Alternately, you’re conflating two distinct requirements a spellcaster may be required to satisfy, and missing the obvious counterargument to your proposal: the existence of spells whose components include both S and DF… which, by your reasoning, would be a redundant combination.
|
Under your ruling, some spells can be cast only by a spellcaster with 3 hands.
No. “My rule” is the book rule. Somatic components require a free hand. Divine Foci require a free hand. The same free hand can be used to fulfill multiple component requirements.
There are ways to fulfill somatic requirements or divine focus requirements without a free hand. But fulfilling one does not automatically fulfill others. Shielded Mage lets you use a hand holding a shield to fulfill somatic components but does not (by itself) eliminate the need for a free hand to present a divine focus. A Cassock of the Clergy means you don’t need a free hand for a divine focus, but it doesn’t fulfill somatic components.
There are ways to combine things. If you have a shield that functions as a holy symbol thanks to Create Reliquary Arms and Shields AND take the Shielded Mage feat, that hand now can do both (S) and (DF) while still wielding the shield. Two Weapon Drunkard explicitly allows worshippers of Cayden Cailean to fulfill (S) and (DF) requirements while dual-wielding tankards.
|
|
I don’t usually like to call people out. But Diego you have a habit of ignoring when people ask you to explain your reasoning and instead deflecting or attacking a straw man. If you want us to seriously consider your arguments, please answer/explain the following.
Cause fear has verbal and somatic components but no F/DF. So under your reasoning what happens if a cleric is wielding two weapons, one of which is a Holy Symbol thanks to Create Reliquary Arms and Shields, and wants to cast cause fear?
1. She can’t, because she doesn’t have a free hand for the somatic component.
2. She can, because the weapon counts as a DF, even though the spell does not have a DF component.
Which is it?
The way I see it each spell has one or more components that are uses in conjunction with each other to cast the spell. You look at all the components to see what you need to do to actually cast the spell. If the spell has S and an M/F/DF, the somatic component is using the M/F/DF is a particular way. For example, let’s say your deity’s holy symbol is an ankh. A spell with both the S and DF would require you to make specific gestures with the ankh. A spell with just the DF could be cast while the ankh is being worn like a necklace but would need to be visible. A spell with only the S component does not involve the ankh so holding it would prevent you from casting the spell.
The rules in Pathfinder are written in such a way that the GM can create any setting they want. This requires a certain amount of abstraction so that things can be adapted to any culture the GM wants. The game does not go into what the specific gestures are, or what form the divine focus takes to allow the GM to vary it based on the deity and or culture of the campaign.
Clerics and other divine casters usually have proficiency in shields and medium or better armor and are medium BAB classes. They are obviously designed to be in combat and cast spells. Personally, I think a GM that would restrict a cleric from casting spells that were obviously intended to be cast in combat by taking such a strict interpretation of the rules is kind of a dick. I don’t see anything wrong with a cleric being able to cast Divine Favor while holding a shield and a weapon when the weapon is a holy symbol. In campaigns I run I would allow a character to use the same hand for the S and DF components.
Most of the spells that have V, S, M, & DF are probably not intended to be cast in combat. Resurrection has a casting time of 1 minute. The rules about free hand are mainly for combat spells. I see no reason that a caster that is out of combat cannot set things down and pick up other things especially if the spell takes multiple rounds to cast. I don’t think there is anything requiring a character casting a spell that takes multiple rounds having to have the item in his hands at all times.
|
I don’t usually like to call people out. But Diego you have a habit of ignoring when people ask you to explain your reasoning and instead deflecting or attacking a straw man. If you want us to seriously consider your arguments, please answer/explain the following.
Which is it?Cause fear has verbal and somatic components but no F/DF. So under your reasoning what happens if a cleric is wielding two weapons, one of which is a Holy Symbol thanks to Create Reliquary Arms and Shields, and wants to cast cause fear?
1. She can’t, because she doesn’t have a free hand for the somatic component.
2. She can, because the weapon counts as a DF, even though the spell does not have a DF component.
Do you want a reply to your specific example?
Yes, Cause Fear is a problem when applying my interpretation, but I think that your interpretation that is possible to the same free hand to do multiple manipulations isn't better.Based on the FAQs about mixing natural and manufactured weapons, when a hand has been used while performing an action, you can't use it to perform something different: i.e., you can't swing a sword with your right hand and then do a claw attack with it.
You have people performing up to three different manipulations with the same "free" hand. But after the first manipulation, that hand isn't free.
|
|
Do you want a reply to your specific example?I don’t usually like to call people out. But Diego you have a habit of ignoring when people ask you to explain your reasoning and instead deflecting or attacking a straw man. If you want us to seriously consider your arguments, please answer/explain the following.
Which is it?Cause fear has verbal and somatic components but no F/DF. So under your reasoning what happens if a cleric is wielding two weapons, one of which is a Holy Symbol thanks to Create Reliquary Arms and Shields, and wants to cast cause fear?
1. She can’t, because she doesn’t have a free hand for the somatic component.
2. She can, because the weapon counts as a DF, even though the spell does not have a DF component.
Yes. Yes I do. Which is it?
|
|
Yes. Yes I do. Which is it?Do you want a reply to your specific example?I don’t usually like to call people out. But Diego you have a habit of ignoring when people ask you to explain your reasoning and instead deflecting or attacking a straw man. If you want us to seriously consider your arguments, please answer/explain the following.
Which is it?Cause fear has verbal and somatic components but no F/DF. So under your reasoning what happens if a cleric is wielding two weapons, one of which is a Holy Symbol thanks to Create Reliquary Arms and Shields, and wants to cast cause fear?
1. She can’t, because she doesn’t have a free hand for the somatic component.
2. She can, because the weapon counts as a DF, even though the spell does not have a DF component.
"Yes, Cause Fear is a problem when applying my interpretation, but I think that your interpretation that is possible to the same free hand to do multiple manipulations isn't better."
My guy can fulfill the S components with the hand holding the DF.
As it is a corner case and I will allow a Df to fulfill the S component, I will allow the casting of Cause Fear.
Your guy can fulfill the S component and the M component with the hand holding the DF if a spell requires all three.
But he will be unable to use his DF to fulfill the S component of the spell if it requires only that.
You seem to feel that using a weapon as a Df will make it unable to fulfill the S component of a spell.
Are you creating a hierarchy of holy symbols? "This one can fulfill a somatic component, that one can't."?
If that hierarchy exists, sure, the guy with a weapon that is a holy symbol can't cast a spell that has an S and DF comment if his other hand is encumbered, but I don't know any part of the rules that gives that hierarchy.
Sure, mine is an interpretation and not a rule. It is only vaguely supported by some rules. But your interpretation is exactly the same.