A wand in each hand... [Archive] - Wizards Community

A wand in each hand... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
MiloRedapple
06-29-04, 01:40 AM i have a question that a friend of mine and i have been fueding over. is it possible for a pc to cast two wands in each round, so long as he takes an attack of opportunity?

for all those running to get their dmg, casting a wand is a standard action. and if the spells casting time is longer than one action, it takes that amount of time as well.

i have several reasons for not allowing this:

1. if he can cast two wands, then why not three, four, ten? if he had the quickdraw feat, he could just pull, cast, drop, take attack of opportunity, pull, cast, drop, take attack of opportunity, pull, etc. this is only if he has two arms. if he has multiple, then he doesnt even need the quickdraw feat.

2. If he can cast two wands, then why not let melee combatants attack twice at their full attack bonus? from here, refer to reason 1

3. In chess, can i sacrifice a pawn to have pieces move different ways. if he can "take an attack of opportunity" i can sacrifice a pawn to have my rook move diagonally.

4. Attacks of opportunity arent a form of currency that a player can decied to take.

5. if he stands far from the group and starts casting his spells, he doesnt even have to take the attack because there wont be anyone around him.

6. without the combat reflexes feat, enimies cant take mulitple attacks of opportunity against the player. unless you go by the logic that if the enemy can take a second attack of opportunity, the player takes an attack of opportunity against them as well.

7. a round consists of 6 seconds and there is only so much that is capable in this little of time. theoretically, if you take too many actions and its allowed, you appear to be moving at the spead of light

please let me know if this makes sence to anyone. it would finally put an end to everything
smrtgmp
06-29-04, 01:43 AM You're right, he's wrong. Only one wand per round, just like you can only cast one spell per round. Now, if one of the wands contained a quickened 0 level spell, you could probably do it, but otherwise, the answer is no.
MiloRedapple
06-29-04, 01:53 AM probably, but i dont know of too many good lvl 0 spells and for that matter, one thats worth putting into a wand that costs roughly 21,000gp
smrtgmp
06-29-04, 02:41 AM I didnt say it would be worth the cost, just that it would be possilbe.
Edward
06-29-04, 03:23 AM Not unless one wand contains a free action (ie quickened) spell.

You can however hold one wand in each hand and use whichever you want each turn.

Edward
[GSV] Kirstar
06-29-04, 03:35 AM your right hes wrong.

you cant dual wield wands.

even if it would be cool....
Hblast
06-29-04, 07:50 AM even the quickened spell is wrong

if you were to stow a quickened 0th level spell in a wand, it would require a standard action to cast it, because that is the minimum it takes to activate a wand (it has a special addendum on that).

there IS a way though, Craft Epic Staff... that allows quickened spellcasting.
But that's it.

(he might as well take a wand of Twinned [whatever]...
smrtgmp
06-29-04, 07:56 AM Nowere in the wand descripton does it say that quicken can not be applied to it. Under activation, it states that "casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action."

Also, there are a few class features (such as the ones provided by the incantatrix and the new atificer from the eberon campaign setting) that allow you to apply metamagic feats to charged spell trigger items. The description of those abilaties specifically mentions quickening the spell cast from the wand.
Harmor
06-29-04, 08:11 AM Dude... a Wand of Ray of Frost is deadly in the hands of an Arcane Trickster who can hide or has Improved Invisiblity.

Remember you can crit with spells to!!!

A quickened version of Ray of Frost would allow you to cast another spell or do a Full Round action.

Remember, spells crit too.

I made a set of gloves that doubled the threat range of crits for any Ray attacks :-)
smrtgmp
06-29-04, 08:33 AM Originally posted by Harmor
I made a set of gloves that doubled the threat range of crits for any Ray attacks :-)
Care to post the legistics? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see that. Sounds like a handy item for any ray-heavy caster.
tarkin
06-29-04, 11:40 AM Activating a SINGLE wand takes a Standard Action.

You can not do two standard actions in a single round.

The only ways I know to activate multiple wands in a single round is:

1) Use a Time Stop spell.
2) Have another intelligent being do it, i.e. a familiar or a follower that is capable of doing it.
Phrennzy
06-29-04, 01:54 PM SO my idea of strapping a dozen wands around a crank-turned cylinder to create a Gatling Wand is right out?

Curse. I would have got away with it too, if it hadn't been for those pesky play-balance kids...
yonman
06-29-04, 02:02 PM Using a wand is a standard action, therefore it does not matter if the spell is quickened or not. If you were casting a spell or using a spell-like ability that was quickened you would provoke an attack of opportunity....wands do NOT.

Therefore, you cannot duel-wield wands. I usually have two wands out for multi-tasking purposes, but that's about it.
mercurial67
06-29-04, 03:06 PM Originally posted by smrtgmp
Nowere in the wand descripton does it say that quicken can not be applied to it. Under activation, it states that "casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action." You forgot to add the part where it then states:If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wandThere is no mention of shorter casting times & the longer casting time is what is meant by the "usually a standard action".
smrtgmp
06-29-04, 10:59 PM It still never says you cant quicken a spell in a wand, and like I mentioned above, the class abilities for the incantatrix and artificer specifically mention quicken in the description.

the longer casting time is what is meant by the "usually a standard action".Are you a game designer? If not, than how do you know this is what they meant? Assumptions like that should be avoided whenever possible.

One could just as easily assume that they say wands usually have a standard action activation time because most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action, and it takes the same amount of time to activate a wand as it would to cast the spell itself.

The fact of the matter is that anything any of us says on the matter is nothing more than speculation, as the book is less than clear on this issue.
Hypersmurf
06-29-04, 11:19 PM Originally posted by smrtgmp
Are you a game designer? If not, than how do you know this is what they meant? Assumptions like that should be avoided whenever possible.

If we have a statement: "Mandarapples are usually orange. (A small number of mandarapples are red.)"

... it seems fairly clear that the parenthetic comment is explaining the use of 'usually'. Except for the small number of red mandarapples, all mandarapples are orange.

If the possibility of green mandarapples existed, one would expect the parenthetic comment to say something like "(For example, a small number of mandarapples are red.)", making it clear that this is not an exclusive statement.

But without such qualification, the red mandarapples are the exception that necessitate the use of 'usually'. No provision for the existence of green mandarapples is made.

-Hyp.
smrtgmp
06-30-04, 01:07 AM Yet there are clearly instances when you can cast quickened spells from a wand as a free action. For the third time now, both incantatrixs and artificers can do it. Even if the average wand user cant do it (which very well may be the case) it is still a possibility, provided you have the right class abilities.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MiloRedapple 06-29-04, 01:40 AM	i have a question that a friend of mine and i have been fueding over. is it possible for a pc to cast two wands in each round, so long as he takes an attack of opportunity? for all those running to get their dmg, casting a wand is a standard action. and if the spells casting time is longer than one action, it takes that amount of time as well. i have several reasons for not allowing this: 1. if he can cast two wands, then why not three, four, ten? if he had the quickdraw feat, he could just pull, cast, drop, take attack of opportunity, pull, cast, drop, take attack of opportunity, pull, etc. this is only if he has two arms. if he has multiple, then he doesnt even need the quickdraw feat. 2. If he can cast two wands, then why not let melee combatants attack twice at their full attack bonus? from here, refer to reason 1 3. In chess, can i sacrifice a pawn to have pieces move different ways. if he can "take an attack of opportunity" i can sacrifice a pawn to have my rook move diagonally. 4. Attacks of opportunity arent a form of currency that a player can decied to take. 5. if he stands far from the group and starts casting his spells, he doesnt even have to take the attack because there wont be anyone around him. 6. without the combat reflexes feat, enimies cant take mulitple attacks of opportunity against the player. unless you go by the logic that if the enemy can take a second attack of opportunity, the player takes an attack of opportunity against them as well. 7. a round consists of 6 seconds and there is only so much that is capable in this little of time. theoretically, if you take too many actions and its allowed, you appear to be moving at the spead of light please let me know if this makes sence to anyone. it would finally put an end to everything
smrtgmp 06-29-04, 01:43 AM	You're right, he's wrong. Only one wand per round, just like you can only cast one spell per round. Now, if one of the wands contained a quickened 0 level spell, you could probably do it, but otherwise, the answer is no.
MiloRedapple 06-29-04, 01:53 AM	probably, but i dont know of too many good lvl 0 spells and for that matter, one thats worth putting into a wand that costs roughly 21,000gp
smrtgmp 06-29-04, 02:41 AM	I didnt say it would be worth the cost, just that it would be possilbe.
Edward 06-29-04, 03:23 AM	Not unless one wand contains a free action (ie quickened) spell. You can however hold one wand in each hand and use whichever you want each turn. Edward
[GSV] Kirstar 06-29-04, 03:35 AM	your right hes wrong. you cant dual wield wands. even if it would be cool....
Hblast 06-29-04, 07:50 AM	even the quickened spell is wrong if you were to stow a quickened 0th level spell in a wand, it would require a standard action to cast it, because that is the minimum it takes to activate a wand (it has a special addendum on that). there IS a way though, Craft Epic Staff... that allows quickened spellcasting. But that's it. (he might as well take a wand of Twinned [whatever]...
smrtgmp 06-29-04, 07:56 AM	Nowere in the wand descripton does it say that quicken can not be applied to it. Under activation, it states that "casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action." Also, there are a few class features (such as the ones provided by the incantatrix and the new atificer from the eberon campaign setting) that allow you to apply metamagic feats to charged spell trigger items. The description of those abilaties specifically mentions quickening the spell cast from the wand.
Harmor 06-29-04, 08:11 AM	Dude... a Wand of Ray of Frost is deadly in the hands of an Arcane Trickster who can hide or has Improved Invisiblity. Remember you can crit with spells to!!! A quickened version of Ray of Frost would allow you to cast another spell or do a Full Round action. Remember, spells crit too. I made a set of gloves that doubled the threat range of crits for any Ray attacks :-)
smrtgmp 06-29-04, 08:33 AM	Originally posted by Harmor I made a set of gloves that doubled the threat range of crits for any Ray attacks :-) Care to post the legistics? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see that. Sounds like a handy item for any ray-heavy caster.
tarkin 06-29-04, 11:40 AM	Activating a SINGLE wand takes a Standard Action. You can not do two standard actions in a single round. The only ways I know to activate multiple wands in a single round is: 1) Use a Time Stop spell. 2) Have another intelligent being do it, i.e. a familiar or a follower that is capable of doing it.
Phrennzy 06-29-04, 01:54 PM	SO my idea of strapping a dozen wands around a crank-turned cylinder to create a Gatling Wand is right out? Curse. I would have got away with it too, if it hadn't been for those pesky play-balance kids...
yonman 06-29-04, 02:02 PM	Using a wand is a standard action, therefore it does not matter if the spell is quickened or not. If you were casting a spell or using a spell-like ability that was quickened you would provoke an attack of opportunity....wands do NOT. Therefore, you cannot duel-wield wands. I usually have two wands out for multi-tasking purposes, but that's about it.
mercurial67 06-29-04, 03:06 PM	Originally posted by smrtgmp Nowere in the wand descripton does it say that quicken can not be applied to it. Under activation, it states that "casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action." You forgot to add the part where it then states:If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wandThere is no mention of shorter casting times & the longer casting time is what is meant by the "usually a standard action".
smrtgmp 06-29-04, 10:59 PM	It still never says you cant quicken a spell in a wand, and like I mentioned above, the class abilities for the incantatrix and artificer specifically mention quicken in the description. the longer casting time is what is meant by the "usually a standard action".Are you a game designer? If not, than how do you know this is what they meant? Assumptions like that should be avoided whenever possible. One could just as easily assume that they say wands usually have a standard action activation time because most spells have a casting time of 1 standard action, and it takes the same amount of time to activate a wand as it would to cast the spell itself. The fact of the matter is that anything any of us says on the matter is nothing more than speculation, as the book is less than clear on this issue.
Hypersmurf 06-29-04, 11:19 PM	Originally posted by smrtgmp Are you a game designer? If not, than how do you know this is what they meant? Assumptions like that should be avoided whenever possible. If we have a statement: "Mandarapples are usually orange. (A small number of mandarapples are red.)" ... it seems fairly clear that the parenthetic comment is explaining the use of 'usually'. Except for the small number of red mandarapples, all mandarapples are orange. If the possibility of green mandarapples existed, one would expect the parenthetic comment to say something like "(For example, a small number of mandarapples are red.)", making it clear that this is not an exclusive statement. But without such qualification, the red mandarapples are the exception that necessitate the use of 'usually'. No provision for the existence of green mandarapples is made. -Hyp.
smrtgmp 06-30-04, 01:07 AM	Yet there are clearly instances when you can cast quickened spells from a wand as a free action. For the third time now, both incantatrixs and artificers can do it. Even if the average wand user cant do it (which very well may be the case) it is still a possibility, provided you have the right class abilities.