|
If a wizard has a weapon as his bonded item, then he must be wielding that weapon to cast spells. But casting a spell requires at least one hand free. What if the bonded weapon is a two-handed weapon? Does he take one hand off the weapon's hilt to cast the spell, and is somehow still considered to be wielding the weapon? Or does he use the hand holding the weapon to cast the spell, because the weapon is his focus?
|
He cant cast the spell without making a concentration check much like if he didn't have the weapon, For PF wielding seems to be threatening with the weapon, therefore a THW is a trap the Designers made on purpose so that you cannot be a THW wielding wizard without serious penalties. I'm serious one of the creators even said that they did stuff like this on purpose.
|
|
He cant cast the spell without making a concentration check much like if he didn't have the weapon, For PF wielding seems to be threatening with the weapon, therefore a THW is a trap the Designers made on purpose so that you cannot be a THW wielding wizard without serious penalties. I'm serious one of the creators even said that they did stuff like this on purpose.
I can respect that wizards shouldn't be swinging greataxes and stuff, but what about quarterstaves? Wizards have always had those, and have never really cared about actually wielding them, they just carried them. Does this mean a wizard who chooses a quarterstaff as his bonded weapon is falling into a trap?
Gandalf, why have you forsaken me?
|
|
He cant cast the spell without making a concentration check much like if he didn't have the weapon, For PF wielding seems to be threatening with the weapon, therefore a THW is a trap the Designers made on purpose so that you cannot be a THW wielding wizard without serious penalties. I'm serious one of the creators even said that they did stuff like this on purpose.I can respect that wizards shouldn't be swinging greataxes and stuff, but what about quarterstaves? Wizards have always had those, and have never really cared about actually wielding them, they just carried them. Does this mean a wizard who chooses a quarterstaff as his bonded weapon is falling into a trap?
Gandalf, why have you forsaken me?
I see no problem with anyone wielding ANY weapon if the character calls for it, but thats me. But Yes, even Quarterstaves unless your GM allows Ultimate magic and you take the feat quarterstaff master ...or get a bastard sword and take the exotic WP feat..either or...
The wording is "in hand" not wielded. So you can hold the weapon in one hand or even grip the handle while the blade is in it's sheath.
|
Um, no.
See the following post from Mr. Jacobs.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/argGishIssues&page=6#256
An arcane bonded weapon must be wielded in order for it to have effect. This, unfortunately, does mean that two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components. Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object.
A feat or class ability that lets you use a 2H weapon's swings and stabs and motions as your somatic component would be pretty interesting... but nothing in the core currently lets you do that. Your best bet in this case is to only cast Still spells or spells without somatic components.
My statement came from reading my 1st printing/2nd print core though I slightly disagree with the ruling.
Be careful when wielding your arcane bond weapon. It makes casting spells in peaceful situations difficult. Nobody wants to see someone pull out their sword and start waving it in the air and chanting. It might be a harmless cantrip but the sword-waving part lends some hostility to appearance.
Ok, I know that I'm going out on a limb here...
I'm not sure if what I'm planning to propose as an interpretation will directly go against the statement made by Mr. Jacobs. (If you follow my reasoning, it won't, since his remarks deal with the need for the bonded weapon to be wielded to have effect, but I strongly suspect that what he said was not exactly what he meant, and that my interpretation will contradict what he meant. No disparagement intended, of course.) Regardless, I believe that my reading of the rules as written is both rational and reasonable.
The question at hand is "Can a Wizard with a two-handed weapon as a bonded object still cast spells?"
The rules say the following, with bold & italics added for emphasis:
Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp): ... a bonded object is an item a wizard can use to cast additional spells or to serve as a magical item.Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork quality. Weapons acquired at 1st level are not made of any special material. If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is equal to 20 + the spell's level. If the object is a ring or amulet, it occupies the ring or neck slot accordingly.
A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. ...
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat. ...
My interpretation is a literal reading of the rules. In order for the bonded weapon object to have effect(s), it must be wielded. Thus, to cast an unprepared spell or to use additional added abilities, the weapon must be wielded. Note, the definition of a bonded object is "an item a wizard can use to cast additional spells or to serve as a magical item." Thus, in general, a bonded objects' effects are to cast additional spells and/or serve as a magical item.
There is an additional, very specific segment relating to bonded objects in the rules that says that, "If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell." This defines what happens when a bonded item is not worn or in hand, but as far as I can tell, the actual rules as written do not indicate that this is an *effect produced* by the bonded item. As such, only the requirement that the bonded item be "in hand" or "worn" should need to be met to avoid the need to make a concentration check to avoid losing the spell.
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Jacobs, and I know that this matter was briefly raised in the thread from which Mr. Jacobs' post was quoted, and also was dismissed by him in a subsequent post (though without explanation or justification). Any number of similar remarks by developers have been made (for example, on the interoperability of Vital Strike with Spring Attack), which resulted in the clarification/reiteration that while forum posts by developers were good for guidance, they did not constitute actual rules and rulings.
Certainly, I would expect to use the interpretation that Mr. Jacobs gave in any game I played with him as the GM (and would eagerly look forward to such an event). Until such a time as his clarification is included in the official FAQ for the Core Rulebook (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj/faq#tabs) or updated in the PRD, however, I cannot in good faith consider his remarks to be incorporated in the RAW, and as such I believe that my reading (above) is valid.
If there is another repository for official rulings, or the most recent printing has made an alteration that clears this matter up (for example, by changing "in hand" to "wielded") I am unaware of it, and would welcome being made aware of where to find it!