Pathfinder 1E Rules question about Pathfinder Wizard's bonded item

[reveal]

So PF Wizard's can have either a bonded item or a familiar. A player in my campaign picked the item and chose a wand.

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.

The question is one of interpretation. In the first session, the player wanted to wield his bonded wand in one hand and another wand (grease) in the other. I ruled that he couldn't because, while the bonded wand is his object, that doesn't mean his spells come out of it because, if it did, that would remove all somatic components from spells because using a wand doesn't require somatic components. So he still needed to have one hand free to cast the spells with somatic components.

He's fine with the ruling and I was just wondering if others would have ruled differently and why.

 

[GlassEye]

I ruled that he couldn't because, while the bonded wand is his object, that doesn't mean his spells come out of it because, if it did, that would remove all somatic components from spells because using a wand doesn't require somatic components.

True, using a wand in normal circumstances doesn't require somatic components. This, however, is more than just a wand. I am not advocating that it should eliminate somatic components; only that a bonded item might not interfere with somatic components. I would likely allow him to wield both wands. He just couldn't use both in the same round (unless the spell he is casting has been Quickened).

My reasoning is as follows: a staff is a two-handed weapon. The text you quoted states that staves, wands and weapons must be wielded. Wielding a two-handed weapon takes two hands so it would be necessary for the wizard to still be able to perform his somatic components while wielding a staff (or other two-handed weapon).

 

[mach1.9pants]

Yeah I agree with GlassEye, he could have just easily chosen a ring and then he has to do nothing. I would not penalise him due to his choice (in fact I loathe the bonded item idea with every Wiz being the only class with a build in weak point) and I would allow tattoo or even an internal piercing- like to see captors get rid of that!

 

[IronWolf]

The question is one of interpretation. In the first session, the player wanted to wield his bonded wand in one hand and another wand (grease) in the other. I ruled that he couldn't because, while the bonded wand is his object, that doesn't mean his spells come out of it because, if it did, that would remove all somatic components from spells because using a wand doesn't require somatic components. So he still needed to have one hand free to cast the spells with somatic components.

He's fine with the ruling and I was just wondering if others would have ruled differently and why.

I believe there is some debate over what counts as wielding and such and how somatic components are effected by bonding something you carry in your hands. I don't really have anything revolutionary that will clear that up from a RAW perspective.

You are correct that the spells are not coming out of the arcane bonded wand, just as they wouldn't come out of an amulet or ring either. It's just that precious object that gives him a couple of extra tricks but his spells are cast normally.

I would let the character wield his arcane bonded wand in one hand and use a wand of grease in the other. I don't see an issue with a practiced wizard having learned to perform his somatic components with his arcane bonded wand. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me or enough of a power to break the game. So that's probably how I would rule it in my game.

 

[reveal]

My reasoning is as follows: a staff is a two-handed weapon. The text you quoted states that staves, wands and weapons must be wielded.

Yes, but it also says:

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.

So that makes me think it doesn't really have to be "wielded." It just needs to be in a hand. It's all very confusing.

 

[GlassEye]

Yep, you're right. For me, though, 'wielded' and 'in-hand' are the same thing. Clearly, you could argue that one could hold a staff in one hand (leaning on it like a walking stick, perhaps) and not be wielding it and still be able to use it as an arcane object to cast spells. And I might agree (depending on the day and my mood, of course). I think, especially because it isn't perfectly clear, that there can be leeway in the interpretation and I would tend towards the use of the rule that makes my player happiest.

 

[frankthedm]

The question is one of interpretation. In the first session, the player wanted to wield his bonded wand in one hand and another wand (grease) in the other. I ruled that he couldn't because, while the bonded wand is his object, that doesn't mean his spells come out of it because, if it did, that would remove all somatic components from spells because using a wand doesn't require somatic components. So he still needed to have one hand free to cast the spells with somatic components.

He's fine with the ruling and I was just wondering if others would have ruled differently and why.

You ruled just fine. Bonded items take an item slot or a hand.

 

[megablake]

and I would allow tattoo or even an internal piercing- like to see captors get rid of that!

Oh, it's easier than you think. Bob! Heat up those knives!

 

[DarkTouch]

I believe the thought is that for a bonded weapon to be used properly it needs to be weilded in such a way that it could effectively be used in an attack. The quarter staff is a two handed weapon this is true, but it is also a double weapon. Double weapons have the added note:

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.

I recently ran into that problem when I realize my Half-Orc's Great Axe bonded item wasn't going to work out because I needed to wield it with two hands. I ended up rebonding to a magically Battle axe the party found so I could use my free hand for casting... but mostly I just cast True Strike so it probably wouldn't have mattered except I'd like to occassionally cast Enlarge Person.

 

[Ryujin]

I agree with those who say that they wouldn't penalize a caster who was using a wand, any more than they would one who had a bonded amulet. A bonded item is essentially a part of the Wizard, and so should not impact his ability to cast. If one hand free is enough to perform somatic components of a spell, then the wand would not impact this.