| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I don't see anything in the description of Rods that allows you to use the same hand that is holding the Rod to be used for making Somatic gestures (please free to point me to the rule if I've missed it).
So, since a Wizard with a weapon bonded item needs to "wield" that item (thus taking up one hand), and the use of a Rod requires the other hand (to gain the benefit of the meta magic), doesn't that mean that using a weapon bond prevents the use of Rods unless the spell is "stilled" or has no somatic components?
That's the way I read it. It's one of the reasons I would never use a weapon as my bonded item, except in the case of a planned multi-class with a fighting type.
Is there any reason you can't hold the weapon and the rod in one hand?
My transmuter has a bonded staff and can readily hold it in the same hand with his metamagic rod of extend. It's very much like holding two big sticks in one hand, certainly within the realm of possibility.
Is there any reason you can't hold the weapon and the rod in one hand?
My transmuter has a bonded staff and can readily hold it in the same hand with his metamagic rod of extend. It's very much like holding two big sticks in one hand, certainly within the realm of possibility.
Well, I don't think the rules support that. Generally speaking you can't make effective use of more than one item per hand. And allowing it would open up a lot of questions like, "Can I hold 2 or more rods in a hand at the same time?"
Or have a whole handful of wands gripped together, and just use the one you want to use.
I'm thinking that, yes, if you have a weapon as your bonded item, its going to be hard to use a rod with a spell that has a somatic component.
Last time I picked one (a bonded item that is) I picked ring.
Is there any reason you can't hold the weapon and the rod in one hand?
My transmuter has a bonded staff and can readily hold it in the same hand with his metamagic rod of extend. It's very much like holding two big sticks in one hand, certainly within the realm of possibility.
You need to 'wield' the bonded weapon, which you can't do if also holding a rod.
Likewise I, at least, would not let you hold 3 rods in the same hand and alternate using them as you cast from round to round. Rather I'd limit you to 1 rod being usable in a given hand.
-James
"Wield" isn't really defined in the rules I don't believe. As such, we must use real world definitions. I don't know about you, but I could "wield" a quarterstaff and a stick (which I would simply hold flush along the staff's core). If I can do it, I'm sure a heroic fantasy character could do it too.
Holding multiple metamagic rods isn't much of a concern either, as you can only ever use one such rod on a given spell.
I always see wizards rigging harnesses for their metamagic rods, strapping them for easy grabs during casting. If not disallowed for game balance reasons (can't imagine why it wouldn't work based on realism reasons), and the object is already readied for use because of its convenient holster, would it be a free action to grab mid casting and let go again, much like wielding a 2-hand weapon and switching to holding in one hand then back to wielding in both after casting?
Based on the concept that they just needed to be held, having a rod strapped to your side that can be held with great ease is obviously possible. The fact that you're using this rod to cast magic items has nothing to do with the realistic potential of strapping a 3' stick to your body in an accessible fashion. I didn't realize that there were still folks that didn't try to apply realism to their fantasy for anything, based on the fact that the setting is not real.
I was using basic rod description that says rods need to be held to be activated unless noted otherwise, and I hadn't parsed the metamagic rod description using the word wielder as contradicting that for some reason. Free action wielding would be another matter than free action holding for a second in my opinion. Thanks for pointing that out.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well for my Arcane Legionary class, which can only use a weapon if he chooses a bonded item, they have this class feature:
Somatic flourish (Ex):
There was a feat in the WotC PHB II that essentially did the same thing, allowing any weapon to be used. It's closed content, but the class ability above might work as a feat (I didn't make it such since I wanted it to be unique to the AL).
No worries, the magic = no attention to realism thing is a major pet peeve of mine, being the difference that makes fantasy entertainment enjoyable or ridiculous to me. The more ridiculous the powers, the more necessary that everything surrounding them be more bound to reality.
Again, thanks for pointing out the wielding over holding requirement.
I was trying to remember which book that PHB2 somatic weaponry feat was from. Groovy.
This was discussed at length in a thread a while back when people were wanting to use two handed weapons. James Jacobs stated that "wield" is not the same as "holding".
Here is the post
*reads linked thread for second time*
Well, that was certainly an unpopular ruling.
In any case, it doesn't effect my wizard as his staff doesn't have to be wielded as a weapon (since staffs often aren't weapons). James says so himself. I could readily wield my staff in one hand and a rod in the other with any interpretation of the rules.
I also believe that my transmuter might be able to hold his rod and staff in the same hand, freeing his other for somatic components, since neither items are weapons and thus don't have to be wielded as such. They simply need to be in hand. There aren't any rules for "hand slots," only handedness for wielded weapons.
But that opens up a whole can of worms. How many objects can you hold in one hand? Do I just pick up a bunch of items and see how many stay in my hand before I can't hold them any more? Is there a chance to drop extra items? Can I hold a whole bunch of knives in one hand so I don't need to draw them and throw them?
I don't think its too unreasonable to assume that, especially any time the game does mention you having something in your hand, it mentions you having one thing in your hand.
In a game where wizards can't wear armor without potentially loosing their spells and no one can benefit from more than one ring, I don't think its too strange to assume you can't have a rod in the same hand as your weapon.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My feelings on it are, complex.
Can anyone list any *advantages* to having the bonded item not being a ring or amulet?
There's already much metagaming logic for going to ring/amulet/headband/jockstrap bonded items. They don't scream "I'm a mage!" They can be hidden/masked easier (though I pity the fool who hides his eye of Aggamoto in a bunch of gold chains) and they don't interfere with rod or other metamagic item usage. (as for 'giving up a slot' you get the free item creation feat effectively for your bonded item, so it's more a 'half off item of your choice' slot.
When I gave the revised arcane Legionary the bonded weapon option, my logic was 'Well, the character decides at 4th level to invest some of his power in the weapon. There are benefits for doing so, but it's also full of drawbacks. In some ways, your power curve goes *down* since before casting w.o it was easy, now it's not. So I figured the class should allow using 'blade in hand' to reflect being more comfortable with the change in his casting style. Plus isn't it cool to have the caster shoot the scorching ray from his bonded item?
My feelings on it are, complex.
Can anyone list any *advantages* to having the bonded item not being a ring or amulet?
** spoiler omitted **
Honestly, with the Magus coming up in Ultimate Magic, I would love to see a feat that allowed for a "somatic weapon" style of casting.
The Devil is certainly in the details, at least when it comes to bonded weapons. Even for F/MU types, the more one realizes what having a bonded weapon entails, the less useful it seems to be. Shame, really. Much like the Magus, the idea of bonded weapons I like, but the execution? Not so much.