A scenario occurred to me: a rogue with UMD shoots off, say, a Fireball from a wand -- that's a standard action, of course. Then, as her move action for the round, she hands the wand to the wizard standing next to her. Accepting the wand from the rogue is his move action, and he then uses his standard action to discharge a second Fireball from the wand. Is this possible? I don't see anything in the rules that states a wand can't be used by more than one character in a round, but that might just be because none of the designers thought of it.
I don't see a problem with it as long as people are spending the required number of actions.
I don't see a problem with it as long as people are spending the required number of actions.
This is how we managed so survive a group of shadows in one of our games. We passed the wand of magic missile back and forth between three characters and just barely survived. Definately a viable tactic.
|
A scenario occurred to me: a rogue with UMD shoots off, say, a Fireball from a wand -- that's a standard action, of course. Then, as her move action for the round, she hands the wand to the wizard standing next to her. Accepting the wand from the rogue is his move action, and he then uses his standard action to discharge a second Fireball from the wand. Is this possible? I don't see anything in the rules that states a wand can't be used by more than one character in a round, but that might just be because none of the designers thought of it.
If you view and apply actions strictly as being a strict sequence of serial moves, then you can daisy chain items like this all you want.
I don't think it is the only way to understand how actions fit into a round. I wouldn't do it as a player. I wouldn't permit it as a GM
As a player, I would call foul when faced with an encounter consisting of a class of 1st level wizards from the local Wizzie U out on a field trip burning through the headmaster's wand of fireball and lighting off 50 charges in a round. :)
A scenario occurred to me: a rogue with UMD shoots off, say, a Fireball from a wand -- that's a standard action, of course. Then, as her move action for the round, she hands the wand to the wizard standing next to her. Accepting the wand from the rogue is his move action, and he then uses his standard action to discharge a second Fireball from the wand. Is this possible? I don't see anything in the rules that states a wand can't be used by more than one character in a round, but that might just be because none of the designers thought of it.
An interesting tactic, and given that in order to pull it off, initiative would have to be rolled in the right order or some people would have to delay, and everyone would have to start off by each other, it seems reasonable enough, and easy enough for an enemy to disrupt, or at least attempt to disrupt.
And the peasant Gatling gun is reborn... on fire!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
This is something I disallow in my game, because it breaks with the implied simultaneous nature of the combat round. Similarly, I don't allow someone to double move on a mount, rapid dismount, and take their own move.
Sometimes you just have to step up as a GM and look beyond the rules as written into what the game is simulating. Otherwise, you open the game up to silliness like taking along 50 experts (with your Leadership feat) and using the magic missile gatling gun trick.
|
I think I remember something like this back on the WotC boards. Get 1,000 people all lined up next to each other, and have one pass an item to another as a move action. One item traveling along 1,000 pairs of hands in 6 seconds...
I don't remember the real point, something about speed of light and all that. It gets silly.
I think I remember something like this back on the WotC boards. Get 1,000 people all lined up next to each other, and have one pass an item to another as a move action. One item traveling along 1,000 pairs of hands in 6 seconds...
I don't remember the real point, something about speed of light and all that. It gets silly.
In order for it to hit the speed of light you would need ~1.6 million people doing it.
I should have clarified -- I agree with Major_Tom's point, that both characters have expended both their actions for the round and thus the wand cannot be passed a second time. and as a DM I wouldn't allow more than two uses of a wand in a round by this means. A typical party is only going to have a couple of characters who <i>can</i> use any given wand anyway, and I think Kalyth's suggestion does strain the idea of simultaneity to the breaking point. (D&D/Pathfinder simulates simultaneity rather poorly anyway, though I don't think there's a way of doing it better that wouldn't be too much of a headche.)
Even if the DM did allow what Kalyth suggested, though, it's not terribly broken -- two more party members have had to use both their actions for the round while standing in place in order to get off one more shot with the wand. Unless it's an awfully powerful wand, it's unlikely to be worth it. Problems arise if you bring henchmen, cohorts, apprentices, followers, etc. into the picture, and that's where a DM ruling limiting the number of shots to two (or one, if that's how the DM feels about it) would become necessary.
The particular circumstance that occurred to me, that might apply to my current game, involves using a Wand of Acid Arrow to kill a troll that starts several hundred feet from the party (it's an 11th-level wand, so the range is 840 feet, and a big monster like a troll could easily be spotted at that distance outdoors and in daylight) before it can run into melee range. One character using the wand probably can't get off enough arrows to do that, but two probably could.
|
|
I should have clarified -- I agree with Major_Tom's point, that both characters have expended both their actions for the round and thus the wand cannot be passed a second time. and as a DM I wouldn't allow more than two uses of a wand in a round by this means.
The action budget doesn't really matter: instead of handing it off, drop and pickup and it no longer has that built in limit. Char 1 uses wand, drops. Char 2 picks up (move action), uses (standard), drops (free). Char 3-50 do the same.
So, it comes down to a GM decision about whether the reasonable reuse in a single round is 1, 2, x, or 50. There is nothing inherently better about 2, but 1 preserves the concept that the characters are acting within the flow of time. The action system is a game mechanic that represents and organizes the actions of the characters. Tactics that take advantage of the action system to do something that would not be possible when viewed by the characters themselves forget this idea.
Whether me choosing 1/rd, another choosing 2 as a compromise, or another permitting an unlimited number for whatever reason they choose: these are choices that influence the nature of the game and expectations of the group as a whole. Choose well.
Lets go Four winds monk rangers force! everyone can spend 6 Ki points to use a wand three times in a round, then pass it to the next monk and he does it again!
I kinda want to build a UMD wand using monk....
This is something I disallow in my game, because it breaks with the implied simultaneous nature of the combat round. Similarly, I don't allow someone to double move on a mount, rapid dismount, and take their own move.
Sometimes you just have to step up as a GM and look beyond the rules as written into what the game is simulating. Otherwise, you open the game up to silliness like taking along 50 experts (with your Leadership feat) and using the magic missile gatling gun trick.
+1. I am glad I took the time to read the entire post this time.
At a certain point in time there should be a limit on how many individuals can meaningfully interact with a single object in the space of a single round.
I think the actual limit would be dependent on type and size of object but all of a sudden you are creating exception after exception to a system.
In general giving opponents AoOs on the move action to pick up a dropped object or pass it to someone else would discourage rampant abuse of this.
You still would have edge cases such as the peasant internet but pretty much any game breaks if you intentional find the breaking points :D
We did this with a longbow once. Two characters side-by-side, handing the bow back and forth because the other character had broken their bowstring (rolled a natural 1, then rolled another 1 to confirm a critical failure-- a rule we were using at the time). We figured that neither character needed to use an action to hand the bow off. On their turn, a character would "draw" the weapon from the hands of the other character, then fire. It made sense at the time.
I think that the way the OP had done is is reasonable. A character needs to use a move action to both hand off the wand and to receive the wand. That way, the chain ends after 2, as the second character has no actions to pass the wand on. I think it's reasonable for two people to use the wand in a 6 second span, especially since they are both essentially doing it as a full round action (not to mention making themselves sitting ducks, since they both need a free hand for the item activation).
As long as you don't allow quick draw or any of that cheese to break this limitation, I think it's ok!
Note that dropping the wand is a free action. Catching it in your hand MIGHT be a move action (Deflect Arrows says otherwise...).
So, you can use the wand, drop it in the hand of the next person, he drops it in the hand of the person next to him after using, etc.
You can do the same thing with arrows and an archer. Line up 100 archers at their range max, and tie a message to an arrow. Have the first one shoot the arrow so it lands next to the second one. He picks it up and shoots it.
100 archers@ 60 meter increments, = 30 kilometers in 6 seconds, or about 3 miles a second.
==aelryinth
Okay- I'm just going to point out the logical aspect- if a single individual can only attack with a weapon/ activate a wand once per turn (once in 6 seconds) why would the added complication of passing it off allow it to be used more than once?
Even with the 'cap' of only being able to hand it off once just doesn't make sense.
Would handing a bow back and forth between two guys really allow them to somehow fire it more rapidly?
Again with the lightspeed traveling item: Line up 50 guys, a good 20 feet apart.
for n = 1; n < 50; n++
Guy n picks up object at feet as a move action
Guy n standard action tosses it to Guy n + 1
Object is propelled at a good 166 mph. And we didn't even have to use magnets.
Read Erfworld? Fun things like this playing with time are one of the crazy rules of the setting.
==Aelryinth
In order for it to hit the speed of light you would need ~1.6 million people doing it.I think I remember something like this back on the WotC boards. Get 1,000 people all lined up next to each other, and have one pass an item to another as a move action. One item traveling along 1,000 pairs of hands in 6 seconds...
I don't remember the real point, something about speed of light and all that. It gets silly.
Miscalculated, need about 32 million for 5 foot hand offs to reach the speed of light. Through in archery, the number decreases by a factor of range/5
Okay- I'm just going to point out the logical aspect- if a single individual can only attack with a weapon/ activate a wand once per turn (once in 6 seconds) why would the added complication of passing it off allow it to be used more than once?
Even with the 'cap' of only being able to hand it off once just doesn't make sense.
Would handing a bow back and forth between two guys really allow them to somehow fire it more rapidly?
No, because one guy with Rapid Shot can take a full-round action and shoot it twice, or three or even more times if his BAB is over 6, he's benefitting from Haste, etc. Activating a wand can't be done as often as shooting a bow can -- and the reason for that has far more to do with game balance than with realism, since pointing a wand you already have in your hand and speaking a command word is inherently faster than pulling an arrow from your quiver, nocking it, drawing the string, and loosing it at your target.
Now, we could explain the reason (in-game) as an inherent limitation of wands, but it's more likely to be a limitation of wand users. After all, you also can't use a full-round action to cast two spells, even though casting one takes the same standard action as shooting one arrow. There must be some mental focus involved in activating a spell-trigger item; it takes a moment to recover that focus enough do it again after you've done it, but during that moment you could hand the item to someone else and let him or her use it.
After all, you also can't use a full-round action to cast two spells, even though casting one takes the same standard action as shooting one arrow. There must be some mental focus involved in activating a spell-trigger item; it takes a moment to recover that focus enough do it again after you've done it, but during that moment you could hand the item to someone else and let him or her use it.
I always figured it was sort of an 'animation time' for the lack of a better term. Concentration to cast a spell would usually only take a couple seconds (standard action) but the actual 'spell effect' would take up a couple more, allowing a competent wizard to walk, or move, or even use his move action to concentrate on another existing spell, but occupy his ability to cast a second.
But as per your example, the wand user isn't casting the spell, the wand is- so wouldn't this 'cooldown' effect apply to the wand?
Otherwise the wand is essentially an arcane bong. Take a hit and pass it on.
Ninety-nine wands on the wall, Ninety-nine wands.
Take one down, pass it around, Ninety-eight wands on the wall.
I always figured it was sort of an 'animation time' for the lack of a better term. Concentration to cast a spell would usually only take a couple seconds (standard action) but the actual 'spell effect' would take up a couple more, allowing a competent wizard to walk, or move, or even use his move action to concentrate on another existing spell, but occupy his ability to cast a second.
But as per your example, the wand user isn't casting the spell, the wand is- so wouldn't this 'cooldown' effect apply to the wand?
Not necessarily; if it were just the wand, anyone should be able to trigger it by pointing it and speaking the command word. That's not how wands work; you need to either belong to a class that can cast the wand's spell, or make a successful UMD check. I presume that a caster has to concentrate to synchronize his own magic with that of the wand, while a character making a UMD check has to concentrate to control the wand by force of personality (since it's a Charisma-based skill).
Note that dropping the wand is a free action. Catching it in your hand MIGHT be a move action (Deflect Arrows says otherwise...).
Dropping an item at your feet is a free action; dropping in the hand of someone in the square next to you would be a move action, if I were the DM. Snatch Arrows works as it does because someone else used a standard action to deliver that arrow right into your personal space -- his intent was to put into you, after all. I might let a character catch a wand as a free action, if the other character used a standard action to throw it at him as an improvised thrown weapon and hit on the attack roll (against his touch AC, though, since he's not trying to do damage), but that wouldn't allow them both to use it.