| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It seems that a wizard whom chooses a Arcane Bond with a Staff can not cast his spells without a DC 20 Concentration Check. Is this intentional? Are the guys at Paizo against staff wielding wizards?
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.
Now later on in the description is says "If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand" however weild means to use as intended, and staffs are two handed weapons.
I only ask this because I was looking up a Arcane Archer build and thought the Arcane Bond feature would work great with it, only to my dismay to discover that it want.
Is the above FAQ'd anywhere?
Look through Sean K Reynolds recent posts.
|
It seems that a wizard whom chooses a Arcane Bond with a Staff can not cast his spells without a DC 20 Concentration Check. Is this intentional? Are the guys at Paizo against staff wielding wizards?
** spoiler omitted **
Now later on in the description is says "If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand" however weild means to use as intended, and staffs are two handed weapons.
I only ask this because I was looking up a Arcane Archer build and thought the Arcane Bond feature would work great with it, only to my dismay to discover that it want.
Is the above FAQ'd anywhere?
well, i will tell you what i do with archer/melee fighters. choose a spiked gauntlet. here is why:
*spiked gaunts cannot be disarmed.*they count as armor so they cannot be sundered (unless paizo allows armor to be sundered now)
*you always wield it as a weapon, which allows you be able to threaten for AOO's while holding your bow.
*having a spiked gauntlet equipped doesn't interfere with any actions used with that hand.
now as for using a staff as your bonded object, yes you cannot use a bow and hold onto the staff at the same time. so if you dont have it in hand, you must make a dc20+spell level.
A magical staff can be used as intended in one hand: It a big wand first, not a quarterstaff.
If you choose a staff as an arcane bond with a weapon, instead of an arcane bond with a staff, then you'd be up the same creek as a greatsword arcane bond.
A magical staff can be used as intended in one hand: It a big wand first, not a quarterstaff.He may be talking about a simple wizard's staff+walking stick (aka quarterstaff), such as you often see in literature, as opposed to an actual Magic Staff.
Your right about that, a quarterstaff.
However there is an unofficial answer as mentioned by Cheapy, here is the link if anyone cares.
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.
(Link)
Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?It means "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'" :)
-edit- those are not really contradictory, James' post is correct, and fairly old, while SKR's is more recent, saying he's going to change it. Meaning, currently, you can't arcane bond quarterstaff one hand, but eventually you probably will, so feel free to houserule it in the meantime!
If you choose a staff as an arcane bond with a weapon, instead of an arcane bond with a staff, then you'd be up the same creek as a greatsword arcane bond.
Actually even this isn't a problem for the quarterstaff as a bonded object.
Since it is a double weapon, you can wield it using one hand (although you can only attack with one end). As such any type of staff is usable an arcane bond.
If you choose a staff as an arcane bond with a weapon, instead of an arcane bond with a staff, then you'd be up the same creek as a greatsword arcane bond.Actually even this isn't a problem for the quarterstaff as a bonded object.
Since it is a double weapon, you can wield it using one hand (although you can only attack with one end). As such any type of staff is usable an arcane bond.
This has been clarified; it still requires both hands to wield, but you may wield it as a pair of one handed weapons.
You need the Quarterstaff Master feat to actually use it one handed.
Actually even this isn't a problem for the quarterstaff as a bonded object.
Since it is a double weapon, you can wield it using one hand (although you can only attack with one end). As such any type of staff is usable an arcane bond.
Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer): "You cannot normally use a double weapon in one hand unless it is sized smaller than you. This feat allows you to get around that restriction." (The feat he mentioned is Quarterstaff Master, which allows you to wield a quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon.)
That specifically allows you to use it as a one-handed weapon, but only allows you to use one end of it when wielded in that manner. That's 100% opposite of what you say.
Nope, it's worded badly, but in there.
You can fight with both ends as if fighting with two weapons.
You can use it two-handed, attacking with one end.
IF you use it one handed, you can't use it as a double weapon.
Following the normal weapon rules, you can wield a two-handed weapon that is one size cat smaller than normal in one hand. That part of the Double weapon is to keep you from using two double weapons and hitting four times.
-edit- ah, not as cut and dry as it looks, as there's 2 places in Equipment that double weapons are spoken of, and one very highly implies you can use it one-handed normally with no penalty. So, without JB's post, I would certainly say people were allowed to use a quarterstaff in one hand and cast or fight or whatever.
The answer is simple.
The wizard wields a one-handed staff. A.K.A a club. Better yet....a proper staff with a hook at the end (ie. hanbo)or some other feature.
The wizard does't need a double weapon does she? - with all the penalties and/or feat investments that TWFighting requires?
She can still wield any club with two hands for the strength bonus. Just take the club and call it a "staff". It will still function and look like the traditional wizard's staff if you want it to.
|
|
I've never like this. It's basically a feat tax in order for a wizard to have the most iconic wizard weapon as their bonded object.
Then again, most of the other wizard related rules that have been put out seem to aimed towards eliminating any perceived weaknesses in the class, and generally trying to make the other classes obsolete, sot it doesn't really bother me that much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never like this. It's basically a feat tax in order for a wizard to have the most iconic wizard weapon as their bonded object.
Then again, most of the other wizard related rules that have been put out seem to aimed towards eliminating any perceived weaknesses in the class, and generally trying to make the other classes obsolete, sot it doesn't really bother me that much.
I always understood the iconic wizard`s staff to be - mechanically speaking - a simple 1d6 club. I imagine quarterstaves as longer, heaver and more balanced to allow TWF.
But as things stand, a wizard still needs to be wielding his club (attacking with it, not just holding it) to avoid the Concentration check.
Easy to houserule, inconvenient for Pathfinder Society.
Does wielding mean attacking? A wizard uses the bonded staff as a tool in hand to facilitate casting....without it - Concentration check. That's how I see it.
When I look up images of quarterstaves...they are all long, heavy sticks which have two weighted ends. They are are not really walking sticks or shepherd's staves. Would they not be unwieldly as casting tools - or as one handed weapons? I think a stick weighted on one end would work better - ie. a simple staff - a club.
I would rule that a quarterstaff must be wielded with two hands.
This will be fixed in the next update.
In the meantime, keep it reasonable.
But as things stand, a wizard still needs to be wielding his club (attacking with it, not just holding it) to avoid the Concentration check.
Easy to houserule, inconvenient for Pathfinder Society.
If a wizard attempts to cast a spell
without his bonded object worn or in hand
Wielding means holding. If a wizard had to attack with his wand to cast spells, what's the point of having spells if you're forced to make a concentration check if you're not casting out of a wand?
Well if it really does say "in hand", then that's not wielding.
That's just holding in your hand.
Wielding can also mean you're holding it to fend off attacks. A wizard can still cast spells AND make Attacks of Opportunity, for example...perhaps even while casting full round (+) spells (though a Concentration check might be warranted). At least I couldn't find any rules preventing it.
If 'wield' means 'use', then 'use to threaten AoOs' is probably more than sufficient.
...and you can´t use a quarter-staff as a weapon without using 2-hands, that´s the whole point.
you MIGHT venture that you could use it as an improvised weapon (which is FAQ-able itself),
but that probably wouldn´t count as wielding the QUARTERSTAFF WEAPON itself, which is what´s needed.
as mentioned, you can have the quarterstaff bonded as a MAGICAL STAFF,
you just don´t get to enchant it as a weapon without having the feats.
...and we already know: this will be Errata´d, so one more reason to buy the next printing of the Core Rules :-)
|
Say what? Can you please cite this, because that isn't a clarification, it's a reversal of a plain-language rule.The rule from the PRD:
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.That specifically allows you to use it as a one-handed weapon, but only allows you to use one end of it when wielded in that manner. That's 100% opposite of what you say.
You need to find double weapon that is not a two handed weapon for that to work as you mean it.
As far as I know there aren't double weapon that are one handed weapons, so you will not get to use them with one hand.What you get is that you can attack with only one end of the weapon and get the strength bonus for wielding a two handed weapon.
Gg, there are times when you want to cast spells out of combat.
"Boy! Fetch me my bow, so I may cast Hero's Feast! "
Gg, there are times when you want to cast spells out of combat.
"Boy! Fetch me my bow, so I may cast Hero's Feast! "
Yes it would be for a bow, who needs two weak pets.
Gg, there are times when you want to cast spells out of combat.
"Boy! Fetch me my bow, so I may cast Hero's Feast! "
How is that different than "Boy! Fetch my my staff..."?
Anyway, if I'm an Arcane Archer (read: elven wizard/archer), what % of the time are you going to find me *without* a bow? 0%.
Why would you take staff?
"OK, let me put down my bow, which I'm using to rain death and destruction in the form of anarchistic, flame burst arrows upon my enemies, so I can pull my staff out of my ???? to cast gravity bow. Now, I'll drop the staff, and pick up my bow again, and resume firing... oh crap wait. I want to cast true shot. Lemme drop my bow and pick up my staff again..."
^ Really?
You'd take a ring.
Definitely go bow. Ring slots are precious.
Funny thing is, people with arcane bonded objects in hand who want to use Metamagic Rods face the same 'no somatic' conundrum.
Somatic Weaponry, FTW!
You can keep a staff and even a 2h weapon in one hand, but not fighting with them. When you fight you don't cast, when you cast you don't fight. Where's the problem?
You can keep a staff and even a 2h weapon in one hand, but not fighting with them. When you fight you don't cast, when you cast you don't fight. Where's the problem?
The problem is (or was) that the original text states that you must wield the weapon. Wielding a the quarterstaff or other 2h weapon requires both hands, compared to just holding it in one hand.
According to the replies for the devs, however, it should be like you suggest.
Since I use a translated book (I'm from Italy) I didn't see this problem because there's no much difference from wield and hold. I can't explain now, but the italian word for wield comes from the italian word for fist, so it's not different from "keep it in hand".
By the way, I think that this use of rules makes sense, so why not? :)
Definitely go bow. Ring slots are precious.
200gp per level will turn any magical ring into your bonded object. Rings are easy to hide, hard to steal/sunder/disarm and always leave your hands free for other things.
Definitely go bow. Ring slots are precious.
Funny thing is, people with arcane bonded objects in hand who want to use Metamagic Rods face the same 'no somatic' conundrum.
You do realize that you can enchant your arcane bond as if you had the relevant feat, right? Meaning you could make your arcane bond into a precious ring, for half cost. Without taking forge ring.
Go ahead and make the ring one of Wizardry I, II, and III. Of protection +4.
Precious slots means nothing when you can enchant the item to what you need.
And then you don't need your bow in hand for casting in non-combat situations. Hurray, you don't need to carry your bow in your hand at the ball that the king just invited you to!
|
|
LazarX, the rule was very clear, you had to wield the staff with two hands.
Now the text has been changed to allow the use of 2 handed weapons as arcane bonds without problems:
If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be held in one hand.
|
|
But you're not wielding a staff when you're casting spells as a wizard. Wielding a staff means you're using it to hit someone. That requires two hands. But just having it in hand only requires you hold it with one. The Arcane Bond only requires that you have the staff in hand, not wield it when you cast spells because you can't wield ANY weapon and cast spells as any form of arcanist other than magus.LazarX, the rule was very clear, you had to wield the staff with two hands.
Now the text has been changed to allow the use of 2 handed weapons as arcane bonds without problems:If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be held in one hand.
That why the text has been changed.
You love to threat your interpretation of RAI as RAW, but this is the Rule forum. Until the 6th printing of the CRB the rule was clear. You had to wield the staff and the official interpretation of wield was that you had do have it ready for use in a two handed grip.