Wielding a Wand with 0 charges as a Melee Weapon


Rules Questions


Let's say I have a wand of whatever and I've spent all 50 charges. I'm down on my luck and have no other weapons, so I decide to wield it as an improvised melee weapon.

How much damage does it do?

The rules say

CRB wrote:
To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match.

I don't see a reasonable match....it's basically just a stick.


I could see it as an Improvised Knife, -4 to hit and does 1d4 Piercing or Bashing with a crit of 20x2


I'd say it breaks/does a 1d2 noneleathal damage.


Improvised Fine Wooden Stake

Weight works out perfectly
Medium=1 pound
Small=8 ounces
Tiny=4 ounces
Diminutive=2 ounces
Fine=1 ounce (slightly more than a wand)

-4 attack penalty. Does 0 piercing damage. Critical range of 20/x2. Range increment of 10 feet.

Oh, and it's not usable as a weapon by anyone larger than Fine.

Sorry.


You'd be better off punching them.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Assuming you're some kind of arcane spellcaster, there are these things called attack cantrips that you can cast until the sun doesn't shine.


I can't imagine it doing more damage than a punch or Acid Splash or Jolt.


I would have to say that it would have to be house-ruled. But if I were the GM, I would definitely give the fragile quality and probably not give it more than 1d2 damage. Something else people need to consider is that not all wands are made of wood, some are made of metal, bone, or crystal. Thus a wand made out of Silver or Iron may indeed weigh more or do more damage. As for attacking with an improvised weapon vs unarmed melee attack, I would take an improvised attack over unarmed strikes just because I would much rather not give an enemy attacks of opportunity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the best answer is that if something can't be reasonably matched to a weapon, it can't be used as an improvised weapon.


Well I believe that there are several possibilities when matching to a weapon. What I mean to say is that the general shape and length of a wand is distinctly similar to that of a crossbow bolt. Arguments could also be made for other weapons such as a small version of the exotic weapon Siangham.


Why not an Improvised Fine Wooden Stake?

Sovereign Court

Some of the wands in the Harry Potter series would leave a nasty hole if it stabbed you.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is about as strawman as it gets.

I mean, if you're so pathethic that you can't even carry a measly dagger with you, what are you doing campaigning?

If you're an arcanist, you should have at least one attack cantrip to fall back on, so why are you going to front line with a light useless stick?


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I attack him with my number 2 pencil !

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:

This is about as strawman as it gets.

I mean, if you're so pathethic that you can't even carry a measly dagger with you, what are you doing campaigning?

If you're an arcanist, you should have at least one attack cantrip to fall back on, so why are you going to front line with a light useless stick?

While you're certainly not wrong in saying every character should have some sort of weapon to use to make themselves not useless in combat, calling someone pathetic is not at all productive and very much against the spirit of these boards.

I'm sure you can come up with better ways to post your exasperation for the situation.


The Human Diversion wrote:
LazarX wrote:

This is about as strawman as it gets.

I mean, if you're so pathethic that you can't even carry a measly dagger with you, what are you doing campaigning?

If you're an arcanist, you should have at least one attack cantrip to fall back on, so why are you going to front line with a light useless stick?

While you're certainly not wrong in saying every character should have some sort of weapon to use to make themselves not useless in combat, calling someone pathetic is not at all productive and very much against the spirit of these boards.

I'm sure you can come up with better ways to post your exasperation for the situation.

I think if fairly clear that he wasn't calling a poster pathetic, but a character who would adventure without any sort of backup weapon/spell.

I don't believe anyone would reasonably expect anyone posting on these boards to really be out trekking through the wilderness using magic wands and fighting monsters.


There is always the possibility that the character with the wand was a rogue or other non-spellcasting class. There are several reasons why a character might end up using a wand as an improvised weapon. (i.e. in a field of anti-magic or wild magic, the enemy they are fighting is actually healed by magic or is otherwise immune, or the cantrips prepared are only utilitarian). I doubt that anyone is suggesting that a spellcaster shouldnt use their cantrips, but to suggest that there is NEVER a reason for a spellcaster to resort to improvised weapons is purely ridiculous.


Weapon that could be equivalent:
Dan bong: short, blunt sticks that weighs nothing.
Iron brush: Same general shape and weighs nothing.
Wushu dart: Same general shape and weighs nothing.

I don't know why people have a hard time finding an equivalent. It's not hard and I see little reason to TRY to make it useless by trying to make it a fine weapon. :P


Dave Justus wrote:
The Human Diversion wrote:
LazarX wrote:

This is about as strawman as it gets.

I mean, if you're so pathethic that you can't even carry a measly dagger with you, what are you doing campaigning?

If you're an arcanist, you should have at least one attack cantrip to fall back on, so why are you going to front line with a light useless stick?

While you're certainly not wrong in saying every character should have some sort of weapon to use to make themselves not useless in combat, calling someone pathetic is not at all productive and very much against the spirit of these boards.

I'm sure you can come up with better ways to post your exasperation for the situation.

I think if fairly clear that he wasn't calling a poster pathetic, but a character who would adventure without any sort of backup weapon/spell.

I don't believe anyone would reasonably expect anyone posting on these boards to really be out trekking through the wilderness using magic wands and fighting monsters.

Your out of spells, your ray of frost doesn't hurt it and your backup dagger just got rusted by a fiendish rust monster. I can see it possibly happening.


Dave Justus wrote:
The Human Diversion wrote:
LazarX wrote:
...
...
...I don't believe anyone would reasonably expect anyone posting on these boards to really be out trekking through the wilderness using magic wands and fighting monsters.

Yea, but that probally just because there aren't any level appropriate monsters around. I mean, I've been wandering in the wilderness with my wand for YEARS, and I'm still just a Level 1 Commoner.

I mean, really...I have yet to find any kobolds or stirges in ANY of the abandoned houses in my area. It's ridiculous.


A Dan bong is considerably thicker than a wand (although it doesn't have a weight in the Pathfinder rules).

An Iron Brush and a Wushu Dart are piercing weapons, meaning it is sharp.

I wouldn't allow a wand to be an effective improvised weapon. Basically if you are wielding a teeny stick you are effectively unarmed, and would have to use the unarmed combat rules.

While there may be a time when our hypothetical spell caster would need to use an improvised weapon, they would have to find something that could be effective as a weapon in order to do so.

Some things just are not effective as weapons.


LazarX wrote:

This is about as strawman as it gets.

I mean, if you're so pathethic that you can't even carry a measly dagger with you, what are you doing campaigning?

If you're an arcanist, you should have at least one attack cantrip to fall back on, so why are you going to front line with a light useless stick?

Some things are just thought exercises. Besides, it could be one of those 'we got captured and stripped of our gear, this is all I've managed to get my hands on' situations. Or, y'know, rust monster. Whatever.

I agree it's horribly unlikely, but it is, theoretically, possible.

Liberty's Edge

I can't see a stick doing more than a fist, I think 1d2 sounds about right. Though I doubt there is going to be a straight up RAW answer for it.


Dave Justus: So an item that weighs more than the weapon in question isn't heavy enough to work? "A wand is 6 to 12 inches long, 1/4 inch thick, and weighs no more than 1 ounce." sounds a LOT like "short, blunt stick" that weighs "-".

As to piercing, nothing says your average wand end is/isn't pointy.

As to not effective, I see no great difference between the weapons I listed and a wand in shape and weight. That is the essence of finding a reasonable match from the improvised weapon rules. If you find Dan bong,Iron Brush and the Wushu Dart viable weapons, I can't understand how a wand is then ineffective.

Scarab Sages

I'd rule it as identical to a small blunt arrow. 1d3 x2 with the fragile property.


http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/wands.html wrote:
A wand is 6 to 12 inches long, 1/4 inch thick, and weighs no more than 1 ounce.

That's the description of a typical #2 Pencil. Can you see a Pencil being used as an improvised weapon? If so, then go for it, the description of Wushu Dart sound perfect (This sharpened wooden spike can be used as a punching weapon but it is perfectly balanced for throwing.), just without the throwing.

If it were me, I'd say it is a Piercing weapon that does 1 point of damage.

Liberty's Edge

With my battle scavenger ability I would get +2 damage with it and it wouldn't provoke an AoO, so not necessarily worse than punching.


zrandrews wrote:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/wands.html wrote:
A wand is 6 to 12 inches long, 1/4 inch thick, and weighs no more than 1 ounce.
That's the description of a typical #2 Pencil. Can you see a Pencil being used as an improvised weapon?

I'd bet Jason Bourne could do it.

But, yes, this was mostly just a thought experiment. I could totally see a person holding a wand, using its last charge and then just stabbing the monster in the eye. Not very effective, but cinematic. Maybe even comedic with the right group.

Dark Archive

Penicls and pens have been used as improvised(albeit for their piercing ability) weapons in more than one instance in the real world. I would probably make it do 1d2 with the fragile quality as mentioned above.


A weapon having no listed weight is different than it "weighing nothing".

If it weighed nothing, we would know that it weighs less than a wand does. We would also know that it floats if you let go of it.

Since it rather has no listed weight, we just know that its weight was most likely considered trivial. It still may weigh considerably more than an ounce.

Honestly, the mere fact that they are viable weapons for an ordinary character with no chance of breaking through normal use indicates that their structure is considerably different than that of a wand.

Those could be valid options for comparison, however. I guess it depends on the GM. I just associated it with a wooden stake because they both say something like "this is basically just a stick." If they're both sticks, the only question is, "what size?"


Avoron wrote:


Honestly, the mere fact that they are viable weapons for an ordinary character with no chance of breaking through normal use indicates that their structure is considerably different than that of a wand.

This is 100% false. Have you looked at the ACTUAL chance of a wand breaking?

A typical wand has AC 7, 5 hit points, hardness 5, and a break DC of 16.
Light hafted weapon, 2 hit points, hardness 5.
Projectile weapon, 5 hit points, hardness 5.
One-handed hafted weapon, 5 hit points, hardness 5.
Simple wooden door break DC 13.

A wand isn't fragile. It has a break DC 3 higher than a wooden door. It has more (or equal) hp to several actual weapons. Just going by hp and hardness, a wand is a better weapon than a light hafted weapon like a light mace.


It might not be fragile, but I'd probably give it a maximum STR bonus (similar to a composite longbow). It shouldn't effect the wizard, but would effect other characters who might otherwise get full benefit from an easily concealed weapon.


An object's hit points, hardness, and break DC have nothing to do with whether or not it can break through ordinary use in combat.

A hardness 20, 100 hp fragile weapon could still break when you hit something with it. A hardness 0, 1 hp improvised weapon could not. This is a portion of the rules that requires a bit of suspension of disbelief, which is why I did not spend any time talking about how a wand should have the fragile weapon quality, which, by RAW, it cannot.

I simply meant in the passage you quoted that it seem from context that these weapons contain a good deal more material than a wand does, even though they don't have a listed weight, and even if the wand is "sturdier" in terms of hit points. And with improvised weapons, the GM has to consider that sort of thing in order to find a "reasonable match."

This whole thing is GM decision, I was just saying what I think is the most reasonable option.


An item with a dash in the weight section has "a good deal more material than a wand does"? It has more material than an object with 3 less hp (light mace)? It's more structurally sound that a wooden door and only 1 less than a small chest? It can be made out of wood and metals without the fragile quality.

I don't see how the wand is greatly less substantial, sturdy or containing significantly less material than a Dan bong, Iron Brush and a Wushu Dart. For instance, I found an Emei Piercer online that's 12.5" long and 3.2 oz. Dimensions seem pretty inline. A 12" Dan bong is listed online as .1 lbs. Heck, even something over twice the size of a wand like an Escrima Stick 28" long, 1" in diameter only weighs 5.5 oz.

I think you're underestimating wands and overestimating those weapons that are close to them. A foot long, 1/4" metal rod is pretty sturdy no matter how you look at it.


Dustin Ashe wrote:
zrandrews wrote:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/wands.html wrote:
A wand is 6 to 12 inches long, 1/4 inch thick, and weighs no more than 1 ounce.
That's the description of a typical #2 Pencil. Can you see a Pencil being used as an improvised weapon?

I'd bet Jason Bourne could do it.

But, yes, this was mostly just a thought experiment. I could totally see a person holding a wand, using its last charge and then just stabbing the monster in the eye. Not very effective, but cinematic. Maybe even comedic with the right group.

Buffy did it. [At 1:10, the trailer shows a ruler. The scene in the film also had one taken out by a pencil. Just, can't find that clip.]

/cevah

EDIT: better clip


(as Joker) "Wanna see a magic trick?"

Grand Lodge

I cannot imagine any DM having a problem with this.

Unless, random jerk behavior, and altering RAW to screw with players is their forte'.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Wielding a Wand with 0 charges as a Melee Weapon All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.