"No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.
—Sean K Reynolds, 09/01/10"
Removed some posts. Please don't make personal attacks.
So what was the ultimate answer on this?
I see the FAQ, but it seems like the RAI might be that a magus with the wand wielder arcana should be able to use magic and metamagic feats with spellstrike.
On the other hand, given the number of charges wands can have, it still might be too OP to allow.
So that begs the question of whether (per RAW) a magic weapon could be given the functionality of a metamagic rod.
It sounds potentially broken, but is it even legal?
A rod can be used as a weapon if it is made to do so, but that is a custom item, and in GM territory.
Using a metamagic rod with a spell is rules legal, and if that rod has weaponlike qualities then you also get your normal attacks with it.
in short:The game has rods than can be used as weapon, but changing a weapon into a rod or rod-like device is a whole other thing.
According to the RAW I'd say you can use spellstrike with a metamagic rod but you can't get a full attack with it. Just one spell, one swing and done.
This doesn't make any sense. If you're entitled to a full attack, then you can full attack, regardless of whether you used a rod or not. If you don't get a full attack (because you moved, or used your standard to cast the spell) then you wouldn't get a full attack even without the rod.
All Spellstrike does is let you deliver a touch spell with your weapon. You still have exactly the same number of attacks as you would without it. Usually one 'free' attack as part of casting the spell, and however many attacks you have after that.
If you have a held charge, and then you full-attack, you can use Spellstrike on each one of those attacks until the spell is discharged. Whether you used a rod when you originally cast the spell or not is irrelevant.
If you mean spell combat with a rod, then if the rod is a weapon, it acts just like any other weapon, and you get the same number of attacks with it that you would with a sword.
Okay but what about casting shocking grasp front a wand hold on to the charge, move end round, next round attacking to deliver the spell with you attack. Is this valid?
Using a wand is not casting a spell, so it does not qualify for use with Spellstrike.
Also, this was an old thread.
Okay but what about casting shocking grasp front a wand hold on to the charge, move end round, next round attacking to deliver the spell with you attack. Is this valid?Using a wand is not casting a spell, so it does not qualify for use with Spellstrike.
The caveat there is if you have the Wand Wielder arcana.
The caveat there is if you have the Wand Wielder arcana.Okay but what about casting shocking grasp front a wand hold on to the charge, move end round, next round attacking to deliver the spell with you attack. Is this valid?Using a wand is not casting a spell, so it does not qualify for use with Spellstrike.
Wand Wielder has nothing to do with Spellstrike.
The caveat there is if you have the Wand Wielder arcana.Okay but what about casting shocking grasp front a wand hold on to the charge, move end round, next round attacking to deliver the spell with you attack. Is this valid?Using a wand is not casting a spell, so it does not qualify for use with Spellstrike.Wand Wielder has nothing to do with Spellstrike.
...so you can use it with spell combat but not with spellstrike? Meh.
...so you can use it with spell combat but not with spellstrike?
Wand Wielder (Su): "The magus can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when using spell combat."
|
...so you can use it with spell combat but not with spellstrike?Wand Wielder (Su): "The magus can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when using spell combat."
Thanks just wanted to be crystal clear, so if you use a wand to cast shocking grasp the only way to deliver this is via direct touch
if you use a wand to cast shocking grasp the only way to deliver this is via direct touch
Holding the Charge actually says "when you cast the spell" which could mean that if you activate a wand, since you didn't cast the spell, you can't hold the charge (and thus, can't deliver the spell with an unarmed strike or natural weapon).
However, even the main Touch Spells in Combat section says "To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject." This could be interpreted to simply be the rules being written with the assumption of normalcy, in that most of the time you're casting a spell, rather than activating a magic item.
One could argue then that the same assumption could be made with Spellstrike, and the only two important requirements are the range and spell list.
On the other hand, you could say that the touch spells in combat section is not a feat or special ability, and thus the FAQ entry was not referring to it, and as such, activating a wand could be considered casting a spell for those purposes.
I think you'll find many (many!) more GMs who would let you hold the charge from a wand than those who would let you use Spellstrike with a wand.
|
Actually you can use spellstrike to deliver a held charge, regardless of the held charge origin. You simply don't get a extra attack as it work with held charges, not when you cast a spell using a wand.
Can a magus use spellstrike (Ultimate Magic, page 10) to cast a touch spell, move, and make a melee attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell, all in the same round?
Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook 185). 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.
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.
Sean K Reynolds
Designer
Just to be even more clear: the rules don't say that if you cast a spell from a wand you have to use the wand to deliver the touch attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, this was an old thread.
I've never understood why this is such a massive sin on some boards.
|
|
Also, this was an old thread.I've never understood why this is such a massive sin on some boards.
In rule related thread, generally because it possible that later clarifications have made the whole argument obsolete.
The FAQ I cited is dated "Tuesday, February 7, 2012", so it was published after the thread died down the first time.
Actually you can use spellstrike to deliver a held charge, regardless of the held charge origin. You simply don't get a extra attack as it work with held charges, not when you cast a spell using a wand.
Are you trying to say that activating a wand of a touch spell doesn't grant a free melee touch attack?
Or are you trying to say that a magus can't use Spellstrike with the free melee touch attack granted by a touch spell he cast?
Either of those would be incorrect.
As for Spellstrike working with a wand:
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."
Spellstrike specifically states it only works when the magus casts a spell.
FAQ: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on? "No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting. —Sean K Reynolds, 09/01/10"
The FAQ specifically states that activating a wand does not count as "casting a spell" for purposes of special abilities.
Spellstrike is a special ability.
Therefore, activating a wand does not count as casting a spell for the purpose of Spellstrike, and thus cannot be used with Spellstrike.
Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook 185).
I'm not changing the normal rules for using touch spells. If you use that text to justify using Spellstrike when you didn't cast a spell, you could equally use it to justify using Spellstrike when you cast a spell that doesn't have a range of touch.
Casting the spell is a requirement to use Spellstrike.
Just to be even more clear: the rules don't say that if you cast a spell from a wand you have to use the wand to deliver the touch attack.
I don't see how that's relevant. Was anyone in this thread talking about using the wand to deliver the spell?
The FAQ specifically states that activating a wand does not count as "casting a spell" for purposes of special abilities.
Spellstrike is a special ability.
Therefore, activating a wand does not count as casting a spell for the purpose of Spellstrike, and thus cannot be used with Spellstrike.
Actually, it says that they do not count as 'casting a spell' for feats and abilities that modify the spell.
I would argue that spellstrike does not modify the spell in any way. A Shocking Grasp cast by a magus is the exact same Shocking Grasp that a wizard can cast; the difference is that a magus possesses a unique ability unrelated to any specific spell that allows him to deliver it via a weapon strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it says that they do not count as 'casting a spell' for feats and abilities that modify the spell.
The question is "Does using a... wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities...?"
The answer is "No."
I would argue that spellstrike does not modify the spell in any way.
Converting the free touch attack into a melee attack is a modification. Using the critical threat range of a weapon is a modification.
|
|
Actually, it says that they do not count as 'casting a spell' for feats and abilities that modify the spell.The question is "Does using a... wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities...?"
The answer is "No."
The part of the sentence you cut out directly modifies the part you kept.
Once can make a statement appear to mean anything desired if allowed to selectively edit.
The part of the sentence you cut out directly modifies the part you kept.
FAQ: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on? "No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting. —Sean K Reynolds, 09/01/10"
Potions, scrolls, and staves are irrelevant to the question, so I removed that part.
A list of examples is also not relevant to the question, so I also removed that part, too.
The second sentence in the reply is an addition to the answer to the question. I removed it to make it more clear that the "No." was a direct response to the question. This makes it clear that the answer does not depend on the special ability modifying a spell.
Converting the free touch attack into a melee attack is a modification. Using the critical threat range of a weapon is a modification.
The former is a modification to the magus's ability to cast spells, not to the spell itself. The latter is a somewhat more convincing statement, but even that I would argue is not a modification to the spell, but to the 'delivery method'.
The second sentence in the reply is an addition to the answer to the question. I removed it to make it more clear that the "No." was a direct response to the question. This makes it clear that the answer does not depend on the special ability modifying a spell.
Or the second sentence in the reply is to clarify the scope of what Sean meant by "no"; had he meant, "No, there are no instances whatsoever where those items count as casting a spell," then "No," is all that would have been necessary.
Going in another direction, I would argue that if you cannot use wands in conjunction with spellstrike because it says it can only be used when "casting a spell", then spells that have iterative charges could not be delivered via a weapon. You aren't "casting a spell" at that point; you previously cast a spell, but the spell's casting is complete.
Converting the free touch attack into a melee attack is a modification. Using the critical threat range of a weapon is a modification.The former is a modification to the magus's ability to cast spells, not to the spell itself.
The attack can only take place after the spell has been cast. It's a direct result of having cast the spell.
Or the second sentence in the reply is to clarify the scope of what Sean meant by "no"
In that case, a comma would have been better than a period.
Going in another direction, I would argue that if you cannot use wands in conjunction with spellstrike because it says it can only be used when "casting a spell", then spells that have iterative charges could not be delivered via a weapon.
Spellstrike does not say "casting a spell" it says "casts a spell".
If the ability only functioned while you are casting a spell, it wouldn't ever do anything.
"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."
If a magus casts chill touch, which has a range of "touch" and is from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. So if he's holding the charge of that spell, he still cast it, it still had the range of touch, and it's still from the magus spell list, so he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
After being on these boards for months I find that about 95% of Grick's post are dead on, the other 5% have nothing to do with answering a question so don't really count.
I don't always have questions about rules, but when I do Grick's post/opinions are usually correct :)
|
|
Spellstrike say that "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." and activating a wand isn't the same thing as casting a spell, so it not work the round in which you activate a wand.
But a held charge is a held charge of spell X, regardless of how you generated the charge. So either you can't deliver any held charge through a spellstrike or you can deliver any held charge of a spell on the magus spell list.
Following SKR line of reasoning in the FAQ: "Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells." I am in favor of the second interpretation.
But a held charge is a held charge of spell X, regardless of how you generated the charge. So either you can't deliver any held charge through a spellstrike or you can deliver any held charge of a spell on the magus spell list.
Those are not the only options.
Another option is that you can deliver a spell through a weapon as part of a melee attack if, and only if, that spell was cast by the magus, it had a range of touch, and it was from the magus spell list.
Holding the charge doesn't change any of those things, so as long as those are true, you can deliver the spell with Spellstrike.
Look at it this way:
A wizard with the Evocation School power Intense Spells gets a bonus to evocation spells that deal hit point damage.
If that wizard casts Shocking Grasp and touches someone, he would get his intense spells bonus damage.
If that same wizard activates a wand of Shocking Grasp and touches someone, he would not get his bonus damage, because he didn't cast the spell.
Neither of those situations changes if he held the charge for a few rounds before touching someone.
Following SKR line of reasoning in the FAQ: "Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells."
Not being able to use Spellstrike with wands is not making it more difficult for a magus to use touch spells.
Being able to use Spellstrike with spells you actually cast (as long as they have a range of touch, and come from the magus spell list) does give the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells.
A magus can still use a wand just like everyone else, and deliver touches with it just like everyone else, he just can't use Spellstrike to deliver those touches, because he didn't cast the spell.
And what SKR say in the first part of the citation? "Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells;".
Spellstrike does give the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells.
But only touch spells that he cast from the magus spell list.
The magus has to be the caster. When you use a wand you(the character) are not the caster. If the magus was actually doing the casting his caster level would be used to bypass SR, and not the caster level of the wand.
In short:Grick is correct.
So if a wand does not count as the caster casting a spell, by RAW if the magus is not casting the spell, but is simply using a wand, then a magus could cast Shocking Grasp, hold the charge, and use a wand of Shocking Grasp without dissipating the charge from the spell he cast. Why? Because the spell only dissipates "If you cast another spell..."
Correct?
If the argument is that using a wand to cast a spell does not count for the purposes of spellstrike, then I would offer up the argument that since "you" are not casting the spell, it also won't dissipate any held charges you have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then you can't use spellstrike with any held charge as you aren't casting the spell.
Spellstrike does not say "casting a spell" it says "casts a spell".
If the ability only functioned while you are casting a spell, it wouldn't ever do anything.
"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."
If a magus casts chill touch, which has a range of "touch" and is from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. So if he's holding the charge of that spell, he still cast it, it still had the range of touch, and it's still from the magus spell list, so he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
So if a wand does not count as the caster casting a spell, by RAW if the magus is not casting the spell, but is simply using a wand, then a magus could cast Shocking Grasp, hold the charge, and use a wand of Shocking Grasp without dissipating the charge from the spell he cast. Why? Because the spell only dissipates "If you cast another spell..."
Correct?
If the argument is that using a wand to cast a spell does not count for the purposes of spellstrike, then I would offer up the argument that since "you" are not casting the spell, it also won't dissipate any held charges you have.
Going strictly by RAW yes, but I won't expect for that to go over in most GM's games.
Class abilities unless stated other wise don't improve or work off of spells cast through items. That is why you can use augment summoning on scrolls of summon monster.
Per the FAQ
Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?
No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.
The magus ability does not state otherwise.
In addition the magus has to take an arcana for spell combat, so it follows logic and the FAQ that he can't use spellstrike without a similar rules exception
Wand Wielder (Su): The magus can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when using spell combat.
However no rules exception is in place as in spellstrike or as an additional(optional) ability such as an arcana or feat that I know of.
So if a wand does not count as the caster casting a spell...
...for purposes of feats and special abilities.
by RAW if the magus is not casting the spell, but is simply using a wand, then a magus could cast Shocking Grasp, hold the charge, and use a wand of Shocking Grasp without dissipating the charge from the spell he cast.
If the FAQ is not specifically saying it is not casting a spell for purposes of feats and special abilities, but is making a general rule that using a wand is not casting a spell, then yes, that's correct.
|
|
Casting is casting but is not casting, depending on how it is convenient for your position?
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 "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," 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,".
- * -
So, this is the all limiting definition of what casting is, right?
Casting Spells
Whether a spell is arcane or divine, and whether a character prepares spells in advance or chooses them on the spot, casting a spell works the same way.
Choosing a Spell
First you must choose which spell to cast. If you're a cleric, druid, experienced paladin, experienced ranger, or wizard, you select from among spells prepared earlier in the day and not yet cast (see Preparing Wizard Spells and Preparing Divine Spells).
If you're a bard or sorcerer, you can select any spell you know, provided you are capable of casting spells of that level or higher.
To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, you must concentrate to cast a spell.
If a spell has multiple versions, you choose which version to use when you cast it. You don't have to prepare (or learn, in the case of a bard or sorcerer) a specific version of the spell.
Once you've cast a prepared spell, you can't cast it again until you prepare it again. (If you've prepared multiple copies of a single spell, you can cast each copy once.) If you're a bard or sorcerer, casting a spell counts against your daily limit for spells of that spell level, but you can cast the same spell again if you haven't reached your limit.
Concentration
To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type. Clerics, druids, and rangers add their Wisdom modifier. Bards, paladins, and sorcerers add their Charisma modifier. Finally, wizards add their Intelligence modifier. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect.
Working with that we get that:
- using scroll, wands, or other items is not casting;- that if you are under the effect of "Forbid Action - Cast: Target cannot cast spells or use spell-like abilities" you can still use staff, wands, scrolls;
- that the PRD is wrong when it say "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."
and so on.
So if a wand does not count as the caster casting a spell......for purposes of feats and special abilities.
by RAW if the magus is not casting the spell, but is simply using a wand, then a magus could cast Shocking Grasp, hold the charge, and use a wand of Shocking Grasp without dissipating the charge from the spell he cast.If the FAQ is not specifically saying it is not casting a spell for purposes of feats and special abilities, but is making a general rule that using a wand is not casting a spell, then yes, that's correct.
I can understand the logic of not allowing feats and certain special abilities that enhance a spell to work with a wand. With metamagic feats and those special abilities, you're enhancing the spell as you're memorizing it, or are sort of 'rebuilding' the spell within yourself while you're casting it. You never get that chance with a spell cast from a wand, because you aren't really doing the casting.
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.
|
"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.