Maidhc O Casain
Na Bith Mo Riocht Tá!
I interpret that when a wizard bonds a wand, staff or weapon the use of that item becomes part of the somatic components (if any). Gestures that were formerly made using the fingers become gestures with the wand or staff. The spells don't come out of the item, but the hand wielding the item counts as the 'free hand' for somatic components as these components are gestures made with the item.
If the wizard uses a wand as a bonded item and could normally use a 'regular' wand in one hand and cast a spell with the other, use of a bonded wand doesn't change this. Bonded items that require two hands to wield (quarterstaff, great axe) are similarly used in the somatic components. Obviously, in such a case one couldn't 'wield' both the item and a wand; however, I firmly believe that bonding a two-handed weapon should not hamper a caster's ability to . . . well . . . cast.
It seems to me that to rule otherwise adds penalties to the writing that are not specified in RAW, and subverts the spirit of the idea. The drawback to bonding an item should come in the form of restricting casting without the item, not with it.
If the wizard uses a wand as a bonded item and could normally use a 'regular' wand in one hand and cast a spell with the other, use of a bonded wand doesn't change this. Bonded items that require two hands to wield (quarterstaff, great axe) are similarly used in the somatic components. Obviously, in such a case one couldn't 'wield' both the item and a wand; however, I firmly believe that bonding a two-handed weapon should not hamper a caster's ability to . . . well . . . cast.
It seems to me that to rule otherwise adds penalties to the writing that are not specified in RAW, and subverts the spirit of the idea. The drawback to bonding an item should come in the form of restricting casting without the item, not with it.
