I have asked for 4 questions in the beginning and I have answered them later on.
Here is what I got so far:
1)Could I hold a Rod of Absorption and gain all the benefits of the Rod and Shield?
Yes, a light shield’s state you can carry other items in that hand and a Rod of Absorption must only be held in hand to function.
Please note that some rods may have other conditions to active and no rod may be used as a light mace while in light shield hand.
2)Can I use Wands with a light shield hand?
Yes, a wand is a spell trigger item and spell triggers do not need gestures to function. A wand only needs are to be pointed in the general direction of the target or area and be held in hand.
3)If yes to 2, would I lose the shield AC?
No, Pointing a wand in the general direction of the target or area is a free action. Please note that a GM may place a reasonable limit on free actions.
All question but 3 is flawless in term of rules and references. They are all explained in earlier posts on this tread.
I do not under the hostility. Answers should be supported by the rules of the game and cited to confirm those rules.
How is asking for this somehow unreasonable?
Because what you're asking for is the equivilant of saying that all roads need to be on solid bedrock. What we're telling you is that its necessary to build some bridges, and suspend rulings.
This was my poor attempt at saying, "I would like some facts and rules to support what you say. If you can not do so, how can you be sure what you say is true?"
because what you're saying is that evidence and argument aren't support, at all. Its bedrock or bust and the rules quickly break down when you try to do that. X and a good argument for z ARE support. They are not 100% rock solid support but they are support (even 100% rock solid support isn't 100% rock solid support)
All question but 3 is flawless in term of rules and references. They are all explained in earlier posts on this tread.
Absolutely not. The argument for using a wand is GOOD. It is not certain. Certain would be "you can use wands in a hand using a light shield" there are no rules for whether a light shield lets you use a wand or not, or cast.
pointing the wand is not a free action. It is part of the standard action of using a wand. You cannot simply break the standard action into numerous free actions that don't have limitations.
You also can't argue just one way. A therefore B therefore C in a straight line. Deductive reasoning like that takes a perfect logician working in a perfectly coherent system and pathfinder is NOT a perfectly coherent system.
Its messy, but you need to look at the evidence for and against a position based on all the best available inferences, weighing raw, rai, intent, and power. it will do a much better job of getting you to the sane, sensible, usable, and most importantly, fun answer than trying to use absolute computer logic on a system that doesn't support it.
Here you go. Your answer is NO.
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand.
A light shield is a light weapon. It's in your hand, you can't use a wand in the same hand as a short sword could you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure why you need a light shield and a wand in the same hand, but as your friend, maybe you should pick up this feat just to win all arguments:
Upsetting Shield Style (Combat, Style)
Source Armor Master's Handbook pg. 12
You can strike at weapons to upset enemy attacks.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, proficiency with bucklers.
Benefit: You can shield bash with a buckler as if it were a light shield, and you can use the buckler in conjunction with any feats or abilities that normally apply to light shields. While using this style, whenever you successfully deal damage to an opponent with a shield bash using your buckler, that opponent takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls made against you until the start of your next turn.
A spring loaded wrist sheath to swift action it into your hand would also be handy.
A light shield is a light weapon. It's in your hand, you can't use a wand in the same hand as a short sword could you?
I don't know what you're trying to say. You can hold items and weapons in a light shield hand. What does a short sword have anything to do with my question?
Light shield description in the Core Rulebook on page 152, clearly states:
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
This means I can hold a wand with a light shield hand.
Does anyone disagree?
Click on "Wands" for more info.
Wands are not are not light, one-handed, or two-handed weapons.
Does anyone disagree?
Wands are spell trigger items.
Does anyone disagree?
Using Spell trigger Items does not mean attacking with a weapon.
Does anyone disagree?
Upsetting Shield Style is good.
And have already been talked about.
Have anyone read the whole tread yet?
This has all been done already.
I don't like repeating myself.
Carry. Not use. There is a difference.
A light shield is a light weapon, a light weapon specifically states it's used in one hand. Shield says you strap it and grip it, but can carry other items. Carry... NOT USE. And the fact that you already have a light weapon in your hand like a short sword, would you even think you could use another item in the same hand. A light shield is no different.
I'm on your side, but quit asking us to site reference then ignore it when it doesn't suit your needs. Nothing written says you can, everything written suggests you can't. If you could, it'd have similar language like a buckler. An omition is the same thing as a rule. Just because it doesn't state you can't, doesn't mean you can.
An omission is the same thing as a rule
Your line of evidence is generally pretty good, but that is very much a no. There are huge swaths of things the rules leave out that would be nonsensical if that were the case. Rules for eating for instance...
Fair enough. But my evidence stands.
What about brass knuckles? Surely that's a weapon that can share a hand with a wand?
If you can hold a wand, you can probably use that wand.
|
What about brass knuckles? Surely that's a weapon that can share a hand with a wand?
If you can hold a wand, you can probably use that wand.
You can hold a wand in your mouth, or arm pits too, if the goal is just being able to hold it. Heck, you could even embed it in your flesh.
That said, in Pathfinder mechanics, you'd need one "hand" for the wand and another "hand" for the shield if you wanted to use both. They don't need to be actual "hands", but mechanically, you only get two "hands" worth of items used at the same time.
If you want to combine a Weapon with a Wand to hold them in a single hand, there is spell called "weaponwand" for exactly that purpose.
The only exception would be a Gauntlet, or similar weapon, that is considered a free hand. Though even with the Gauntlet, you can't use it as a weapon while using the hand for something else.
You can hold a wand in your mouth, or arm pits too, if the goal is just being able to hold it.
I'm not aware of any rules for doing that. How many wands can you keep in your mouth? Does it prevent you from casting spells with verbal components? What action is it to transfer a wand from mouth to hand?
That said, in Pathfinder mechanics, you'd need one "hand" for the wand and another "hand" for the shield if you wanted to use both. They don't need to be actual "hands", but mechanically, you only get two "hands" worth of items used at the same time.
The two "hands" worth of effort rule applies to using things in the same action - for example, trying to two-weapon fight with a two-handed weapon and brass knuckles isn't allowed.
The equivalent rule for shields appears to be that if you used a wand in your shield hand, you would lose the armour bonus for your shield for that round.
I'm not aware of any rules for doing that. How many wands can you keep in your mouth?
awt weeest twewf iw wanwd owt owf whans
Does it prevent you from casting spells with verbal components?
20% spell failure chance sounds reasonable.
What action is it to transfer a wand from mouth to hand?
Probably swift.
Cheek Pouches: Some ratfolk have developed stretchy cheek pouches that they can use to hold and carry small loads up to 1 cubic foot in volume and 10 pounds in weight, such as light weapons, potions, scrolls, and similar objects. Such a ratfolk can transfer a held object to his cheek pouches or extract an object from his cheek pouches as a swift action
Besides the volume a human holding something in their mouth should work the same way.
.... I think things are getting a little off track.
I believe Hands of effort applies only to TWF and off hands.
A wand is not being used in TWF. I do not use my Full BAB on casting with a wand. Do I?
I think this is more on the casting, free hands and holding items line.
Lets start from the top.
1)Do I gain the benefits of a Rod of Absorption while it is in a light shield hand?
I say Yes. Light shield lets me hold items in my hand. Rod of Absorption works while held in my hand and has no other conditions. I know I can't attack with a rod as a light mace, because the light shield says I can hold items and can not attack with a weapon.
2)Can I hold a wand in a light shield hand?
Yes again. I confirmed that light shield lets you hold items.
Here is where things get gray...
3)Can I use a wand in a light shield hand?
I know that I can not cast spells with a light shield hand.
The light shield hand is not a free hand, like gauntlets.
I can not attack with any weapon with light shield hand.
What we have for sure is we can hold items. Like wands, rods, greatsword, etc. That is 100%.
It is true it doesn't say use any item, just hold items.
How is a wand used?
A standard action to cast from wand.
To cast, wand must be in hand.
I use the UMD skill to use a wand.
Do I need a free hand to the UMD skill?
No, I do not. The parts of the UMD skill on using a wand is:
Wand must be in hand.
Roll UDM with with the wand when I cast from it. A standard action.
Standard actions are not directly connected to hands.
Is there anything I missed?
If not then the answer to:
3)Can I use a wand in a light shield hand?
Will be Yes, because:
I can hold the wand with the light shield hand.
I can use the UMD skill with my hands full.
I can use Standard actions with my hands full.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you hold a wand in the same hand as a light shield? Certainly yes. We have explicit rules.
Can you attack with a weapon held in the same hand as a light shield? Certainly not. We have explicit rules.
What about things in between? Can you point a wand well enough at targets to cast spells if it's in the same hand as a light shield? Not clearly covered by rules.
One GM may say "well, it's not a weapon so OK", while another says "well, targeting people is a lot like making attacks, so nope". Neither GM is wrong because in the space not clearly covered by rules, the GM just has to go with his best judgment.
Pointing a wand is part of the standard action of casting from a wand.
I can use standard actions with hand fulls.
I must have a wand in my hand to cast a spell from that wand that also in my light shield hand.
I can cast the spell from my wand that is in my light shield hand as a standard action to cast the spell from my wand that is in my light shield hand.
I am pretty sure I have all rules covered.
It is a Standard action to cast from wand. This includes pointing a wand and using the UMD skill all at once. Point a wand is not an independent action of casting the wand, it is part of many little actions that forms the standard action of casting from the wand.
Which part is unclear?
Pointing a wand is part of the standard action of casting from a wand.
I can use standard actions with hand fulls.
I must have a wand in my hand to cast a spell from that wand that also in my light shield hand.
I can cast the spell from my wand that is in my light shield hand as a standard action to cast the spell from my wand that is in my light shield hand.
I am pretty sure I have all rules covered.
It is a Standard action to cast from wand. This includes pointing a wand and using the UMD skill all at once. Point a wand is not an independent action of casting the wand, it is part of many little actions that forms the standard action of casting from the wand.
Which part is unclear?
"I can use standard action with hand fulls" is a catagory error assuming that because one member of a catagory of standard actions can be done with full hands that all of them can. Bats can fly. Bats are mammals. So all mammals can fly. The logic doesn't follow.
Even IF the logic followed, that does not preclude the existence of other, equally logical arguments going the other way against the position.
I'm going to go with the old axiom of you can do what it says you can do, but that's all. That is, "carry" but not necessarily "use".
"I can use standard action with hand fulls" is a catagory error assuming that because one member of a catagory of standard actions can be done with full hands that all of them can. Bats can fly. Bats are mammals. So all mammals can fly. The logic doesn't follow.
Even IF the logic followed, that does not preclude the existence of other, equally logical arguments going the other way against the position.
What are you talking about?
What is a "catagory error"? I haven't hear or read anything in Pahtfinder about "catagory".
It is a Standard action to cast from wand. This includes pointing a wand and using the UMD skill all at once. Point a wand is not an independent action of casting the wand, it is part of many little actions that forms the standard action of casting from the wand.
What is unclear?
What a Standard action is?
Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions. This includes Melee Attacks, Ranged Attacks, Natural Attacks, Activating Magic Item, Casting a Spell and Using a Special Ability.
Using Standard action when my hands are full? Some Standard action require me to have items in my hand to use. Bow for Ranged Attacks. A sword for Melee Attacks, and wand to Activate a Magic Item.
The Standard action of Activating a wand?
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for non-humanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.
|
|
What are you talking about?
What is a "catagory error"? I haven't hear or read anything in Pahtfinder about "catagory".
A category is any of several fundamental and distinct classes to which entities or concepts belong. A category error is the kind of mistake you are making trying to reason about standard actions.
Example: A wand acts in many ways as a light weapon. For instance, you can draw both wands and weapons as part of a move action and use them while grappled or swallowed whole. You can't use either when your hands are full or completely restrained, such as while pinned.
What about things in between? Can you point a wand well enough at targets to cast spells if it's in the same hand as a light shield? Not clearly covered by rules.
The thing is, "Can you point a wand well enough at targets to cast spells" isn't the standard wands use. Wands use "point it in the general direction of the target or area",
So it's not about pin point accuracy but 'over to the left' type aiming. A shield seems capable of gesturing in a general direction and along with it the hand using it. No other action is required other than time [a standard action for spell trigger activation method].
So does anyone disagree that with a shield, you can "point it in the general direction of the target or area"? And if you don't disagree, why would holding a wand change that?
In a Pathfinder book or material, show me where I find "category" or "category error.
Using a wand in a light shield hand is not pinned or completely restrained.
I am not jabbing the wand in somebody's eye. The wand can act like a weapon, but is not being used as a weapon.
It is being used as a magic item.
This is how you activate a the magic item 'wand':
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.
Which Pathfinder rule is being broken.
Be specific please.
Hate to say this to you, but Wikipedia is not a pathfinder book or material.
I am not asking for the definition of category error.
Using a Pathfinder book or material only "what is a category error?"
Then please cite it so I can look it up for myself.
If you can't tell me, then do not use the term "category error" as it does not the apply to pathfinder rules.
It is a Standard action to cast from wand. This includes pointing a wand and using the UMD skill all at once. Point a wand is not an independent action of casting the wand, it is part of many little actions that forms the standard action of casting from the wand.
What is unclear?
The problem isn't clarity. The problem is that there is an error in your line of logic.
Attacking with a longsword is a standard action
standard actions
I can use standard actions with my hands full
So i can attack with a longsword while holding the light shield.
.. thats obviously the wrong answer, as the shield specifically says you can't do that, but thats the answer that line of logic gives you. Which means you don't trust that line of logic (even if i do agree with the conclusion)
In a Pathfinder book or material, show me where I find "category" or "category error.
Pathfinder is not a self contained system. It relies on logic, grammar, and a DM to make sense of it when the first two aren't absolute (which is very. very. often)
|
|
Errors in thinking apply to all rules, Pathfinder included.
I don't believe in treating the rules as a set of logical axioms from which all cases can be deduced, but there is still value in recognizing fallacies. If you can't understand why your thinking may be wrong, you can't improve your argument.
I want to agree with your conclusion, Vince, but you are making this incredibly difficult.
James Jacobs is the creative director for Pathfinder, the feat that Lord Twitchiopolis found seems to contradict what James said and I would trust a published feat much more than a forum post.
Not necessarily contradict. After all, the feat uses the language 'any shield', which makes it compatible with heavy and tower shields. So that you can cast while wielding a light shield seems just as immaterial as that you can cast while wielding a buckler.
|
|
You can hold a wand in your mouth, or arm pits too, if the goal is just being able to hold it.I'm not aware of any rules for doing that. How many wands can you keep in your mouth? Does it prevent you from casting spells with verbal components? What action is it to transfer a wand from mouth to hand?
This is where the RPG not being a programmed video game comes in.
I tell the GM I'm holding the wand in my mouth. The GM allows it, because mouths in real life can hold things. If I try to cast spells or talk to party members, this is probably going to fail because I've told the GM I have things in my mouth (or maybe she'll allow the spells/talking and just have my held object drop). There aren't hard and fast rules for this, but characters usually have mouths and it is physically possible to carry things with your mouth, so it is a very reasonable option.
Give it a try in game, every GM I've played with, PFS or otherwise, will allow you to hold things in your mouth (unless you lack a mouth). Still has to be reasonable things, of course.
As for the action to transfer from mouth to hand, totally up to the GM. I'd expect a Free or Move action. Putting it in the mouth from a hand would be the same action. Still, I'd be at the mercy of the GM and what they thought was a reasonable action type.
Regarding actually using weapons or wands while holding them in your mouth, that's up the GM's setting. A Rule of Cool setting would probably allow it, counting the mouth as one of your "hands" for two weapon fighting and such. A more realistic setting would probably not allow it.
To use a magic wand, I need it in my hand.
To use a long sword, I need it in my hand.
To use a light shield, I need it in my hand.
The light shield lets me hold a magic wand in my hand.
I now have a magic wand and a light shield on 1 hand and a long sword in the other hand.
I can attack with the long sword as a standard action. Because it is in my hand.
I can attack with the light shield as a standard action. Because it is in my hand.
I can use the magic wand as a standard action. Because it is in my hand.
Standard actions do not care how many items are in my 2 hands. But to use any of the 3 items (magic wand, long sword, light shield) they must be in my hand to use as a standard action.
The light shield lets me hold the magic wand in the same hand it is in.
I have a wand and light shield on 1 hand, and the long sword in the other.
Having 3 items in this way does not prevent me from using standard actions.
What is the PROBLEM?
There are no game rule saying I can not do this.
I am not here to talk about all the words that exist.
I am not here to talk about real life mechanics.
I am here to talk about If there any Pathfinder rules or mechanics that say I can not do this.
There are no game rule saying I can not do this.
But to get to ".. therefore, i can do this" you need to go through other modes of thought. In this case "it doesn't say i can't therefore I can.." which is a horrible piece of logic and thinking that results in all sorts of overpowered things in the game. "It doesn't say i can't therefore i can" is also not part of the game.
"Standard actions do not care how many items are in my 2 hands" Some standard actions do. Some of them do not.
Some of them explicitly say that they do (attacking with a two handed sword for example)
Some explicitly say that they do not (casting a stilled spell)
Some of them logically do (a first level bard starting a performance to play the tuba)
some of them logically do not (a first level bard starting a performance to sing)
That something is a standard action is irrelevant to whether or not it takes up your hands.
Very well I stand corrected.
As far as standard action are concern, is there anything to stop me from using a magic wand while it is in a light shield hand?
|
|
To use a magic wand, I need it in my hand.
To use a long sword, I need it in my hand.
To use a light shield, I need it in my hand.
The light shield lets me hold a magic wand in my hand.
I now have a magic wand and a light shield on 1 hand and a long sword in the other hand.
I can attack with the long sword as a standard action. Because it is in my hand.
I can attack with the light shield as a standard action. Because it is in my hand.
I can use the magic wand as a standard action. Because it is in my hand.
Standard actions do not care how many items are in my 2 hands. But to use any of the 3 items (magic wand, long sword, light shield) they must be in my hand to use as a standard action.
The light shield lets me hold the magic wand in the same hand it is in.
I have a wand and light shield on 1 hand, and the long sword in the other.
Having 3 items in this way does not prevent me from using standard actions.
What is the PROBLEM?
There are no game rule saying I can not do this.
I am not here to talk about all the words that exist.
I am not here to talk about real life mechanics.I am here to talk about If there any Pathfinder rules or mechanics that say I can not do this.
Sounds like you've decided on your own answer for this question. You've been mostly repeating your same point for a few posts now. Why does it matter what we think? If you've decided it works a certain way, go with it. We're not an offical answer source, if you're not the GM, ask them if (or tell them that you decided) it works as this.
Just seems like you've past the point where advice from others is affecting your understanding on this rule. That means you've decided. Us giving further rules advice isn't going to go anywhere if you've already decided on the answer to your problem.
I know for me, this usually means one of three things. Either I'm right and everyone else is wrong OR I'm sleep deprived OR I haven't been eating/drinking lately. With any of these three, advice from others won't help, so continuing to ask is a waste of effort.
I do believe I am right.
But I do not know if I am 100% right.
I am not here for advice. This is not the advice messageboard.
This is the rules questions messageboard.
My question it about the rules of pathfinder.
The question I am asking right at this very moment is:
Are there any rules in Pathfinder that prevent me from using a wand while it is in the same hand of a light shield?
I have repeated myself many times now. That is correct.
But I have also not gone off topic. Others have.
Am I asking to much to get a pathfinder rule answer to a pathfinder rule question while on a messageboard for pathfinder rules and questions?
I hope not.
I will repeat the question again, but in a slightly different way:
Using the rules found in pathfinder, can anyone please tell me why using a wand while it is in the same hand of a light shield would not work?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer is that the rules don't specify whether you can or cannot use a wand held in the same hand as a light shield.
However, the way Pathfinder is written, just because there's no rule saying you can't do something, doesn't mean you can do it. (Nothing says a 1st level barbarian can't cast wish).
Umtimately, this is going to be a question for your GM. You're not going to find a solid answer unless Paizo decides to clarify.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very well I stand corrected.
As far as standard action are concern, is there anything to stop me from using a magic wand while it is in a light shield hand?
Nothing prevents it but nothing allows it either. Making it a legitimate DM's call.
|
|
I am not here for advice. This is not the advice messageboard.
Was wondering if you'd make this retort.
You're looking for advising regarding the actual rules. The Advice Messageboard is for advising beyond the scope of the rules. They're both advice, since neither has the capacity to make official rulings.
There's no rule that explicitly states a character can't dual wield long swords while wielding a glaive and three wands in each hand, but the generally accepted wisdom, and the assumption upon which the rules are based, is that you can only use one item in each hand.
Light shields have a partial exception to this assuption. You can carry items in that hand, but that's it. There's no other exceptions. The basic assumption of one item per hand still applies.
If you don't like this assumption: houserule it, or ignore it, or whatever you want.
argument for it: You can use a wand while swallowed. having 4 grocery bags of weight on my arm seems less burdensome to my ability to move than getting a head first tour of a monsters digestive tract.
argument against it: the shield lets you hold items, not use them. Wands require active use, and the shield doesn't let you do that.
solutions: ask your dm. (if for PFS, ask a bunch of local dms)
Use a spring loaded wrist sheath.
Cast unseen golf caddy..erm. Unseen servant.
Nothing says a 1st level barbarian can't cast wish.
Yes there are. One can only cast wish if they able to cast level 9 spells.
Using UMD skill and a wish scroll a 1st level barbarian could attempt to cast wish.But this line of reasoning is nonconstructive and is not relevant to my question, which is:
Using the rules found in pathfinder, can anyone please tell me why using a wand while it is in the same hand as a light shield would not work?
Nothing prevents it but nothing allows it either. Making it a legitimate DM's call.
If a GM rules against the written rules without a good reason they are not a good GM.
Again, this line of reasoning is nonconstructive and is not relevant to my question, which is:
Using the rules found in pathfinder, can anyone please tell me why using a wand while it is in the same hand as a light shield would not work?
Please try to stay on topic and not bring in subjects that are simply not relevant to the thread.
Is it really so unreasonable to ask that we stick to pathfinder rules to get a pathfinder answer?
It seems to be the case currently. I hope you all have a wonderful day.
|
|
Nothing prevents it but nothing allows it either. Making it a legitimate DM's call.If a GM rules against the written rules without a good reason they are not a good GM.
The GM is allowed to do whatever they want. They aren't a ref. You don't have to keep playing with that GM, but they are free to modify any rules they want for whatever reason they want while you play in their game world. Yeah, sometimes this makes for a bad GM, but not always, and some rules require the GM to tweak them due to them not covering a specific situation.
In PFS, the GM is more a Ref, but this is a PFS rule, not something normal GMs are subject to.
If a GM rules against the written rules without a good reason they are not a good GM.
When there is no raw on the matter nothing the DM says is ruling against the Rules as written.
Arguments that something is allowed are not the raw.
"it doesn't say i can't so i can" is DEFINITELY not the raw. It's a rules paradigm. A commonly panned and not very often used one at that.
Using the rules found in pathfinder, can anyone please tell me why using a wand while it is in the same hand as a light shield would not work?
If someone asks you what the best hammer is to put in a screw, someone telling you you're using the wrong tool is the most helpful and relevant answer they can give.
|
|
Please try to stay on topic and not bring in subjects that are simply not relevant to the thread.
Is it really so unreasonable to ask that we stick to pathfinder rules to get a pathfinder answer?
It seems to be the case currently. I hope you all have a wonderful day.
You are ignoring any rules mentioned by others that contradict your understanding of this one, and dismissing them as not rules.
"Asking the GM" is a rule and one of the best solutions for things not explicitly covered by the rules. If something doesn't specifically say you can do it, and doesn't specifically say you can't, that's when we ask the GM. That is the official Pathfinder rules answer.
I know, annoyingly vague, but with only a 575pg core rulebook and hundreds of supplement books, they didn't have enough space to answer every question to the content of us nerds...so ask the GM is the answer.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since you can free action swap your weapon and wand, I see no reason to bar using a wand in the shield hand, as it is functionally the same thing. A GM can certainly say 'you are using too many free actions to trade weapon and wand, so you cannot use your wand when carrying a weapon and shield', but at my table I do not care.
Since you can free action swap your weapon and wand, I see no reason to bar using a wand in the shield hand, as it is functionally the same thing. A GM can certainly say 'you are using too many free actions to trade weapon and wand, so you cannot use your wand when carrying a weapon and shield', but at my table I do not care.
I was thinking along those lines, but is there a rule for the swap?
Vince,
A great many people have given you good ideas and ways you can pretty much give you what you want, unless what you want is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone who disagrees with you is wrong, wrong, wrong. I wish you the best.