Using a wand is a standard action. Except when it's a full action or longer. So no.
Heh, well, sure, you can try to poke the kobold in the eye with the wand as an attack of opportunity...
You can only "poke the kobold in the eye" with the wand as an AoO if you have the Catch Off-Guard feat. If you're not proficient in something, you're not "armed". I'd say it would do 1 or 1d2 damage, to be honest. The flimsy magic stick can't be compared to even the weakest weapon found on the simple weapon chart. Remember, punching someone in the face is 1d3 nonlethal damage so I doubt using a wand as a weapon would even be that effective.
Random Kobold A has moved up to attack me with a sword (provoking an AoO in the process).
How? Kobolds are small, not tiny, they have as much melee reach as a human. Unless you had reach, someone ENTERING your threatened space does not provoke AoO's.
Could you give a page number for where it says you count as unarmed if you're not proficient? Because to the best of my knowledge it's the same as if you're using a longsword without the right proficiency sure you take a -4 to your attacks but it doesn't make you unarmed which would mean you provoke AoO for attacking or at least I didn't see that rule.
But yes a wand would be a piddly weapon but every little bit can help.
I too have never come across such a statement in the rulebooks.
Now, I suppose you could try to make the argument that you aren't 'wielding' the wand as an improvised weapon, but I think that is too fine a point to try and make.I would have no problem letting a player try to poke someone with a wand as an improvised weapon.
As a note, even though the rules don't allow it, I typically would let someone take an unarmed attack as an AoO. This of course provokes an AoO of its own, but hey if you are that desperate to attack them, have at it.
I would have no problem letting a player try to poke someone with a wand as an improvised weapon.
If you let him take an AOO with it then he threatens squares with it, and thus provides flanking.
I don't think that's reasonable.
Is it any more or less reasonable than a mage always wearing a spiked gauntlet so he can provide flanking?
Anyway, I never actually said I considered him threatening adjacent squares, only that I would allow him to use it as an improvised weapon to make an AoO (I also said I would allow him to do so unarmed, even though he doesn't normally threaten in that case either).
I've never liked the idea that when someone lets her guard down in combat, you can attack them if you're holding a club but can't if your holding a frying pan.
I've never come across an occasion where this really mattered. I've never seen it abused so I don't worry about it. YMMV.
As poking a kobold in the eye with a wand evokes a clear mental image of some minor action in the midst of the combat, I wouldn't begrudge the player 1d3 points of possible damage. I'd rather not have every combat devolve into mindless tit-for-tat rolls.
If a player tried to use this as a method to make a cheesy flanking buddy, you better believe I would close that loophole.
I know using a wand doesn't provoke an AoO, my question however is, assume I have a wand of magic missile, and Random Kobold A has moved up to attack me with a sword (provoking an AoO in the process).
I'm surprised no one has caught this, but just because Random Kobold A moves up to attack you he doesn't provoke. You don't provoke for entering a square, you only provoke for leaving a square (or certain other actions).
I know using a wand doesn't provoke an AoO, my question however is, assume I have a wand of magic missile, and Random Kobold A has moved up to attack me with a sword (provoking an AoO in the process).I'm surprised no one has caught this, but just because Random Kobold A moves up to attack you he doesn't provoke. You don't provoke for entering a square, you only provoke for leaving a square (or certain other actions).Someone already did earlier in the thread.
Missed my spot check. Oops. I mean perception check.
|
I would have no problem letting a player try to poke someone with a wand as an improvised weapon.
If you let him take an AOO with it then he threatens squares with it, and thus provides flanking.
I don't think that's reasonable.
If you want to threaten with a wand, get a wand with an offensive touch spell like shocking grasp. Activate the wand and hold the charge.
-James
I've read one here before and the ruling is somewhere that even a charged melee touch attack does not threaten and therefore does not provoke an AoO. Can't currently find that thread though.
My question is, if I currently have a charged melee touch attack and I DO threaten, by means of another weapon be it a bite or sword or something, when an AoO is provoked can I use the charged melee touch attack for said AoO?
I might allow for the AoO with the wand but I'd make it clear that a fumble would have dire consequences. In my games broken wands go boom.
However, this being the rules forum. I don't believe that by the rules you can take that AoO.
I might allow for the AoO with the wand but I'd make it clear that a fumble would have dire consequences. In my games broken wands go boom.
However, this being the rules forum. I don't believe that by the rules you can take that AoO.
By the rules, there are no fumbles, either.