Wand wielding Fighter?


Advice


So, I'm in a game where the GM allowed us to have "specialty skills" that automatically level with us. As a two-handed fighter I ended up with Spellcraft and Use Magic Device, which I thoroughly enjoy and want to incorporate into the character himself.

The GM allowed me to re-tool my character (as this was not part of the character in creation, but something added later) so I can make those skills part of who my character was rather than just something he is able to do.

I'm very interested in how to do it and wondered just what it would take to make a viable fighter who can use wands in combat as well as his sword.

Obviously I would have to change out of the two-handed fighter archetype and find something different. I'm fine with that. I'm not worried too much about damage but making this character unique and implement those free skills into who he is.

I am, unfortunately, horrible at figuring out logistics of everything.

On one hand he was going to just be a fighter who had a small knack for using wands and understanding spells, on the other, I like the idea of making him someone who can do a bit of both whenever necessary.

I was considering a level of wizard before taking the fighter levels (again, this is more about the RP aspect than fighting (and again, I don't want to neglect the fighting to the point that my party loses out on some help in that area either)).

Basically, I'd really love some feedback, input, suggestions, and warnings. Thanks in advance!

(Also, I've been playing very casually for the last year, so I "get it" but at the same time 90% of the time I'm still lost.)


Well for starters you could keep a few wands on a wrist bracer. You won't really be able to fight with a Wand in the same turn as you do your sword. What your going to do is use wands to pelt enemies form range. Holding your two-handed sword in one hand. UMD is your "range mode" once you get within charge range then it's sword swinging time.

Other things to do with Wands is battle field control spells to isolate or hamper foes.

Is the a quick ready item feat? I'm not sure quick draw will apply to wands.

A Bastard Sword would be a good option as you have the tactical advangte of going 1-handed when pressed or needing to keep a utility wand in hand.


Chalk this up to the excesses of chocolate consumed over the weekend...

What if there were a way to use a wand *as part of* a 2-handed weapon? Like a hollow in the pommel that allowed the sword owner to swap out wands that used up a charge on contact so as to give it a range of abilities - one wand allows cold damage, swap it out for one that does fire, then one for electrical, etc.


Doc_Outlands wrote:

Chalk this up to the excesses of chocolate consumed over the weekend...

What if there were a way to use a wand *as part of* a 2-handed weapon? Like a hollow in the pommel that allowed the sword owner to swap out wands that used up a charge on contact so as to give it a range of abilities - one wand allows cold damage, swap it out for one that does fire, then one for electrical, etc.

there was a pathfinder module where a guy had a "wand rifle" with a bayonet on it....

With all this wand-fighter business, why not just play a magus?


Dorje: That's kind of how I saw it. He's still a fighter and wants to keep that "training" but the wands and magic would be a good secondary aid when necessary.

Doc_outlands: That's pretty fantastic and an idea I was hoping to bring up to the GM and see if that would even be feasible. Maybe have a specialized sword that allows for channeling, or even as an RP aspect be able to channel the energy of the wand through his body and release it out the sword, but I don't know if there's mechanics in place that would clash with that concept.

Pendagast: I haven't looked at Magus too much yet, so I'm not sure about the class. I should put some thought into it. I'm just not sure that fits the character yet. I see him as very might over magic, but knowing magic has a respectable place as well.

I appreciate the feedback! Thank you guys!

Scarab Sages

If you guys are okay with houseruling, why not just say that you can use a wand as part of two-weapon fighting? Make your attack rolls, then activate the wand? Kind of like a wand-wielding magus using "Spell Combat."

Also, ask about taking "Wands" as a fighter weapon, gaining the listed fighter damage bonus (and attack bonus, when appicable). Interesting, flavorful, and not really game-breaking.

Heck, I'd even let you dual-wield wands.


If your GM allows 3.5 material, Dungeonscape has a couple low-cost items that could help you out. The wand bracer holds 5 wands and allows you to draw them quickly. There's also the "wand chamber" modification that stores a wand inside a weapon or shield and considers it readied.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think my next PC is going to be a half-elf paladin with Skill Focus Use Magic Device and that trait that makes UMD a class skill.

Basically, would be your typical paladin, but in a pinch could throw some fireballs or the like around.

My current dragon shaman just got re-built and Pathfinderized, and now has Use Magic Device maxed out, a +4 Charisma item, and a Circlet of Persuasion, so he has a giant UMD modifier and a brand new Staff of Fire (and immunity to fire for being a dragon shaman). It's fun.

Maybe be a quarterstaff using paladin, and use a magic staff as your quarterstaff?


Davor wrote:

If you guys are okay with houseruling, why not just say that you can use a wand as part of two-weapon fighting? Make your attack rolls, then activate the wand? Kind of like a wand-wielding magus using "Spell Combat."

Also, ask about taking "Wands" as a fighter weapon, gaining the listed fighter damage bonus (and attack bonus, when appicable). Interesting, flavorful, and not really game-breaking.

Heck, I'd even let you dual-wield wands.

House ruling is house ruling, and in your house, you can make any rules you want. But, there are reasons not to just allow wands to be used as part of a full attack.

For starters, using a wand is usually not an attack action, but rather a standard action, and there's a difference.

Also, the RAW already has a mechanism for allowing this. There is a Magus class ability called Spell Combat that allows you to cast a spell as sort of an off-hand attack as part of a full attack action. And there is a Magus elective special ability--a Magus Arcana--that lets you use Wands with Spell Combat. You normally get your first Magus Arcana at Level 3 Magus, but there is a feat that lets you take Arcana as a feat instead, and this would be a good option if you didn't want to take more than a dip into Magus.

So if you wanted to house rule a mechanism that allowed for something that already exists, I guess you could do that, and it's up to you to find a reason why.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, check the post dates. Ultimate magic wasn't released when this discussion was taking place three years ago.

Necroing this to argue about house rules is in poor taste.


The fact that I am updating an old thread with new information is significant, but I am responding to Davor's post, not attacking personally. Do NOT presume upon my taste nor intentions. That is what is in poor taste here.


Imbicatus wrote:

Well, check the post dates. Ultimate magic wasn't released when this discussion was taking place three years ago.

Necroing this to argue about house rules is in poor taste.

Huh, my copy of Ultimate Magic says it WAS first printed in 2011.

This would seem to be supported by the fact that Pendagast's post came on Apr 26, 2011, 04:27 AM, suggesting, "With all this wand-fighter business, why not just play a magus?"

Pendagast's comment came before Davor's comment I was responding to. His came Apr 28, 2011, 03:03 AM. I can tell it came later because the number 28 is bigger than the number 26. It's 2 bigger.

So, I checked the post dates. And it is pretty obvious that you didn't. You are just wrong.

How does THAT taste?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

So, the reason I came to this thread was to find the answer to my question, because I think it is in poor taste to start up a new thread when there already is one on the topic I want to ask about.

I stumbled across Davor's comment by accident and found I had something to say. And when I have something to say, I won't be intimidated by the fear of others' comments no matter how favored, rude, or ignorant.

My question is a lot like Doc_Outlands of Apr 26, 2011, 03:45 AM, but not exactly, and would have been answered by answered by Pendagast less than an hour later if only there were a little more solid citation.

Can a character have a weapon made with a hollow pommel that could contain a magic wand? And in grasping that weapon, would the wielder also be grasping that wand and be able to use it?

It seems logical that if the wand is in the sword, and the sword is in my hand, then the wand is in my hand.

It says in the magic item description of wands that to use them they must be held in the wielder's hand or whatever passes for the wielder's hand. Which means if my character had an artificial hand, he could use a magic wand. So there is no mystical requirement for flesh-to-wand contact or anything.

3.5 and 3rd Edition specified the existence of magic weapon with wand compartments. The 3rd edition Arms and Equipment Guide describe the Deathwand Crossbow which had 2 compartments that could hold 2 wands, and you could use the wands to have spells fire out of the crossbow, perhaps to make the crossbow shoot lightning bolts or something. Pretty cool, but 3rd Edition isn't exactly Pathfinder.

There is a level 1 Pathfinder Spell, Weaponwand, that creates exactly the effect I'm looking for, but it's not clear to me that the spell is creating some sort of magical union between sword, wand, and hand, or is merely magically creating that hollow pommel that other people cleverly think to install beforehand.

I could look at it as a magic item slot, like the spot for the Ioun Stone that comes in a Wayfinder. That would mean I could do it, but it would cost more.

I'd really like to see a description and a source citation of Pendagast's wand rifle with bayonet.

And at some point, it would probably end up violating Pathfinder Society's (no fun) restrictions about customizing magic items.

On the other subject I have commented on on this thread, I have learned to expect nothing of the sort, but I would really appreciate considered and considerate comments on this subject.


At the very least, adding Weaponwand to the list of spells that can be made permanent would make the wand wielder magus arcana worth the wealth investment associated with it. Another idea would be to make a weapon/shield magic ability, either flat-rate or +1, that functions like Weaponwand with the ability to manually eject the wand with a command or automatically when empty.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

Well, check the post dates. Ultimate magic wasn't released when this discussion was taking place three years ago.

Necroing this to argue about house rules is in poor taste.

Huh, my copy of Ultimate Magic says it WAS first printed in 2011.

This would seem to be supported by the fact that Pendagast's post came on Apr 26, 2011, 04:27 AM, suggesting, "With all this wand-fighter business, why not just play a magus?"

Pendagast's comment came before Davor's comment I was responding to. His came Apr 28, 2011, 03:03 AM. I can tell it came later because the number 28 is bigger than the number 26. It's 2 bigger.

So, I checked the post dates. And it is pretty obvious that you didn't. You are just wrong.

How does THAT taste?

Ultimate Magic! ... Published June 7th 2011 by Paizo Publishing (first published May 17th 2011) you should be looking for the right dates I check the publishing dates and it is clear you didn't. All kinds of posters on these boards have access to play test information, which is not published when first mentioned on the boards.http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10129673-pathfinder-roleplaying-

So fact remains that these rules where not published at the time of these posts. I know cause May comes after April.

But yes some form of magic (weapon wand is the way to go).

EDIT: sorry tried to link source sight doen't look like it worked.


Nevan Oaks wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

Well, check the post dates. Ultimate magic wasn't released when this discussion was taking place three years ago.

Necroing this to argue about house rules is in poor taste.

Huh, my copy of Ultimate Magic says it WAS first printed in 2011.

This would seem to be supported by the fact that Pendagast's post came on Apr 26, 2011, 04:27 AM, suggesting, "With all this wand-fighter business, why not just play a magus?"

Pendagast's comment came before Davor's comment I was responding to. His came Apr 28, 2011, 03:03 AM. I can tell it came later because the number 28 is bigger than the number 26. It's 2 bigger.

So, I checked the post dates. And it is pretty obvious that you didn't. You are just wrong.

How does THAT taste?

Ultimate Magic! ... Published June 7th 2011 by Paizo Publishing (first published May 17th 2011) you should be looking for the right dates I check the publishing dates and it is clear you didn't. All kinds of posters on these boards have access to play test information, which is not published when first mentioned on the boards.http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10129673-pathfinder-roleplaying-

So fact remains that these rules where not published at the time of these posts. I know cause May comes after April.

But yes some form of magic (weapon wand is the way to go).

EDIT: sorry tried to link source sight doen't look like it worked.

The fact remains that I DID NOT bring new information to argue an old point. Pendagast did bring the Magus into the discussion when this thread was still fresh, and I was only expanding upon it. So even if your link did lead to some kind of relevant evidence, the fact remains that I was NOT doing what Imbictiaous said I did.

The fact remains that I did not necro this thread to argue anything. I was looking for the answer to my own question. I believe that my question is so similar to the OP's question that it was not out of place on this thread. Meanwhile, I was trying to offer constructive advice for the OP and his character build.

The fact remains that necroing the thread just to flame me is in poor taste.

Now that this thread-spectre roams again, Would somebody please offer constructive advice to my questions, so it can rest in peace:

Can you use a hollow pommel to put a wand in a sword?

Can you use the wand while the wand is inside the sword?

Silver Crusade

Quote:
Can you use a hollow pommel to put a wand in a sword?

Absolutely, if you house rule it. As a simple storage area for a wand I see no problem with this at all. I have played a wizard before that kept his bonded wand inside his cane similar to a sword cane. (for pop culture reference see Lucius Malfoy from the Harry Potter stories. His wand is sheathed inside his cane.)

Quote:
Can you use the wand while the wand is inside the sword?

Absolutely, if you house rule it. There is nothing saying that this works nor is there anything saying it does not work. What it does, however, is get around a bit of action economy. Is this a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not.

Or you could utilize the weaponwand spell which is a magical means of doing what you are suggesting.

So, to summarize... yes, if you house rule it.


Tempestorm wrote:
Quote:
Can you use a hollow pommel to put a wand in a sword?

Absolutely, if you house rule it. As a simple storage area for a wand I see no problem with this at all. I have played a wizard before that kept his bonded wand inside his cane similar to a sword cane. (for pop culture reference see Lucius Malfoy from the Harry Potter stories. His wand is sheathed inside his cane.)

Quote:
Can you use the wand while the wand is inside the sword?

Absolutely, if you house rule it. There is nothing saying that this works nor is there anything saying it does not work. What it does, however, is get around a bit of action economy. Is this a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not.

Or you could utilize the weaponwand spell which is a magical means of doing what you are suggesting.

So, to summarize... yes, if you house rule it.

Well,

Any DM can houserule anything in his own house.

But the RAW says you wield a wand by holding it in your hand or whatever you have that passes for a hand. I can't think of a reason why a wand in a hollow pommel of a weapon in your hand does not count as being in your hand.

Unless you house rule it.

I have just made the case that by RAW that you may slip a wand in a hollow pommel of a weapon and use the wand by holding the weapon.

Can anyone find a RAW, a FAQ or a Dev Team post that says that you can't?

If not, then please click the request for an FAQ.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

1) It's alive... ALIVE! (thread necromancy alert)

2) IMO, you can add a "use activated/continuous" weaponwand effect to a weapon for 1 (spell level) x 1 (caster level) x 2,000 gp x 2 (1 min/level duration) = 4,000 gp. I'd allow the character to switch out the wand as desired, but only one wand would be in the weapon at a given time; also, the same limitations of the weaponwand spell apply as far as use, breakage, etc.

3) If the character wants a (non-magical) hollow storage space in a weapon pommel, then I'd use the following (existing "item") from Ultimate Equipment:

"hollowed pommel

Price 5 gp; Weight —

Depending on the weapon, a hollow pommel may hold something as large as a flask or as small as a rolled piece of paper. Detecting a hollow pommel requires a DC 15 Perception check."

The size of the weapon may limit whether or not a wand would fit; most two-handed weapons (and many one-handed ones) could probably fit at least a short wand ("A wand is 6 to 12 inches long, 1/4 inch thick, and weighs no more than 1 ounce."). However, the hollow pommel is a storage space, so it doesn't count as "holding it in hand" any more than if it were in a belt pouch that a character was holding. How does the wand have a line of effect while it's inside another object? If you want a weaponwand type of utility, then you need to use weaponwand in some fashion.


> However, the hollow pommel is a storage space, so it doesn't count as "holding it in hand" any more than if it were in a belt pouch that a character was holding.

That's an interesting point, but if the item were in a backpack, it would still be on my back, wouldn't it? So why wouldn't an item in a hollow pommel still be in my hand? Can you support your argument with rules?

> How does the wand have a line of effect while it's inside another object?

Okay, I like this point a lot. There is no reason to assume a Wand of Fireballs would send its Fireball out the tip of the sword rather than just explode inside the hollow compartment. A Wand of Lightning Bolts might conduct through the steel, but it would surely inflict full damage on the wielder first.

So, the hollow pommel surely wouldn't work with some kinds of wands, but then there are wands of True Strike and Deadly Juggernaut, and that would bring us back to the first part of the question.

Scarab Sages

As hyperbole for effect, why not skip the sword all together? Take a barrel, fill it with wands of vampiric touch, then bonk someone on the head with the barrel? 6 zillion damage.

The barrel is in your hands, therefore the wands are, right?


Fotta, because using 1 wand to cast 1 spell is 1 standard action usually.

But that is an interesting point: I think there is a premise that your hand usually only has room for 1 thing. But there are ways. You can use a weapon in the hand you have a buckler in. Monks can make unarmed attacks normally and without penalty when their hands are full. And I am putting it out there that maybe a hollow pommel in a weapon allows you to use a wand at the same time you are using the weapon.

And I'm asking for rules-based reasons why you can't.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Wand wielding Fighter? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.