|
"Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity."You bolded the wrong part.
"Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity."That matters. It, once again, concludes that the user of the wand is not the one casting the spell. The creator of the wand is the one who cast the spell originally. You're just taking it out of the freezer and nuking it in the microwave.
By the same logic if you are holding a charge you aren't casting a spell, so you can't use spelltrike with a held charge, regardless of its origin (notice that the whole discussion is using spellstrike with a held charge, not when using a wand as part of spell combat, see post 35).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the problem is that you are very lax in reading "whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list," as ""
I'm only reading the actual rule.
Your 2nd version of that (marked in blue) would mean it does work with wands.
in half of your interpretation and very strict in reading that same phrase as "whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” or has a held charge of a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list but that held spell has to have been cast by hand by the magus, not with a device,".
The entire thing must be read strictly. It says casts a spell, so it means casts a spell. It says range of touch, so it means range of touch.
I'll spell it out for you, again.
Spellstrike (Su): "At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack."
First three words: "At 2nd level," 2nd level is when a magus gets the ability.
Next sixteen words: "whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list," That's what has to happen in order to use the ability. If that doesn't happen, then the ability cannot be used. When a magus casts a spell, and that spell has a range of touch, and that spell is from the magus spell list.... something happens!
Next seventeen words: "he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack." That's what happens. He can deliver the spell through a weapon with a melee attack. That only happens when the first part of the sentence is true.
If you didn't cast the spell, or if the spell does not have a range of "touch", or if the spell is not from the magus spell list, then you can't deliver that spell through a weapon as part of a melee attack.
When a magus casts shocking grasp, which has a range of touch, and is from the magus spell list, he can deliver that shocking grasp through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
When a magus casts lightning bolt, he is casting a spell, and it's from the magus spell list, but it doesn't have a range of touch, so he can not deliver that lightning bolt through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
When a magus who has a level of cleric casts cure light wounds, he is casting a spell, and it has a range of touch, but it's not from the magus spell list, so he can not deliver that cure light wounds through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
When a magus activates a wand of Frigid Touch, he is not casting a spell, so even though it has a range of touch, and is from the magus spell list, he can not deliver that Frigid Touch through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
Understand?
Whenever you [do this], you can (do that).
If you don't do this, then you can't do that.
When a magus casts shocking grasp, which has a range of touch, and is from the magus spell list, he can deliver that shocking grasp through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
If he does not deliver the spell that turn, he holds the charge. He still cast the spell, it still had a range of touch, and it was from the magus spell list, so the rules say he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
He [did this], so he can (do that).
For the purposes of touch spells, I see the mechanics as delivering a charge that you are 'holding' within yourself to an enemy; a magus just happens to have an ability that lets him do it via a sword slash rather than a love pat. That 'charge' is there, and roughly equivalent, whether it comes from a wand or from your own innate casting ability.
They could have certainly not used "casts a spell" in the rule.
If they said "At 2nd level, a magus can deliver a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack."
That would work with wands and items and stuff.
I don't know whether they just didn't think of it, or if it was an intentional wording to limit how effective a magus can be using one of his primary abilities. One of the main balance considerations of a magus is how quickly they burn out when using up spells each round.
Given the direction they took with the Spell Combat full-attack question, I would be surprised if they opened up Spellstrike with wands.
|
By the same logic if you are holding a charge you aren't casting a spell, so you can't use spelltrike with a held charge, regardless of its origin (notice that the whole discussion is using spellstrike with a held charge, not when using a wand as part of spell combat, see post 35).
How did the held charge come into being? Was it from a spell you cast? Or a wand you activated? If it's the former, then you indeed can use Spellstrike with it. It it's the latter, you cannot.
[quote Grick]I don't know whether they just didn't think of it, or if it was an intentional wording to limit how effective a magus can be using one of his primary abilities. One of the main balance considerations of a magus is how quickly they burn out when using up spells each round./quote]
I suppose that could be the case - although honestly, all it really does is reduce the number of physical attacks the character gets per round. By taking the Wand Wielder arcana, you put yourself back into a position where you can still attack and deliver one of your 50 Shocking Grasps; you just don't get the extra melee attack from the touch spell via Spellstrike, or the possibility of an expanded crit range on the shock.
Then again, magi can get pretty nasty. ;) So maybe it is smart to limit them in such a way.
|
|
For visual's sake, I'm imagining that when you cast a touch spell, your hand glows with whatever magical effect you are trying to achieve. Perhaps a withered hand for Touch of Fatigue, or crackling energy for Shocking Grasp. Holding the charge continues the visual effect.
When you're zapping a wand, however, it's the wand that is holding the charge.
Ergo, on round one you could cast Shocking Grasp, miss, and hold the charge.
On round two you could activate a wand of Shocking Grasp, miss, and hold the charge.
On round three you touch your opponent with your hand. The held charge from the Shocking Grasp that you cast discharges.
On round four you touch your opponent with your wand. The held charge from the Shocking Grasp that you activated from your wand discharges.
Easy peasy.
For visual's sake, I'm imagining that when you cast a touch spell, your hand glows with whatever magical effect you are trying to achieve. Perhaps a withered hand for Touch of Fatigue, or crackling energy for Shocking Grasp. Holding the charge continues the visual effect.
When you're zapping a wand, however, it's the wand that is holding the charge.
Ergo, on round one you could cast Shocking Grasp, miss, and hold the charge.
On round two you could activate a wand of Shocking Grasp, miss, and hold the charge.
On round three you touch your opponent with your hand. The held charge from the Shocking Grasp that you cast discharges.
On round four you touch your opponent with your wand. The held charge from the Shocking Grasp that you activated from your wand discharges.Easy peasy.
RAI a character can only hold on touch spell.Most GM wont be allowing you to hold multiple touch spells just because one came from the caster, and the other came from a wand, staff, or scroll.
The devs could be more explicit with how things work, but then the book gets bigger, and cost more money.
Another way to look at it is that for many things the spell acts as if you cast it, but others it does not.
Example: If you use a wand to cast a spell with an evil descriptor, the spell did not come from you directly, but it is still you committing an evil act for using the spell.
In short, if it looks like a possible loophole, it probably is.
|
|
You know, I get the feeling that if Wand Wielder was meant to work with Spellstrike, and not just Spell Combat, it would give an indication that it did. Using a wand isn't casting a spell...it doesn't draw from your anything...it draws level from the wand creator, what he sets it at, up to his level...and it's modified by whatever feats he uses to modify it.
It might be nice if it worked with Spellstrike, but I don't see that it does.
Not sure if this counts as necromancy, but has there been a FAQ about this specific issue?
|
A few pokes from what I think. RAW I think that the opposition to spellstrike with wands has a stronger ground. But from the perspective of playing with what makes sense I can see it being able to go both ways.
A typical magic user casts a touch spell and his body becomes a medium for the spell until he discharges it. He can wait and time his attack and his spell would still be in effect.
A magus is no different. Hence the wording from Sean Reynolds
“So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.”
In this case, the magus’s body, even when using spellstrike is medium of the spell. Even AFTER he is done casting he can still make his free attack. That’s the part that confuses me, because…
“Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) [b]as part of casting this spell.[\b]”
Now, he should have attacked the guy when he was casting, perhaps he was walking towards his enemy, casting his spell and right when he was done BAM! But, for the sake of the action system it doesn’t make too much sense…
There’s two possibilities for me.
A. The weapon attacking is part of the spell cast and thus a spell needs to be cast traditionally (wands simply need a key word to activate, no actual casting, hence no AoO). The Magus still gets a free touch attack though, as per spell combat (even though that specifically the part being replaced by spell strike)
Or B. The weapon attacking is not part of the spell cast, making Sean’s explanation a bit more clear, but derailing the written text a bit. In this case, the free weapon attack to deliver the spell makes sense, instead of touch with your hand your touching with your sword.
Pick nicking the language is tiresome. Most of the time, the DM is the one you’ll need to go over this with, and the game’s about having fun, so don't worry too much my fellow Magi!
If you can’t do spell strike with wands, your still in good shape…
Using a wand you get to avoid casting defensively, at the price of using gold and an arcana, and you don’t get the extra attack EVERY round like you want, but you can also heal yourself and kill goblins… at the same time?
I think it’s a fair trade.
|
|
I think this resolve the question about spellstriking with a wand:
It's more of a corner case, but would Magus Spell Combat (if it allows casting other class' slots to begin with) allow casting SLAs as part of Spell Combat? (assuming the spell is also on the Magus list)No, because he actually has to be casting one of his magus spells from his magus spell list ("... [he] can also cast any spell from the magus spell list ..."), not a spell-like ability that happens to have the same name as a spell from the magus spell list.
(As a related example, a druid/magus who had flaming sphere prepared as a druid spell shouldn't be able to cast it with spell combat just because it's also on the magus spell list. Even if the druid/magus had flaming sphere prepared as a druid spell and a magus spell, he shouldn't be able to cast his druid copy of that spell as part of spell combat because spell combat is about casting your magus spells in melee combat, and I doubt the casting of a druid's flaming sphere works the same way as the magus spell.)
Spellstrike has the same text:
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list,so the same limitation should apply.
This is one of those times that I actually have sympathy for posters who start those annoying "FAQ This!" threads. Figuring out something that really should be a yes or no question shouldn't require Talmudic levels of rules discussions.
If that's true, tho, don't you run into the problem of being able to "wand" a spell while maintaining the charge of a spell you "cast"?
No Jake. The charge is not expended on "anything" you touch. You have to touch a legitimate target. The RAI is to touch an opponent, not any random thing. Otherwise a molecule could discharge the spell.
|
|
The way I see it, and how I rule it in my home games (although I have no RAW to really back this up), is that the held charge from a wand is held at the tip of the wand, and the held charge from a spell you cast is held within the caster (and usually discharged through a hand or other body part). That would allow for two held charges to simultaneously be active, but require them to discharge under different actions.
|
|
Wraithstrike, you can damage objects with Shocking Grasp as well. It's a common tactic my Magus uses when sundering. If someone in your party disarms the BBEG, RAW and RAI, you can totally touch the disarmed weapon and try to destroy it (although it's really more difficult to do in one shot unless you're high level).
|
|
No Jake. The charge is not expended on "anything" you touch. You have to touch a legitimate target. The RAI is to touch an opponent, not any random thing. Otherwise a molecule could discharge the spell.
Wraith, a held charge (whatever the origin) is discharged as soon as you touch anything.
You draw a potion from your belt? Discharged.You shake a friend hand? Discharged.
Th exceptions are:
- air (and I think water if you are immersed in it when you cast the spell);
- your feet touching the ground;
- what you had in your hands when the spell was cast, and there were doubts about that, as this FAQ can attest:
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnr
Touch Spells: Does wearing a gauntlet, cestus, or similar glove-like weapon count as "touching anything" for the purpose of accidentally discharging a held touch spell?
No.
- if you are a magus with spellstrike y6ou can pick up a weapon after casting the touch spell.
Thanks, everyone, but I actually meant the ability to use a wand while holding a charge at the same time.
As in:
Before: cast spell and hold charge, but charge dissipates if you use a wand to "cast" another spell.
Now: Cast spell and hold charge, but "wand" as many spells as you like, while keeping your held spell in reserve (since you haven't "cast" a spell to break the held charge).
I mean, it's an interesting "new" ability, so to speak, but it seems to add (yet another) corner case/detail to keep track of.
Just seems easier to me to say that casting is casting, but spell trigger or completion items don't get meta-magic, etc.
In any event, it would be nice if TPTB issued a clarification, so we could be sure of the intent.
|
The only issue I can see here, Jake, is that you would have to start with the wand in one hand, and nothing in the other. You could not be holding a weapon, since you need a hand free to cast the spell. You could not draw the wand after casting the touch spell, since that would activate the touch spell. You COULD draw your weapon after casting the spell, and from that point on, use both the wand and attack with the charged spell through Spellstrike (i.e. Chill Touch or Frostbite, which have multiple uses, and assuming you have Wand Arcana). But, you wouldn't be able to use Spellstrike for the wand spell.
Does the reasoning change for the Arcana Close Range? Could you Spellstrike with a Scorching Ray from a wand?
Good point, Yogo. I guess we're getting further into the corner, but a stilled spell would work even with a weapon and a wand in hand(s). As for the Close Range Arcana, I have no clue. This rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper.
On a related note, I remember reading something about Spell Combat not allowing for additional attacks for a high BAB. Is that true?
|
|
The "related note" you speak of should be left to that thread, and not discussed here as it is off-topic.
There is a spell, Weaponwand, that allows you to store your wand in your weapon and use your weapon to zap people with, essentially freeing up a hand for actual spellcasting.
As it is right now, if you cast Shocking Grasp, you can hold the charge indefinitely and keep zapping your wand of Fireball without discharging the spell you cast, since using the wand isn't casting a spell. Just be sure you were already holding your wand when you cast your spell originally.
Good point, Yogo. I guess we're getting further into the corner, but a stilled spell would work even with a weapon and a wand in hand(s). As for the Close Range Arcana, I have no clue. This rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper.
Actually no, spell combat explicitly calls that case out.
"To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components)".
All still spell does is remove the somatic components requirement from a spell, so the magus must still meet the requirements for spell combat with stilled spells.
One hand must be free. Wand Wielder arcana lets the magus wield a weapon in one hand and wield a wand in the other and activate the wand in place of casting a spell. But so long as he is holding that wand he cannot cast a spell as part of spell combat.
On a related note, I remember reading something about Spell Combat not allowing for additional attacks for a high BAB. Is that true?
Magus get their full BAB attacks during spell combat.
"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon..."
However it was recently FAQ'd that a magus using spell combat does not get a bonus attack from haste like effects.
On a related note, I remember reading something about Spell Combat not allowing for additional attacks for a high BAB. Is that true?Magus get their full BAB attacks during spell combat.
"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon..."
However it was recently FAQ'd that a magus using spell combat does not get a bonus attack from haste like effects.
Thanks, bbang. I remembered seeing something about that in passing, but wasn't sure.
That said, I think a Magus generally benefits more from Pearls of Power than wands. Buy a few and you'll get the same effect, but they won't ever run out.
Agreed. I have, however, had a lot of success with Wand Wielder, especially in the early game. Color Spray round after round (after round after round...), as well as spamming True Strike, is very effective. Especially since it really lets you go nova on the BBEG.
Hope the WW/Spellstrike issue gets a specific FAQ soon (and with that, I have officially ran out of passive/aggressive ways to encourage a clarification!).
|
|
Hope the WW/Spellstrike issue gets a specific FAQ soon.
What are you looking to FAQ? The question has been answered ad nauseum: You cannot Spellstrike with a wand. Wand Wielder only lets you use a wand in place of casting a spell during Spell Combat. Nothing RAW or RAI implies otherwise other than peoples' desire for it to be so.
|
|
On a related note, I remember reading something about Spell Combat not allowing for additional attacks for a high BAB. Is that true?Magus get their full BAB attacks during spell combat.
"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon..."
However it was recently FAQ'd that a magus using spell combat does not get a bonus attack from haste like effects.
Thanks, bbang. I remembered seeing something about that in passing, but wasn't sure.
Almost everyone in that thread agree that the RAI is that the magus get multiple attacks. There is a problem with the FAQ as it say that spell combat isn't a form of full attack and the CRB say you get iterative attacks only when performing a full attack.
The aim of that thread is to get a clarification of the text, not to cast doubts on the capacito of the magus to make iterative attacks while using spell combat.I don't think this is well-defined.
I think this entirely depends on what "from the magus spell list" means.
1. If it means the same thing as "on the magus spell list", then there's no need for the Arcana, as a Magus can already do this. It would also mean that a Wizard/Magus could cast spells from the Wizard side that are also on the Magus spell list with spellstriking and so forth.
2. I'd note that "casts a spell on the magus spell list" is very different from saying "casts a magus spell". The latter very clearly would require that the spell be one that Magus had prepared as a Magus. It's also the traditional form these sorts of wordings have used in the past (IIRC). So the wording on these abilities is rather suspect.
I rather lean towards the second interpretation.
It's more of a corner case, but would Magus Spell Combat (if it allows casting other class' slots to begin with) allow casting SLAs as part of Spell Combat? (assuming the spell is also on the Magus list)No, because he actually has to be casting one of his magus spells from his magus spell list ("... [he] can also cast any spell from the magus spell list ..."), not a spell-like ability that happens to have the same name as a spell from the magus spell list.
(As a related example, a druid/magus who had flaming sphere prepared as a druid spell shouldn't be able to cast it with spell combat just because it's also on the magus spell list. Even if the druid/magus had flaming sphere prepared as a druid spell and a magus spell, he shouldn't be able to cast his druid copy of that spell as part of spell combat because spell combat is about casting your magus spells in melee combat, and I doubt the casting of a druid's flaming sphere works the same way as the magus spell.)
Sean K Reynolds
Quandary wrote:Cool, I also thought it required actual magus spell slot usage, but the RAW just specifies being on the spell list (not which class' slot is used), and so some people were thinking the Druid/Magus combo worked like that (the SLA question was just an extension of that).
In some cases the rules are lenient about multiclassing stuff (for example, there's nothing in the mnemonic enhancer spell that says the additional spell levels you're preparing have to be wizard spells, so a cleric/wizard could use it to prepare some additional cures), but in the case of the magus, it's specifically referring to the magus spell list, so... *shrug* flaming sphere works the same way as the magus spell.)
So it need to be a spell you have memorized in your magus spell slots, or you need to have the Broad Study arcana.
What are you looking to FAQ? The question has been answered ad nauseum....
I disagree. The subject has certainly been opined upon, but not answered. If "cast" doesn't include wands, then a character can certainly hold one charge of a "cast" spell, while "wanding" another. This is a sufficiently significant change (a change that affects more than the Magus class, I might add) as to warrant more than your opinion to settle the matter.
In any event, hopefully we'll get an official answer (Hey! Looks like I haven't ran out of passive/aggressive ways to encourage clarification!).
Actually if you want to play RAW, WW doesn't say jacks abount bypassing the normal free hand requirment for spell combat, so you still need a free hand. Good luck with that.
Well, a Staff Magus could use his Staff rather than a Wand without issue.
Other solutions are weaponwand, prehensile tails or hair, or extra limbs. It's not impossible to have an empty hand, a wielded weapon, and a readied wand all at the same time - it's just likely going to be odd in some way.