paizo.com Recent Posts in Spellstriking with a Wandpaizo.com Recent Posts in Spellstriking with a Wand2013-05-10T17:54:43Z2013-05-10T17:54:43ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandZanThraxhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#822013-06-21T08:19:41Z2013-06-21T08:19:41Z<p>Well, a Staff Magus could use his Staff rather than a Wand without issue. </p>
<p>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.</p>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.ZanThrax2013-06-21T08:19:41ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandDekalinderhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#812013-06-21T07:30:59Z2013-06-21T07:30:59Z<p>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.</p>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.Dekalinder2013-06-21T07:30:59ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandNefreethttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#802013-06-21T06:12:22Z2013-06-21T06:12:22Z<p>If that is the question you were referring to, then I suggest you make another thread discussing it, because the OP of this little chat was regarding Spellstriking with a wand, which, as I stated earlier, <b><i>has</i></b> been answered.</p>If that is the question you were referring to, then I suggest you make another thread discussing it, because the OP of this little chat was regarding Spellstriking with a wand, which, as I stated earlier, has been answered.Nefreet2013-06-21T06:12:22ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandMynameisjakehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#792013-06-21T02:00:44Z2013-06-21T02:00:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Nefreet wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>What are you looking to FAQ? The question has been answered ad nauseum.... </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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!).</p>Nefreet wrote: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...Mynameisjake2013-06-21T02:00:44ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandDiego Rossihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#782013-06-20T09:39:18Z2013-06-20T09:39:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mynameisjake wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">bbangerter wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mynameisjake wrote:</div><blockquote>On a related note, I remember reading something about Spell Combat not allowing for additional attacks for a high BAB. Is that true? </blockquote><p>Magus get their full BAB attacks during spell combat.
<p>"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon..."</p>
<p>However it was recently FAQ'd that a magus using spell combat does not get a bonus attack from haste like effects. </blockquote><p>Thanks, bbang. I remembered seeing something about that in passing, but wasn't sure.
</p>
</blockquote><p>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.
</p>
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. </p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Drachasor wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I don't think this is well-defined.</p>
<p>I think this entirely depends on what "from the magus spell list" means.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I rather lean towards the second interpretation.
<br />
</blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">Sean K Reynolds wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quandary wrote:</div><blockquote>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)</blockquote><p>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.
<p>(As a related example, a druid/magus who had <i>flaming sphere</i> 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 <i>flaming sphere</i> 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 <i>flaming sphere</i> works the same way as the magus spell.)
<br />
</blockquote><p>Sean K Reynolds
</p>
Quandary wrote:</p>
<p>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). </p>
<p>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• <i>flaming sphere</i> works the same way as the magus spell.)
<br />
</blockquote><p>So it need to be a spell you have memorized in your magus spell slots, or you need to have the Broad Study arcana.Mynameisjake wrote:bbangerter wrote:
Mynameisjake wrote: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...Diego Rossi2013-06-20T09:39:18ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandNefreethttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#772013-06-20T02:56:44Z2013-06-20T02:56:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mynameisjake wrote:</div><blockquote>Hope the WW/Spellstrike issue gets a specific FAQ soon. </blockquote><p>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.Mynameisjake wrote: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.Nefreet2013-06-20T02:56:44ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandMynameisjakehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#762013-06-20T02:10:48Z2013-06-20T02:10:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">bbangerter wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mynameisjake wrote:</div><blockquote>On a related note, I remember reading something about Spell Combat not allowing for additional attacks for a high BAB. Is that true? </blockquote><p>Magus get their full BAB attacks during spell combat.
<p>"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon..."</p>
<p>However it was recently FAQ'd that a magus using spell combat does not get a bonus attack from haste like effects. </blockquote><p>Thanks, bbang. I remembered seeing something about that in passing, but wasn't sure.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Drachasor wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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!).</p>bbangerter wrote:Mynameisjake wrote: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...Mynameisjake2013-06-20T02:10:48ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandDrachasorhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#752013-06-19T07:19:11Z2013-06-19T07:19:11Z<p>I don't think this is well-defined.</p>
<p>I think this entirely depends on what "from the magus spell list" means.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I rather lean towards the second interpretation.</p>
<p>As bbangerter rightly points out, you do need a hand free, so technically the Arcana is useless unless you have 3+ hands. That said, I think RAI at the very least is intended to mean you can have a wand/staff instead of a free hand. Too bad it doesn't say that.</p>
<p>And I think there's an additional potential wrinkle. It isn't clear to me that an ability that modifies how touch attacks an be delivered is modifying the spell itself. Spellstrike modifies touch attack delivery. That's very different from changing the range, damage, or the like of a spell. A comparable question, I believe, would be whether "Project Image" allows you to use the imagine as the origin point of a wand or staff spell. I think "yes."</p>
<p>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.</p>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...Drachasor2013-06-19T07:19:11ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a Wandbbangerterhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#742013-06-19T06:53:34Z2013-06-19T06:53:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mynameisjake wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.
</p>
</blockquote><p>Actually no, spell combat explicitly calls that case out.
<p>"To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (<b>even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components</b>)". </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mynameisjake wrote:</div><blockquote>On a related note, I remember reading something about Spell Combat not allowing for additional attacks for a high BAB. Is that true? </blockquote><p>Magus get their full BAB attacks during spell combat.
<p>"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon..."</p>
<p>However it was recently FAQ'd that a magus using spell combat does not get a bonus attack from haste like effects.</p>Mynameisjake wrote: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...bbangerter2013-06-19T06:53:34ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandNefreethttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#732013-06-19T02:40:39Z2013-06-19T02:40:39Z<p>The "related note" you speak of should be left to that thread, and not discussed here as it is off-topic.</p>
<p>There is a spell, <i>Weaponwand</i>, 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.</p>
<p>As it is right now, if you cast <i>Shocking Grasp</i>, you can hold the charge indefinitely and keep zapping your wand of <i>Fireball</i> 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.</p>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...Nefreet2013-06-19T02:40:39ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandMynameisjakehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#722013-06-19T02:34:27Z2013-06-19T02:34:27Z<p>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.</p>
<p>On a related note, I remember reading something about Spell Combat not allowing for additional attacks for a high BAB. Is that true?</p>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?Mynameisjake2013-06-19T02:34:27ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandYogoZunohttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#712013-06-18T02:56:13Z2013-06-18T02:56:13Z<p>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.</p>
<p>Does the reasoning change for the Arcana Close Range? Could you Spellstrike with a Scorching Ray from a wand?</p>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...YogoZuno2013-06-18T02:56:13ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandMynameisjakehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#702013-06-18T02:11:03Z2013-06-18T02:11:03Z<p>Thanks, everyone, but I actually meant the ability to use a wand while holding a charge at the same time. </p>
<p>As in:</p>
<p>Before: cast spell and hold charge, but charge dissipates if you use a wand to "cast" another spell.</p>
<p>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). </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Just seems easier to me to say that casting is casting, but spell trigger or completion items don't get meta-magic, etc. </p>
<p>In any event, it would be nice if TPTB issued a clarification, so we could be sure of the intent.</p>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...Mynameisjake2013-06-18T02:11:03ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandDiego Rossihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#692013-06-17T05:53:44Z2013-06-17T05:53:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">wraithstrike wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>Wraith, a held charge (whatever the origin) is discharged as soon as you touch anything.
</p>
You draw a potion from your belt? Discharged.
<br />
You shake a friend hand? Discharged. </p>
<p>Th exceptions are:
<br />
- air (and I think water if you are immersed in it when you cast the spell);
<br />
- your feet touching the ground;
<br />
- what you had in your hands when the spell was cast, and there were doubts about that, as this FAQ can attest:
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Pathfinder Design Team wrote:</div><blockquote><p> FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnr</p>
<p><b>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?</b></p>
<p>No.
<br />
</blockquote><p>- if you are a magus with spellstrike y6ou can pick up a weapon after casting the touch spell.wraithstrike wrote: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);
-...Diego Rossi2013-06-17T05:53:44ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandNefreethttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#682013-06-17T05:03:26Z2013-06-17T05:03:26Z<p>Wraithstrike, you can damage objects with <i>Shocking Grasp</i> 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).</p>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).Nefreet2013-06-17T05:03:26ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandNefreethttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#672013-06-17T05:00:12Z2013-06-17T05:00:12Z<p>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.</p>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.Nefreet2013-06-17T05:00:12ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a Wandwraithstrike (alias of concerro)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#662013-06-17T02:19:24Z2013-06-17T02:19:24Z<p>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.</p>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.wraithstrike (alias of concerro)2013-06-17T02:19:24ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandMynameisjakehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#652013-06-17T02:11:57Z2013-06-17T02:11:57Z<p>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"?</p>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"?Mynameisjake2013-06-17T02:11:57ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandNefreethttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#642013-06-16T01:10:13Z2013-06-16T01:10:13Z<p>This one is easy, though. A Magus can only Spellstrike spells that he/she <i>casts</i>. Using a wand is not casting a spell. Therefore, you cannot Spellstrike with a wand.</p>This one is easy, though. A Magus can only Spellstrike spells that he/she casts. Using a wand is not casting a spell. Therefore, you cannot Spellstrike with a wand.Nefreet2013-06-16T01:10:13ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandMynameisjakehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#632013-06-15T23:52:20Z2013-06-15T23:52:20Z<p>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.</p>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.Mynameisjake2013-06-15T23:52:20ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandDiego Rossihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#622013-06-15T05:56:13Z2013-06-15T05:56:13Z<p>I think this resolve the question about spellstriking with a wand:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sean K Reynolds wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quandary wrote:</div><blockquote>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)</blockquote><p>No, because he actually has to be casting one of his magus spells from his magus spell list <b>("... [he] can also cast any spell from the magus spell list ...")</b>, not a spell-like ability that happens to have the same name as a spell from the magus spell list.
<p>(As a related example, a druid/magus who had <i>flaming sphere</i> 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 <i>flaming sphere</i> 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 <i>flaming sphere</i> works the same way as the magus spell.)
<br />
</blockquote><p>Spellstrike has the same text:
</p>
<b>At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, </b>
<br />
so the same limitation should apply.</p>I think this resolve the question about spellstriking with a wand:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:Quandary wrote: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...Diego Rossi2013-06-15T05:56:13ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandFrodoOf9Fingershttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#612013-06-15T05:36:02Z2013-06-15T05:36:02Z<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>A magus is no different. Hence the wording from Sean Reynolds
<br />
“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.”</p>
<p>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…</p>
<p>“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]”</p>
<p>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…</p>
<p>There’s two possibilities for me.
<br />
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)</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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! </p>
<p>If you can’t do spell strike with wands, your still in good shape…
<br />
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?</p>
<p>I think it’s a fair trade.</p>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...FrodoOf9Fingers2013-06-15T05:36:02ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandNefreethttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#602013-06-15T04:00:42Z2013-06-15T04:00:42Z<p>Spellstriking with a wand? Or something else up thread?</p>
<p>If you're asking about the former, there is no FAQ. You cannot Spellstrike with a wand.</p>Spellstriking with a wand? Or something else up thread?
If you're asking about the former, there is no FAQ. You cannot Spellstrike with a wand.Nefreet2013-06-15T04:00:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandMynameisjakehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#592013-06-15T02:32:13Z2013-06-15T02:32:13Z<p>Not sure if this counts as necromancy, but has there been a FAQ about this specific issue?</p>Not sure if this counts as necromancy, but has there been a FAQ about this specific issue?Mynameisjake2013-06-15T02:32:13ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Spellstriking with a WandEldonGhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ngxt&page=2?Spellstriking-with-a-Wand#582013-05-10T20:03:05Z2013-05-10T20:03:05Z<p>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.</p>
<p>It might be nice if it worked with Spellstrike, but I don't see that it does.</p>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.EldonG2013-05-10T20:03:05Z