Weaponwand

Alright, I know this may seem like I'm trying to cheese out this spell, but I'm needing to know its full limitations before I start using it. Even with the most restrictive assumption, it is a nice spell for my wife's cleric and my whip magus.

Ok, from d20pfsrd.com the weapon wand states:

By its reading it is obvious that I can use say a light mace or even a whip to deliver my attack roll of the wand (if one is needed) without adding the weapon damage but getting the bonuses to hit (so say weapon fcs or such). This is fine...

So here is where the questions come in...the target entry just says "one weapon" it does not specify melee or not. So with this, I could have a character use a crossbow to store the wand. Now the part that is not debatable (for party touch spells that is) is using my crossbow to deliver the melee touch by literally touching someone...since that is still using the method of delivery of say a Cure Light Wounds to heal my ally.

What if I wanted to use the crossbow to deliver my melee touch spell at a range? It may seem wierd but as it is worded, it is open to that train of reasoning. The requisite line from the spell is "making an attack with the weapon at its highest bonus". So why can't I use my crossbow with a CLW wand put in it to deliver a heal to a party member 75ft away? Yes, this would then require a ranged touch attack, but without danger of hurting a party member it isn't that big a loss, also assumption that the charge would be lost if I missed.

Conversely, my whip magus who is a bladebound kensai could he not put a wand of scorching ray in his whip, using it to deliver the attack against a nearby enemy? Thereby making it a melee touch attack? (Yes I know I can't use this normally with spell combat or anything).

Along the thought of the crossbow with a wand..if I had a wand of say CLW that I needed to touch a zombie with who is adjacent to me...would I still be able to use the crossbow to deliver the touch in melee? But then would it be considered improvised and thereby getting a -4 penalty? Or would it not? (assuming situation doesn't allow a 5ft step away to make it a moot point). Since it says you "may make the attack.......rather than the normal attack with the wand" I would assume the crossbow used in melee in this manner would not impart anything positively or negatively to my attack roll as I would just make the normal "wand" attack.

The questions above if answered favorably to the stance of "yes by wording it is true" won't by most measures break anything game wise...getting the CLW at range seemse powerful, but the reality is this will only happen rarely and with the potential of losing the charge, it would not be the preferred method. The same goes with a ranged attack spell beign transformed into a melee isn't that big a deal unless you have a low dex, high str character..but its still touch and usually is either insanely easy to hit or very hard (well built monks). My whip magus is a dex/finesse guy anyway.

Not finding it on d20pfsrd; can you post a link?

Specifically, I'm looking for the line "this is third party nonsense".

To save you time; if it is third party, you'll probably have to ask the publisher.

Well you just didn't browse the spells. It is NOT 3rd party, just from Inner Sea Magic.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/weaponwand

Yeah I had seen the spell before, but didn't have a character to use it with..took me a bit to find its source again too because it doesn't find well.

Odd that putting "weaponwand" in the search box does nothing.

Strangely worded spell. "You can't add your weapon's damage to the wand's attack roll." You don't say?

I don't think this changes the spell. Touch spells are still touch spells, range touch spells are still range touch spells.

By the wording, though, you could smack a zombie with your crossbow and deliver the cure. You'd still gain weapon focus, enhancement bonuses, etc to the melee touch attack. No improvised penalties.

What it doesn't add, though, is weapons specials like "distance" or "seeking". Just stuff that boosts to-hit.

Specifically, I'm looking for the line "this is third party nonsense".

Huh.

I do'nt think you can shoot a CLW charge across the battlefield. Unless you merge the wand with the bolt to be fired. In which case the wand is destroyed, since the bolt is as well.

It is important to note that you aren't actually attacking with the weapon. You are using your accuracy with the weapon to use the wand.

A ranged wand in a crossbow doesn't use a bolt, it just uses the sights.

A melee touch with a whip doesn't use the reach, just the bonuses to hit.

Best, I think, to stop thinking of your weapon as a weapon, and just think of it as funny shaped wand.

Well the hole in what you just said comes from the text "as if you were making an attack with the weapon". By that wording, I use the appropriate attack for the weapon, so for an xbow that is a ranged shot and for a whip an attack with reach..So to stop thinking of my weapon as a weapon is against the very wording...

That wording, though, is surrounded by three times as much context. Context which (by my reading) screams "Just for calculating your to-hit modifier".

At this point, I can only tell you what I'd say as your DM. You may just need to hit the FAQ button and wait for them to clean the spell up a bit.

I think Adam is right about the "treat it as the original wand with an enhance bonus" part, but I've submitted for FAQ.

Also, is there anything keeping you from using the spell on a natural weapon, like claws or a monk's fists?

I think Adam is right about the "treat it as the original wand with an enhance bonus" part, but I've submitted for FAQ.

Also, is there anything keeping you from using the spell on a natural weapon, like claws or a monk's fists?

I think the part where it describes "peeling the weapon open like a grape" would be a sign that it might not really be a good idea if you think about it.

There's not much room in a monk's hand or a claw to store a wand inside of it.

I think the part where it describes "peeling the weapon open like a grape" would be a sign that it might not really be a good idea if you think about it.

There's not much room in a monk's hand or a claw to store a wand inside of it.

It then goes on to say that there "revealing a space large enough to insert a single wand within." and continues on to say "at which point the weapon returns to its original form with the wand held inside of it without negatively impacting the weapon’s integrity."

Certainly not the most disconcerting thing that you can do to your skin with a spell, and seems to hint more at extra-dimensional space more so than actually opening the target of the spell. :)

So thats how iron man shoots things from his hands!

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon for the purposes of spells. With feral combat training, you natural attack can too.