Spell Combat: the magus may make a full attack and cast a standard action magus spell as a full-round action. He may lose attack to gain a bonus to his concentration check and takes a -2 to attack on top of it. He must have a free hand and the other hand can wield a light or 1h weapon to use this ability.
Wand Wielder: The magus may activate a wand or staff instead of casting a spell when using Spell Combat.
It's great and all but a couple questions raise:
1) Spell Combat requires a free hand. Does this mean I can't wield a weapon and a wand at the same time?
2) How does the magus use spell combat and staves? Staves are 2h weapons, quarterstaves to be specific.
3) Can metamagic rods be used with spell combat?
I presume you can't wield a weapon and SC with a rod at the same time (must hold the rod), so I was thinking about stuff like weaponized rods and wand chambers.
How I read it, at least for wands:
If you are holding a wand in your free hand, you cannot use Spell Combat.
If you have this ability, you can use Spell Combat alongside the wand in replacement of casting a spell
Which I admittingly am a bit iffy on, at least unless things like Wand Bracers are allowed in, if just because it seems exceedingly specialized; only useful when 1) you already have the wand in hand having drawn it previously 2) it's the one you want 3) you have literally no other spell you'd rather use 4) you don't mind immidiately dropping the wand when you need to cast and 5) you don't foresee needing the wand the rest of the fight. That's...quite a list, and the first one is one of the biggest kickers because with how I've read it, you can't use Spell Combat with a wand in your free hand at all (even with this ability), so you'd have to sacrifice a turn to take the wand out first, then use it with Spell Combat.
A different potential fix is to allow for Spell Combat to work as a whole and for you to replace the normal cast spell with using the wand if you have the ability.
As for staffs, I have no clue at all :p
Granted, this is simply how I've read it.
Wand Wielder (Su): A magus with this magus arcana can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when using spell combat.
Personally, I read this as the magus wields the wand or staff in the off hand and can activate the magic item, instead of casting a spell, while using the spell combat ability (i.e. making a full attack). My reasoning is that the free off hand is the hand that is casting the spell and performing any somatic components, so the requirement to wield the wand or staff while activating would be in place of that somatic requirement.
Now if they wanted to switch between wand and spell, it'd get messy as you'd have to stow or drop the wand/staff to free up that hand to cast again.
Again, this is just my interpretation of the intent of this ability.
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast
spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This
functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the offhand
weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this
ability, the magus must have one hand free, while wielding
a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As
a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with
his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any
spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1
standard action. If he casts this spell defensively, he can
decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls,
up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount
as a circumstance bonus to his concentration check. If
the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still
take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell
first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more
than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon
attacks. The magus must have one hand free to use this
ability, even if the spell being cast does not contain
somatic components.
Wand Wielder (Su): A magus with this magus arcana can
activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when
using spell combat.
So after reading both it allows a Magus to replace the spell cast with a wand or staff activation along with the full-attack with a 1 Hand or Light weapon.
You could use the Metamagic rod if it was your weapon also, i've seen certain rods count as maces if it says so in the description, so its not a stretch to have for example a +2 Heavy Mace of Empowered Metamagic.
So after reading both it allows a Magus to replace the spell cast with a wand or staff activation along with the full-attack with a 1 Hand or Light weapon.
You could use the Metamagic rod if it was your weapon also, i've seen certain rods count as maces if it says so in the description, so its not a stretch to have for example a +2 Heavy Mace of Empowered Metamagic.
Yes but this is why I'm curious: How does one wield a 1h weapon and retain a free hand and activate a wand? How does one activate a staff even if it was being wielded, given it is 2h?
Metamagic rods also must be held so I automatically assume the best way to use them mid-fight is to weaponize them.But without equipment shenanigans, how does one make wand wielder work?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So after reading both it allows a Magus to replace the spell cast with a wand or staff activation along with the full-attack with a 1 Hand or Light weapon.
You could use the Metamagic rod if it was your weapon also, i've seen certain rods count as maces if it says so in the description, so its not a stretch to have for example a +2 Heavy Mace of Empowered Metamagic.
Yes but this is why I'm curious: How does one wield a 1h weapon and retain a free hand and activate a wand? How does one activate a staff even if it was being wielded, given it is 2h?
Metamagic rods also must be held so I automatically assume the best way to use them mid-fight is to weaponize them.But without equipment shenanigans, how does one make wand wielder work?
Maybe I'm not following.
You can use a wand *instead* of a spell, so your 'free hand' has a wand in it. So you can't cast a spell if you use the wand (both hands are full).
Since UMD is a class skill, I could see wand wielder being useful with cleric wands. Hit the badguy with a wand of cause wounds? BBEUG with a wand of cure?
As to the staves, James kludged that staves can be used one handed. Sword and staff looked cool when Ian McKellan was doing it :-)
Maybe I'm not following.You can use a wand *instead* of a spell, so your 'free hand' has a wand in it. So you can't cast a spell if you use the wand (both hands are full).
Since UMD is a class skill, I could see wand wielder being useful with cleric wands. Hit the badguy with a wand of cause wounds? BBEUG with a wand of cure?
As to the staves, James kludged that staves can be used one handed. Sword and staff looked cool when Ian McKellan was doing it :-)
It never says that you can bypass the 1h+fh restriction. Remember how monks are not proficient with their unarmed strikes in 3.5? This is more of the same, and there is an obvious solution... But it is not stated there and thus someone sufficiently pedantic will b!$&$ you off your Arcana.
Please point me to the 1h staves, because last I check the only weapon they were based on, when they were even weapons, were quarterstaves.
But without equipment shenanigans, how does one make wand wielder work?
I'm pretty sure the intent is to use the wand in the free hand in place of the normal text. Assuming you don't drop the wand or do some of the other things ProffessorCirno mentioned (because you want to keep the wand and don't want to waste valuable actions in combat), then you are sacrificing flexibility in that you are unable to use your off-hand to cast your normal spells, as well as use abilities like Pool Strike. You could easily take the free action to drop the wand to regain the flexibility, but if you stop to pick it up, then you provoke AoO, or at the very least "waste" (it's a relative term) that move action. If you don't, someone else could pick it up, and may turn it on you.
As written, it isn't clear, but I'm sure that based on the 1st round playtest feedback, the intent is obviously to let us have wand-casting magi.
Staves, of course, are similar. All you're doing it holding them and saying magic gobbledy-g#@*. Should be fine.
Edit: What is "g#%*" and why is it censored...?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Maybe I'm not following.You can use a wand *instead* of a spell, so your 'free hand' has a wand in it. So you can't cast a spell if you use the wand (both hands are full).
Since UMD is a class skill, I could see wand wielder being useful with cleric wands. Hit the badguy with a wand of cause wounds? BBEUG with a wand of cure?
As to the staves, James kludged that staves can be used one handed. Sword and staff looked cool when Ian McKellan was doing it :-)
It never says that you can bypass the 1h+fh restriction. Remember how monks are not proficient with their unarmed strikes in 3.5? This is more of the same, and there is an obvious solution... But it is not stated there and thus someone sufficiently pedantic will b!%#~ you off your Arcana.
Please point me to the 1h staves, because last I check the only weapon they were based on, when they were even weapons, were quarterstaves.
Ok, it was specifically on staves as bonded objects here. I get them confused.
That said, if the magus doesn't have a 'bonded weapon' in the wizard sense. then he could use the greatsword, take a hand off, cast, put it back on as a free action.
So sword in hand + empty hand = cast spells, or draw a wand.
sword in hand + wand in hand = wandstrike but no spells
sword in hand + staff in hand = wandstrike but no spells.
you'll have to drop one or the other.
two handed sword = just slashing only.
since putting two hands on the blade is a free action, it seems cast then two handed swing would work. Spellstrike specifically calls out 'light or one handed' weapon.
This makes me think... if you have MWP bastard sword or dwarven waraxe, and use spellstrike, do you make your attacks at -4 (using weapon one handed w/o XWP) or can you cast, slap the hand on and use it as a two handed weapon? (w/o penalty)
This makes me think... if you have MWP bastard sword or dwarven waraxe, and use spellstrike, do you make your attacks at -4 (using weapon one handed w/o XWP) or can you cast, slap the hand on and use it as a two handed weapon? (w/o penalty)
I presume you can only consider it 1h if you have the proficiency of it in its 1h form (namely, EWP). It's unclear whether it can be used as a normal 2h later since you have MWP, but I'd let it.
The wand arcana is delicious, but I really don't want to have to admit the magus can't use it by raw...
|
Spell Combat requires an open hand only because you need to make the somatic gestures for your spell. If you're wielding a wand in one hand and a weapon in the other, then you don't need to make somatic gestures because you're casting from a wand. Not from a spell.
This really should be spelled out better (no pun intended, of course), so that Magi can cast True Strike, Blur, Displacement, and Shout while two-handing their melee weapons.
Spell Combat requires an open hand only because you need to make the somatic gestures for your spell. If you're wielding a wand in one hand and a weapon in the other, then you don't need to make somatic gestures because you're casting from a wand. Not from a spell.
This really should be spelled out better (no pun intended, of course), so that Magi can cast True Strike, Blur, Displacement, and Shout while two-handing their melee weapons.
Yes, I know, I agree and it's only obvious. But the current wording does not do that. With the current wording you can only wield a light/1h weapon and have a free hand. Wand Wielder does not add to that clause, thus you can't replace the free hand with the wand holding hand. This is exactly the same type of problem as 3.5 monks being non-proficient with unarmed strike.
I'm looking to either warn about this oversight or to hear about possible rules that I might have forgotten.
Alright, Synapse i agree that the wording should be fixed for the wand/staff entry in Spell Combat, maybe something like;
Wand Wielder (Su): A magus with this magus arcana can
activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when
using spell combat. A magus with this arcana can use a light or one-handed weapon in one hand and a wand or staff in the other hand.
As for using a two-handed weapon as a magus, by all means use one if your proficient with it. But you cannot use Spell Combat with a two-handed weapon its plain as day, requires a light or one-handed weapon, no two-handed weapons, no using a bastard sword two-handed, just light and one-handed.
It never stops to amaze me how so many people can read the same sentence or paragraph and all of them read it a different way based off what they want from it.(No offense meant to anyone in this thread. Just an interesting observation.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As for using a two-handed weapon as a magus, by all means use one if your proficient with it. But you cannot use Spell Combat with a two-handed weapon its plain as day, requires a light or one-handed weapon, no two-handed weapons, no using a bastard sword two-handed, just light and one-handed.
It never stops to amaze me how so many people can read the same sentence or paragraph and all of them read it a different way based off what they want from it.(No offense meant to anyone in this thread. Just an interesting observation.)
Just wanted to address this part.
The question (to me) is, can a long sword wielding magus use spell combat to toss off the spell, then swing the longsword with both hands? Likewise, if the magus is using a bastard sword, it *is* a one handed weapon as an exotic weapon, that can be used as a martial weapon two handed.
The language states: "A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks. The magus must have one hand free to use this ability, even if the spell being cast does not contain somatic components."
So can the magus cast the spell -> free action put free hand on weapon -> full attack with two handed str bonus? That's what I want clarified.
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast
spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This
functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the offhand
weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this
ability, the magus must have one hand free, while wielding
a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As
a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with
his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any
spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1
standard action. If he casts this spell defensively, he can
decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls,
up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount
as a circumstance bonus to his concentration check. If
the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still
take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell
first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more
than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon
attacks. The magus must have one hand free to use this
ability, even if the spell being cast does not contain
somatic components.
Lyrax it states in the last sentence; "The magus must have one hand free to use this ability, even if the spell being cast does not contain
somatic components."
Matthew it fuctions like two-weapon fighting with the off hand weapon being the spell cast and the main hand being the light or one-handed weapon. Look at it this way when you use two-weapon fighting can you attack with your off-hand and then two-hand a weapon after that?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Lyrax it states in the last sentence; "The magus must have one hand free to use this ability, even if the spell being cast does not contain
somatic components."Matthew it fuctions like two-weapon fighting with the off hand weapon being the spell cast and the main hand being the light or one-handed weapon. Look at it this way when you use two-weapon fighting can you attack with your off-hand and then two-hand a weapon after that?
Armor spikes and a greatsword :P
Seriously, I know it's how it's intended. (my own personal stabacabara characters often use the bastard sword just to have a hand free) just thinking it needs a 'rules lawyer unfriendly' clarification.
(as an example, you can draw daggers/axes/etc as a free action with quick draw, even in the middle of your full attack action.)
Currently you can't wield a 1h with both hands when you use spell combat because the restriction is tied to spell combat, not the spell being cast.
Without spell combat you can use both hands on the 1h as normal, and casting a spell while wielding a 2h (or a 1h with both hands) has always been allowed because freeing the hand to cast is a free action. It's not as big a deal as it sounds because this version of spellstrike is good to use any time you can't full attack, letting you poke harder and delivering the spell :o
I believe in round 1 Jason stated that it was intended that spell combat could only be used with 1-handed weapons. The argument was made that you either make the attacks first or the spell first so why couldn't they just take their hand off the weapon then put it back on. The response was that it all happened simultaneously and it was an intentional limitation. At least that's how I remember it going. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
buy an efficient quiver?
so you cast draw the wand to cast it and put it back as a free action. I can see that as a run around.
|
Please point me to the 1h staves, because last I check the only weapon they were based on, when they were even weapons, were quarterstaves.
Core book, p.141 under Double Weapons
'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.'
Quarterstaff is a double weapon.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Please point me to the 1h staves, because last I check the only weapon they were based on, when they were even weapons, were quarterstaves.Core book, p.141 under Double Weapons
'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.'
Quarterstaff is a double weapon.
Thank you Prof, I forgot that section.
Please point me to the 1h staves, because last I check the only weapon they were based on, when they were even weapons, were quarterstaves.Core book, p.141 under Double Weapons
'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.'
Quarterstaff is a double weapon.
That statement, however, is flawed. "Double" is a quality, not a size. Quarterstaff is a 2handed weapon. Only 1h double weapons would matter within the clause you quoted.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
'One handed double weapon'? When using a double weapon in one hand means you can't use it as a double weapon..? The mind boggles...
No... all double weapons can be used one handed, but not with the double feature - just 'cos most people don't use 'em that way, doesn't mean you can't. ;)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
'One handed double weapon'? When using a double weapon in one hand means you can't use it as a double weapon..? The mind boggles...
No... all double weapons can be used one handed, but not with the double feature - just 'cos most people don't use 'em that way, doesn't mean you can't. ;)
The quarterstaff is a 2h with the "Double" quality, which allows you to TWF it. It never stops being a 2h weapon.
That clause was there originally because of 3.0 rules: A large creature could use a 2h weapon proper for medium creatures in 1 hand. An ogre with a double sword for example.
So, by the same logic you can't use a lance one-handed when mounted unless you're a size larger than the lance? Weird.
Lances specifically state in their description that, while mounted, you can 1h them. Note that the Double description doesn't say you can do it, just that you can't TWF while using it 1h.
You will have to provide a source for that. The PRD and the PFSRD and the Core Book all state this:
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.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/equipment.htmlBoth under "Double Weapons"
'One handed double weapon'? When using a double weapon in one hand means you can't use it as a double weapon..? The mind boggles...
No... all double weapons can be used one handed, but not with the double feature - just 'cos most people don't use 'em that way, doesn't mean you can't. ;)
This statement is incorrect, and is not supported by any reasonable RAI or a literal RAW. All currently published core weapons that have the double weapon quality are two handed weapons.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
This states that it may be wielded as a one handed weapon. It does NOT state that doing so grants any other benefits such as a free hand, therefore RAW it does not do so. Further it never states that it removes the requirements of using two hands, therefore RAW it does not. It grants only the benefits and drawbacks listed under One Handed Weapon.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
The lance is an exception to the rules regarding double weapons because it says so in the weapon description, that exception only applies while mounted, and since it is not a double weapon it does not apply. Since other two handed weapons do not state this they are not relevant, nor is the lance.
Benefit: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
Weapon Feature(s): reach
Further, to the best of my knowledge there currently not even any third party books that have published a one handed or light weapon with the double quality.
]Yes but this is why I'm curious: How does one wield a 1h weapon and retain a free hand and activate a wand? How does one activate a staff even if it was being wielded, given it is 2h?
Metamagic rods also must be held so I automatically assume the best way to use them mid-fight is to weaponize them.But without equipment shenanigans, how does one make wand wielder work?
It's simple spell combat... means that you use a free hand i.e. a hand not wielding a weapon to cast or channel your spell power.
Wand wielder... you're using that same "free hand" to wield and fire your wand in PLACE of casting a spell. think of wand wielding as a SPECIFIC application of spell combat that trumps the general rule of spell combat.
Except it doesn't ever say that. At no point the arcana "edits" Spell Combat. It never says you use your free hand for the wand/staff, nor does it say you can even do it. It just says you use the wand/staff instead of the spell. If you read my replies over the first half of the thread you'll see why I compare this writing with 3.5 monks being nonproficient with unarmed strikes.
I do not see how that could be more clear. It can be used as a One-Handed weapon, thereby being effected by the One-Handed weapon rules, thereby allowing you to attack with one end of a double weapon with your other hand free."Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."
It specifically states that it can be wielded as a one-handed.
I see how that could be more clear: It could be somewhere. All official sources I know and linked here have a text on double weapons saying exactly the opposite.
That quote is straight from the double weapon entry of the Core Book, page 144. It can also be found on this page: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weaponsI see how that could be more clear: It could be somewhere. All official sources I know and linked here have a text on double weapons saying exactly the opposite.I do not see how that could be more clear. It can be used as a One-Handed weapon, thereby being effected by the One-Handed weapon rules, thereby allowing you to attack with one end of a double weapon with your other hand free."Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."
It specifically states that it can be wielded as a one-handed.
Yes, and when I go there I also find this:
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.
Now tell me, which is right?
The one from the Core Rulebook that I posted?Yes, and when I go there I also find this:
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.
Now tell me, which is right?
The one I posted is also from the Core Rulebook.
Which edition? cause I checked both my versions and checked errata for one of them. All checks out.
Third, April 2010.
Go back a couple pages and read the entry called "Double Weapons"
Dunelord3001 wrote:
The lance is an exception to the rules regarding double weapons because it says so in the weapon description, that exception only applies while mounted, and since it is not a double weapon it does not apply. Since other two handed weapons do not state this they are not relevant, nor is the lance.
Lance is not a Double Weapon your argument is invalid.
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.
Alright so after reading Double Weapons you can see they can be used in a number of ways.
1. Two-weapon Fighting
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.
2. Two-handed
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it.
3. One-handed
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 says you can wield it one-handed with the only stipulation being you must choose which end your attacking with. Plain as day.
Now tell me how one wields a 2h with only one hand when the weapon is 2h. "Double" doesn't change the weapon size, it's still illegal.
Were there a 1h double weapon, then it sure would be wieldable with 1 hand as per the second, added description for the double property.
Also, time to clarify stuff
1) Until pathfinder, the second clause that says "onehanded" never existed.
2) The new clause conflicts with all core weapons with the Double property
3) The old clause had the "wield a 2h in one hand can't be doubling", mostly as a remnant from 3.0
---------
This caused a conflict: no existing double weapon mentions it can be wielded in 1h, they all are 2h.
---------
I presume the following happened:
- Someone wanted to describe the properties outside of the weapon listings. Upon doing so, they saw the "no double for 1h" clause and shortened it.
- Someone forgot that weapons with different "wielding sizes" are explicitly defined as such in their description, like lances and bastard swords.
---------
I propose the following: Post this somewhere relevant to existing, weird rules and mostly abandon the topic here because of the real subject:
Wand Wielder's description turns it into a semi-impossible tool.
Because you still need a free hand to cast with spell combat, holding a wand or staff and a weapon is impossible for people with only 2 hands.
Now, there's no need to say "obviously the free hand will hold the staff/wand". It's obvious and I don't think anyone here disagrees with that... But the current writing does not support that. This needs to be addressed.
Synapse if your to thick to be able to read the entry for Double weapon;
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.
Then even after reading the entry fail to understand what;
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.
For some reason i think it might say; 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.
I think that means i could hold a Quarterstaff in One-hand and then attack with one end of the weapon. Or i could use a Gnome-hooked hammer in one hand and use the hammer as an attack. ETC.
Oh, down to insults already? Note how that text doesn't say you CAN wield a 2h double weapon in one hand. I'm done with this bit of discussion.
Yeah i understand Quarterstaff is a Two-handed weapon normally you can't wield a Two-handed weapon in one-hand.
But clearly under the rules for Double Weapons it says you can.
It super-cedes the base rule of Two-handed weapons can't be wielded in one-hand.
I mean how many times does someone have to say the grass is green before you stop arguing that its black.
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.
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.
Read it and read it again it states as a rule of Double weapons that you can use it in one hand.
|
Oh, down to insults already? Note how that text doesn't say you CAN wield a 2h double weapon in one hand. I'm done with this bit of discussion.
But, it states "A creature using a double weapon in one hand cant use it as a double weapon". Right there it is saying it IS being used 1 handed. Its pretty cut and dry to me there. What else is "using a double weapon in one hand" but wielding it one handed? If you are using a double weapon 1 handed, you can only use one end to make attacks, poke at doors, pick your nose, or what ever you might be using your weapon in one hand for.
Are you saying you want an obvious specific line stating something along the lines of "You can use a double weapon in on hand, but a creature using a double weapon in one hand cant use it as a double weapon"?