the rules say. The hard part is finding intent.When dealing with rules we're dealing with constructs created to allow for things to happen in a certain way in a game. Phil's points are fluff given to the mechanics. Strip away the fluff and the mechanics keep working. Alter the fluff and the mechanics still work in the way they are balanced with a differing perception of the ability. Strip away the fluff and nothing truly changes, strip away the rules and EVERYTHING changes. You are no longer playing a game, you're involved with a story. That is the difference between a campaign setting and the PRD/SRD used to play numerous differing settings. Fluff.
I'd say people come to the rules forum to see how the mechanics of the game work. If we're looking for reasoning we aren't looking for rules, we're looking for justification for our perception of things and a reason to change the rules to be one way or another. You don't need rules for a story, you need them for a game. You NEED rules for a game, for some sort of balance, the fluff is incidental.
It's even easier to say the rules work one way because you think they should instead of actually doing some leg work and think through things objectively.
OK, RAW says it doesn't. The designers issue an FAQ/Errata saying it does with the appropriate wording changes (or what have you). That official FAQ/Errata/what ever fancy acronym or named document they want to call it becomes RAW. The game designers changed the way the game works and I'm okay with this as they are the ones who know intent and can officially issue documented changes. Any other Tom, Dick or Jane (myself included) haven't a clue what INTENT was supposed to be so we are left with RAW.
A FAQ doesn't invalidate all other printed material because one mistake was made. Saying that an FAQ was issued because of issue "ranged touch attacks and feat interaction" makes RAW of Divine Bond invalid is moronic and opens the door to all the rules being wrong as intent was obviously not [insert your contrary thinking of stated RAW]. Again, I'm not saying you can't play the way you want to "intend it" in your game. I'm saying in organized play there isn't anything to keep a player from using it twice on two weapons, if that was the intent the wording would have been different. If the wording of RAW doesn't follow the designers intent we will be seeing a FAQ or Errata. I'm not going to hold my breath and wait for the designers to correct everything I don't think is right with the game, I'm going to play by the RAW, not some theoretical FAQ based on intent that may exist only in my head.
Until something like that is published we are left with RAW. I'm in the rules forum, intent is something we cannot know. I'm not going to argue something I don't know as I know I don't know it and I feel that doing so makes me look like an idiot. I'm not an idiot, I do know that.
As for the dead character taking actions, fine, if your DM and campaign allow for your soul to continue to be operated by the player after death I haven't got a problem with that. The body is left there decaying.
OK, RAW says it doesn't. The designers issue an FAQ/Errata saying it does with the appropriate wording changes (or what have you). That official FAQ/Errata/what ever fancy acronym or named document they want to call it becomes RAW. The game designers changed the way the game works and I'm okay with this as they are the ones who know intent and can officially issue documented changes. Any other Tom, Dick or Jane (myself included) haven't a clue what INTENT was supposed to be so we are left with RAW.
That is incorrect. It is normally easy to figure out RAI. Not being able to prove something does not mean I have no idea what I am talking about. I have been right several times, but a developer had to come in and agree with me. I have been wrong also of course, but I have a high success rate. You not having a clue does not mean nobody else does. A lot of times other rules set precedence. FAQ's don't change RAW by the way. They only show intent. The only thing that changes RAW is errata.
As for the specific issue the rules don't say you can't have two weapons, but allowing two weapons ignores the penalty. That makes no sense so either one should just get rid of the penalty or say using two weapons is illegal.
The FAQ is not theoretical. It is made by the designers to clear up bad wording without rewriting the book. I can get you a link if you need one.
Until something like that is published we are left with RAW.
I guess you do need one-->click me
As for the dead character taking actions, fine, if your DM and campaign allow for your soul to continue to be operated by the player after death I haven't got a problem with that. The body is left there decaying.
The point was not about whether or not you cared for it. The point was that following RAW blindly can lead to some idiotic situations. It is these times the we need to use common sense. The book is not written in legalese for a good reasons. It would cost a lot more, and take a lot longer to be made.
That is incorrect. It is normally easy to figure out RAI. Not being able to prove something does not mean I have no idea what I am talking about. I have been right several times, but a developer had to come in and agree with me. I have been wrong also of course, but I have a high success rate. You not having a clue does not mean nobody else does. A lot of times other rules set precedence. FAQ's don't change RAW by the way. They only show intent. The only thing that changes RAW is errata.
As for the specific issue the rules don't say you can't have two weapons, but allowing two weapons ignores the penalty. That makes no sense so either one should just get rid of the penalty or say using two weapons is illegal.
The FAQ is not theoretical. It is made by the designers to clear up bad wording without rewriting the book. I can get you a link if you need one.
Operating under the ASSUMPTION you are right, I guess RAI is easy. Unfortunately as there are in fact differing opinions on what is right and wrong for what RAI is here, we can't assume you are correct and RAI is no longer easy. Whether or not you you've been right 100% of the time is great until you are wrong, and past "successes" in arguing something mean nothing to me. Hell, ME being wrong means nothing to me. I will happily change my stance on the subject once you can bring conclusive text or rules to do so. As for FAQ/Errata, thanks for bringing that up as Paizo has stated they don't want to make Errata documents for their own reasons and are going to be putting out FAQ's in Errata's stead. Whatever title it is, it is still a posted official rules fix which is exactly why I used the terminology I did. If the title was "HONKING BIG MESS UPS" it would still be errata when they say this text is wrong and should say this instead.
And could you read what I am saying and attempt to actually comprehend it? I'm not saying the FAQ where you linked is theoretical... I'm saying the RAI you are wanting to be expounded on because RAW states something that doesn't exactly list what you think should be happening is theoretical. Until it is put in print or out as and official medium of some sort, it doesn't exist. Enforcing penalties on an ability because they could be intended and might be corrected in a theoretical FAQ that doesn't exist because you think that is RAI... Until the FAQ/Errata/BIG HONKING MESS UP document is out, what you think should be happening is no right or wrong than anyone else even if you have been right in the past. Seeing as you aren't "right" without definable text in the rule book to back up what you think should be happening, when someone else can say "here the text says this" and there are no restrictions other than X or Y, you are in fact WRONG as far as RAW is concerned. If it comes between using someones intent and what they think could be the reason and the RAW stating something else, RAW wins as it is more objective and was written by the actual game designers.
Until something like that is published we are left with RAW.
I guess you do need one-->click me
Read above, the published FAQ means nothing as it pertains to this problem. FAQs exist, yes, but so does RAW and RAW is RAW until your theoretical document appears. You think it should be one way, give me text supporting it in the particular case. Again, if "proving" yourself "right" by your RAI is dependent on a hopefully soon to be document that could actually be ruled either way, you make a very poor case in your argument.
The point was not about whether or not you cared for it. The point was that following RAW blindly can lead to some idiotic situations. It is these times the we need to use common sense. The book is not written in legalese for a good reasons. It would cost a lot more, and take a lot longer to be made.
Some situations where you role play a spirit either in a good place because your god was pleased with your or a bad place because they weren't or because of what you did before you died??? I'll happily role play that situation if given the opportunity, but my characters body is stated to be where it was when I died and decomposing. That is ridiculous to you? I am using common sense, I'm not reading into things the way you are. I'm not assuming that things should be some particular way when the written rules say something. If you want do it that way fine, but when I read an ability that states something is possible and these are the effects, I can use the ability in that way. You say it is wrong as you get one spirit, I say there is no single defined spirit and each use of the ability calls for some spirit aiding my god to help me in turn further our gods plans. You say it is wrong because it avoids some sort of penalty that isn't stated, I say the penalty is defined as not being able to give the weapon to someone else to use and losing the ability if the weapon is destroyed, I'm still using it regardless of if it is a single weapon or a double weapon with two sides imbued or two separate weapons imbued. The spirit is still doing what it is supposed to be, helping me and I'm still using my daily uses of the ability to power it. I'm not "getting around" anything, I'm still bound by the penalty.
If you are looking for an idiotic situation, take a look at your argument and the ability again. If being able to use an ability on multiple weapons is a balance issue and against RAI there are plenty of other abilities that do the same, more often and situationally better at lower levels (arcane strike anyone?). My stance on it follows RAW and isn't some broken unbalanced ridiculous situation and I don't have to read into it any or make things up, can the same be said about yours?
First I will have to rewrite one sentence. The not having a clue comment was based on me thinking you saying nobody has a clue. I was not saying you were to dumb to read the rules. It was on of those things that just came out wrong. I do apologize for the bad wording.
Now for any counters I may have to what you wrote:
The point with my success rate quote was only to counter your point that we can not know what the intent was, not to say I have designer level rules knowledge. I just don't think you need to be a designer to put 2 and 2 together(sometimes).
I posted the link because you said no such document existed.
The mentioning of the FAQ was to show proof that RAI, not RAW was the intention of the designers, and I will say once again that RAI is normally, but not always easy to figure out. The rules state clear as day what the conditions are most of the time, but when you start to think about it and things don't make sense you have to make judgement calls. Sometimes a person may figure out the intent, and other times not.
I will forgive the insults due to my accidental first blow. Can we get back to the topic now?
The ability clearly shows that a restriction should be there. Your wanting to follow RAW allows a loop hole. If a DM is going to allow the loophole he might as well just not have the penalty there at all. Either the stance is the penalty should exist and a DM should enforce it, or the penalty should just be ignored. I don't think there is an argument for the penalty to be ignored, but there is one there for it to be enforced just due to the fact that it exist.
First I will have to rewrite one sentence. The not having a clue comment was based on me thinking you saying nobody has a clue. I was not saying you were to dumb to read the rules. It was on of those things that just came out wrong. I do apologize for the bad wording.
Now for any counters I may have to what you wrote:
The point with my success rate quote was only to counter your point that we can not know what the intent was, not to say I have designer level rules knowledge. I just don't think you need to be a designer to put 2 and 2 together(sometimes).
I posted the link because you said no such document existed.
The mentioning of the FAQ was to show proof that RAI, not RAW was the intention of the designers, and I will say once again that RAI is normally, but not always easy to figure out. The rules state clear as day what the conditions are most of the time, but when you start to think about it and things don't make sense you have to make judgement calls. Sometimes a person may figure out the intent, and other times not.
I will forgive the insults due to my accidental first blow. Can we get back to the topic now?
The ability clearly shows that a restriction should be there. Your wanting to follow RAW allows a loop hole. If a DM is going to allow the loophole he might as well just not have the penalty there at all. Either the stance is the penalty should exist and a DM should enforce it, or the penalty should just be ignored. I don't think there is an argument for the penalty to be ignored, but there is one there for it to be enforced just due to the fact that it exist.
I didn't take it that way ;)
I'd say I have just as much rules knowledge and so my opinion should count just as much as yours. Just because I'm arguing RAW on the forums doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on balance, I'm really big on balance (just ask our normal DM) but I can't argue balance in a game other than ours as there are so many things that could be changed. That leaves RAW, RAW is across the board until house ruled. It is something we can all sit down and discuss because it is the common ground in all games once we objectively back out our house rules and look at it.
Nothing I said was insulting (nor was it intended to).
I never said a FAQ didn't exist, I said the one you seem to think should exist, doesn't.
I was pointing out my post said nothing about an existing FAQ and that you seem to think an FAQ or something should be created, which would be theoretical. Basing an assumption that it should be some way on something that doesn't exist yet is irrational at best, it is flawed reasoning. It amounts to a long winded "It should be that way because I think it should." That isn't good enough for me to change my stance on RAW.
Again that was RAI for that particular reason, that doesn't mean it is for every reason you might find or decide to argue against RAW.
A restriction is there, only you can use the weapon to its full effect once imbued. Period, full stop. Nothing else is mentioned besides losing the ability for allowing a weapon imbued to be destroyed (God said you aren't playing nice with the toys I gave you, no more toys during your time out). That is a "loop hole" only because you say it is, which is in fact an opinion, how you think RAI meant it. There isn't anything to back that up in the text. A penalty does exist, you just want to enforce a larger penalty (more than is written in the ability), that is your take on it. That is fine but it isn't RAW and may not even be RAI. My stance still enforces the penalty written into the ability and doesn't break RAI as per the written ability (as it doesn't ignore the penalty stated of having to use the weapon themselves, nor ignore the action cost or daily uses).
|
|
Divine Bond functions based on the channeling of a celestial spirit into a weapon. If that weapon is destroyed you lose this ability for 30 days by RAW. I think its safe to say there is only a single celestial spirit here rather than multiples that can channeled into multiple weapons at the same time.
Afterall, if there were multiple celestial spirits then having a weapon with divine bond be destroyed should not hamper the use of this ability as the Paladin would just be able to summon up another celestial spirit. However this is not the case.
That should be enough for most readers to make their choice when playing/running Divine Bond.
-Cheers!
*quietly ducks back out of the thread*
Divine Bond functions based on the channeling of a celestial spirit into a weapon. If that weapon is destroyed you lose this ability for 30 days by RAW. I think its safe to say there is only a single celestial spirit here rather than multiples that can channeled into multiple weapons at the same time.
Afterall, if there were multiple celestial spirits then having a weapon with divine bond be destroyed should not hamper the use of this ability as the Paladin would just be able to summon up another celestial spirit. However this is not the case.
That should be enough for most readers to make their choice when playing/running Divine Bond.
-Cheers!
*quietly ducks back out of the thread*
Again your assumption is that there is a particular spirit that is being called on. It doesn't say that, it says when it is used (the ability) a celestial spirit boosts your weapon. Even in the case of the mount you can choose every use to get something different every time you use it (it is more advantageous to get the same thing however). I'd argue because of the open ended wording you aren't getting a specific spirit but when you use it one of numerous spirits following the god at that particular time are being called on. So that being said, it isn't "safe to say" anything of the sort.
My stance for RAW means the penalty for allowing the item to be destroyed is because the god is displeased for allowing the character to let that happen, not because the spirit doesn't exist until replaced. That is an equally viable interpretation that follows RAI as it pertains to the wording of RAW. If the item is destroyed the paladin loses the ability, if the character had two items imbued the other weapon would stop working (the ability no longer exists). So again your "this is not the case" has nothing to do with actual rules and only to do with what you think should happen.
My stance for RAW means the penalty for allowing the item to be destroyed is because the god is displeased for allowing the character to let that happen, not because the spirit doesn't exist until replaced. That is an equally viable interpretation that follows RAI as it pertains to the wording of RAW. If the item is destroyed the paladin loses the ability, if the character had two items imbued the other weapon would stop working (the ability no longer exists). So again your "this is not the case" has nothing to do with actual rules and only to do with what you think should happen.
So are you saying the paladin gets around the penalty with simply by having two weapons or not? The bolded area makes it seem like you agree with me, and that if the weapon that is bonded is destroyed the ability is lost. I don't really care about how it is fluffed as long as player can't claim to weapons to get around a rule.
This brings up another issue. If I can add a +2(assuming we are using your interpretation of allowing two weapons), do I add +1 to each weapon or a +2 to each weapon?
Divine Bond functions based on the channeling of a celestial spirit into a weapon. If that weapon is destroyed you lose this ability for 30 days by RAW. I think its safe to say there is only a single celestial spirit here rather than multiples that can channeled into multiple weapons at the same time.
Afterall, if there were multiple celestial spirits then having a weapon with divine bond be destroyed should not hamper the use of this ability as the Paladin would just be able to summon up another celestial spirit. However this is not the case.
That should be enough for most readers to make their choice when playing/running Divine Bond.
-Cheers!
*quietly ducks back out of the thread*
*summons retriever to find Liquidsabre*
My stance for RAW means the penalty for allowing the item to be destroyed is because the god is displeased for allowing the character to let that happen, not because the spirit doesn't exist until replaced. That is an equally viable interpretation that follows RAI as it pertains to the wording of RAW. If the item is destroyed the paladin loses the ability, if the character had two items imbued the other weapon would stop working (the ability no longer exists). So again your "this is not the case" has nothing to do with actual rules and only to do with what you think should happen.
So are you saying the paladin gets around the penalty with simply by having two weapons or not? The bolded area makes it seem like you agree with me, and that if the weapon that is bonded is destroyed the ability is lost. I don't really care about how it is fluffed as long as player can't claim to weapons to get around a rule.
This brings up another issue. If I can add a +2(assuming we are using your interpretation of allowing two weapons), do I add +1 to each weapon or a +2 to each weapon?
No I'm explicitly saying that RAW allowing a person to imbue 2 weapons doesn't ignore the penalty of them having to use the weapon (IE they cannot hand either off to someone else to use). I'm saying that Divine Bond can be used to enchant 2 separate weapons or both ends of a double weapon by using two daily uses of the ability AND a standard action for each use. I'm saying that if 2 imbued weapons were being used and one was destroyed the other weapon that was imbued would stop working as the penalty is now being enforced. Any effects relying on the ability cease when the ability is lost (when any item imbued is destroyed).
Whether or not that is what you are arguing I honestly don't know as I cannot see what part of the bolded statement would make you think it is avoiding the stated penalty of the ability. My posts are 99% of the time not of the "+1" type as if the thread already is answered or doesn't require some clarification I don't post, when I do post they are fairly comprehensive and some might even say long because of it. I'm not sure where what I have said would be considered unclear on the matter or cause you confusion on what I have said (I'm serious and not being a jerk here).
As for uses, each weapon (or end of double weapon) would require a daily use of Divine Bond, so each weapon would be a separate instance and the abilities would be "full," determined and following all the restrictions of the ability when the standard action to imbue the weapon was made.
Hey there! :)
Thanks for the abundant information with regard to the topic (and the RAW/RAI thing).
Both sides have valuable points. The most convincing statements/assumptions for my decision are:
1.) What happens to THE spirit if one of the two weapons is destroyed?
2.) Why handle the ability in another way than calling your mount?
The conclusion for my group will be: Only one spirit at a time, even though the class feature doesn't seem to be broken if you handle it the other way.
So, thank you again.
My stance for RAW means the penalty for allowing the item to be destroyed is because the god is displeased for allowing the character to let that happen, not because the spirit doesn't exist until replaced. That is an equally viable interpretation that follows RAI as it pertains to the wording of RAW. If the item is destroyed the paladin loses the ability, if the character had two items imbued the other weapon would stop working (the ability no longer exists). So again your "this is not the case" has nothing to do with actual rules and only to do with what you think should happen.
So are you saying the paladin gets around the penalty with simply by having two weapons or not? The bolded area makes it seem like you agree with me, and that if the weapon that is bonded is destroyed the ability is lost. I don't really care about how it is fluffed as long as player can't claim to weapons to get around a rule.
This brings up another issue. If I can add a +2(assuming we are using your interpretation of allowing two weapons), do I add +1 to each weapon or a +2 to each weapon?
No I'm explicitly saying that RAW allowing a person to imbue 2 weapons doesn't ignore the penalty of them having to use the weapon (IE they cannot hand either off to someone else to use). I'm saying that Divine Bond can be used to enchant 2 separate weapons or both ends of a double weapon by using two daily uses of the ability AND a standard action for each use. I'm saying that if 2 imbued weapons were being used and one was destroyed the other weapon that was imbued would stop working as the penalty is now being enforced. Any effects relying on the ability cease when the ability is lost (when any item imbued is destroyed).
Whether or not that is what you are arguing I honestly don't know as I cannot see what part of the bolded statement would make you think it is avoiding the stated penalty of the ability. My posts are 99% of the time not of the...
I think we agree, well not completely, but close enough. <--On the penalty aspect.
Now I have to make a decision on the double weapon, which for some reason I want to treat different than using TWF with two different weapons for the purpose of bonding with it. I must think on this.
Hey there! :)
Thanks for the abundant information with regard to the topic (and the RAW/RAI thing).
Both sides have valuable points. The most convincing statements/assumptions for my decision are:
1.) What happens to THE spirit if one of the two weapons is destroyed?
We could argue about this for a few hundred posts, but the sensible answer seems to be that he loses the feature until the recovery conditions are met. Otherwise, what do you do if the paladin attempts to bond to three weapons (primary hand, off hand, destroyed weapon)?
Certainly, the rules do not support anything like a partial loss of the ability.
2.) Why handle the ability in another way than calling your mount?
No one would argue that a Paladin cannot use two (non-bonded) weapons at once. Using two mounts at once is not possible.
There is also an entirely different use case that has been ignored. The Paladin bonds with his greatsword and attacks the BBEG. BBEG dim doors to 400 feet away. The paladin draws his bow. Can he bond with the bow without losing the bond on the great sword?
Hey there! :)
Thanks for the abundant information with regard to the topic (and the RAW/RAI thing).
Both sides have valuable points. The most convincing statements/assumptions for my decision are:
1.) What happens to THE spirit if one of the two weapons is destroyed?
2.) Why handle the ability in another way than calling your mount?The conclusion for my group will be: Only one spirit at a time, even though the class feature doesn't seem to be broken if you handle it the other way.
So, thank you again.
Technically they are two distinct and different abilities, they just happen to come from a class ability that gives you a choice between them, then files off the name and puts "Divine Bond" there. Just because one works one way, it doesn't influence the other unless specifically referred to (Like X except this, this and this can happen). Each should be considered on its own.
Even if it were just one spirit, that doesn't preclude the use of multiple imbued weapons. The celestial spirit would just be considered to be giving a small portion of its power to help the paladin every time it calls for it (and a more powerful paladin was worthy of calling more often than lower level paladins). This is exactly how a god is considered to be doling out power to clerics. The power of the spirit in question is never limited or explained so again, saying it is one spirit in particular means nothing and doesn't actually limit the ability from being used multiple times at the same time or enforce it just being used on a single weapon.
Technically they are two distinct and different abilities...,
You may be right, but I have to come to a conclusion. I don't have the time to argue into infinity, because Liebdaga waits just only until sunday. :)
So, please, don't anybody assume I didn't consider their points in this thread, but - as I said - time is running.
Kind regards to all.
