Talonhawke: The RAI has been clarified to contradict the RAW at least, which means its only a matter of time before RAW is changed to match.
There's always the Still Spell feat. I see that suggested often enough for EKs and their swift action dilemmas. If it's good enough for them. . . .
First of all this errata didn't change any rule, it was the same before but now it's more clearer, secondly this rule doesn't affect your spellcasting at all (you can release one hand for somatic components and then weild your weapon again), the only thing it affects is the wizards who took a quarterstaff as their bonded object and well i just have to say that they didn't know what they were doing.... seriously a two handed weapon as their bonded object?
|
First of all this errata didn't change any rule, it was the same before but now it's more clearer, secondly this rule doesn't affect your spellcasting at all (you can release one hand for somatic components and then weild your weapon again), the only thing it affects is the wizards who took a quarterstaff as their bonded object and well i just have to say that they didn't know what they were doing.... seriously a two handed weapon as their bonded object?
I think what a lot of people are discovering, myself included, is that they didn't know that this was what was intended all along. As written before, a lot of people seemed to have thought, again, myself included, that a double weapon could be held in one hand to deliver a blow with one end of the weapon, thus qualifying it as a decent bonded item since it's technically still be wielded at that point.
No offense but why didn't you (and the others) didn't read the whole section about using weapons, double weapons, and different sized weapons?
Well i guess that it was an understanding mistake since the rules aren't always in one place and it was worded more clearly in 3.5 irrc (and irrc there was a legal issue and Paizo couldn't use the exact wording).
But still i get somewhat upset when i see people saying that this errata was uncalled for and ruined things and there shouldn't be such a change.
I like the concept that a wizard has to have a bonded item to cast spells with. A magical implement that basically gives (mechanically speaking) Eschew Material Components. That way Wizards need a crutch to do what Sorcerers do naturally. The iconic mage is somebody making motions with a wand, or pointing a staff. Maybe the staff even takes the place of somatic components, as long as you hold the staff. as a GM, I use RAI because I like the classic visuals of mages. After all, that is some of what got us playing these games.
|
|
No offense but why didn't you (and the others) didn't read the whole section about using weapons, double weapons, and different sized weapons?
Well i guess that it was an understanding mistake since the rules aren't always in one place and it was worded more clearly in 3.5 irrc (and irrc there was a legal issue and Paizo couldn't use the exact wording).
But still i get somewhat upset when i see people saying that this errata was uncalled for and ruined things and there shouldn't be such a change.
No offense taken. A lot of people that play these games don't start their learning experience or tabletop RPG experience by sitting down and reading a 500+ page book cover to cover. Many people who've never touched an tabletop RPG jump into a game with more experienced players and leave it to them to show them how it's done. A lot of misunderstandings are inherited from those veterans who get the rules wrong as well.
From the 3.5 d20 SRD:
"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."
Implying I can use it like a normal weapon still. 3.5 was how I learned stuff (well, 3.0 technically), so stuff carried over into Pathfinder, especially when you look at how it used to be worded, saying it could be wielded as a one-handed weapon, implying i could drop a hand.
Sadly though until it is RAW and by proxy PFS Wizards using staves are boned.Only if they are idiotic players that insist on bringing the subject up.
Hold-on-a-minute! Since when are players idiotic just because they want to play by the rules and not cheat the game?
As a rules lawyer I find your statement highly offensive and insulting.
|
|
Sadly though until it is RAW and by proxy PFS Wizards using staves are boned.Only if they are idiotic players that insist on bringing the subject up.Hold-on-a-minute! Since when are players idiotic just because they want to play by the rules and not cheat the game?
As a rules lawyer I find your statement highly offensive and insulting.
This. Those of us who are rules lawyers AND have OCD are both blessed and cursed. There's no support groups for that combination.
Then you are just screwed. All they have done is clear something up. If you insist your staff is a quarter staff, then yep you are screwed.
No, wielded means you are holding it in a manner usable to attack or defend with it. Holding means you are just holding it.
Unlikely all will be changed like that. But we shall see.
Gandalf wasnt a PC. In fact, the only PCs were the hobbits. the DM created a hobbit-centric campaign, and used a bunch of high powered DMPCs to make the PCs miserable. I'm surprised the ring didnt just get tossed on the roadside as the players stormed out.
You didnt want to play D&D with Tolkein as your DM, trust me
I think Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli were other players that eventually joined the game, but the two groups split when the hobbits' players decided they didn't like D&D and wanted to play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay instead. This explains why the hobbits have such a hard time killing two orcs and never really level up while the other group slays armies regularly.
Unlikely all will be changed like that. But we shall see.
Huh. So you didn't see the link to it up-thread?
Been a few links. The issues is not bonded items but staff/quarter staff. But i would have no issue if they did change it.