|
Hey advice,
I play a battle cleric of gorum. I've invested in several buff wands (shield of faith, bless, etc). All of these are wands I can use with no UMD check. I often find myself in an encounter where there's talking before the fighting, and wish to buff myself on the low down. What the GMs I play with (round-robin GMing PFS sessions) think is that by using a wand, I'm acting offensively and combat starts immediately. I'm trying to do so covertly. The RAW on wand activation:
Activation: 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. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.
From the RAW, I don't have to be making skin contact with it, merely holding in my hand. Nothing says the wand has to be brandished - only pointed in the general direction. If I have the wand secured in a loop on my belt, the tip pointed at my leg, I think I should be able to rest my hand on the hilt of the wand (holding it) and activate it. The wand activation doesn't require any verbal or somatic components, it just activates.
My cleric wears full plate armor, with a heavy cloak. I would like to face away from the encounter (as if looking for danger from the rear) and use the wand. RAW, is this a Bluff v. Sense Motive check? Slight of Hand v. Perception?
Alternatively, have the hilts of the wands I want to use positioned right by my scabbard so I can activate them while keeping a hand on my sword. How would this work, mechanically?
Thanks
From the RAW, I don't have to be making skin contact with it, merely holding in my hand. Nothing says the wand has to be brandished - only pointed in the general direction. If I have the wand secured in a loop on my belt, the tip pointed at my leg, I think I should be able to rest my hand on the hilt of the wand (holding it) and activate it. The wand activation doesn't require any verbal or somatic components, it just activates.
Wands are spell completion magic items and require "a single word that must be spoken."
So, it would be pretty tough to not be noticed at all.|
|
Wands are spell trigger, not spell completion, but I looked up the rules for that and
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken.
so I see what you're saying.
Nothing about volume. If I'm facing away and mouth the word, or whisper it while other people are talking, I don't think it's an auto-notice scenario. Perception to hear, spellcraft to identify? Not sure how to handle it.
|
Wands are spell trigger, not spell completion, but I looked up the rules for that andSpell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken.so I see what you're saying.
Nothing about volume. If I'm facing away and mouth the word, or whisper it while other people are talking, I don't think it's an auto-notice scenario. Perception to hear, spellcraft to identify? Not sure how to handle it.
from the Core:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
I always viewed wand activation as similar to a verbal component for a spell. This makes it so that it is impossible to "whisper fire" a wand.
The big thing is that if you made the wands, you set the "trigger word". You can always make it something that you character is likely to say while keeping an eye out. Since you have to be trying to activate the wand to fire it off, you don't have to worry about accidentally using it.
Nothing about volume. If I'm facing away and mouth the word, or whisper it while other people are talking, I don't think it's an auto-notice scenario. Perception to hear, spellcraft to identify? Not sure how to handle it.
I wouldn't allow just mouthing the words to work. Didn't work for Milli Vanilli, doesn't work here (you younglings can Google that reference).
I agree with Happler, that its resonable that a spell trigger activation would require a similar volume to the actual spell. You don't have to yell it, but a normal conversation voice would be required.
If you tried this in a game where I was DM, I wouldn't disallow it out of hand but I'd let you know it's kinda like trying to cock a gun while you're talking to some gangster without be noticed. If you get away with it great, if not....
I'd say give me a sleight of hand check to 'draw' the wand. I'd say it's close enough to a dagger that I'd give you the +2 bonus for size. Account for distance to the other group.
If you failed at this point, the other side would likely say, "Hey, let me see your hands."
Then I would have you make a bluff check to be able to either weave the command word into the conversation or blurt it out unnoticed while someone else was talking.
If you failed this, it would probably be game on, as I think most would interpret it as a hostile act and attack.
I think given a competent group of enemies you'd find this very hard as it should be. However, I would also reserve the right to change this ruling, if you began to use it too often and it worked too easily.
The intent for anything related to magic and speaking words, be they command words, verbal components, etc, is that you are speaking boldly and clearly, not timidly and quiet.
|
|
I wouldn't allow just mouthing the words to work. Didn't work for Milli Vanilli, doesn't work here (you youngling can Google that reference).
I may be a youngling but I understand just fine :)
I'd say give me a sleight of hand check to 'draw' the wand. I'd say it's close enough to a dagger that I'd give you the +2 bonus for size. Account for distance to the other group.
I'm not drawing them, merely placing my hands on my belt and gripping the wand hafts. Visualize a gunfighter in a showdown ready for action. Not exactly a peaceful act, but more of an aggression indicator. A black-plate clad warpriest of Gorum putting his hands on his weapons and saying something like "Gorum Observes" shouldn't be too suspicious.
Seems to me this is most likely a bluff check vs sense motive?
If they can see you reach for a weapon they can see you reach for a wand, even if you don't draw it.
As a GM the monologues are there for story reason, not so the player can stuff buffing in advance. I know that it makes sense to buff or cut the BBEG in midsentence, but it seems like the GM is not having it, and there are no rules to support activating that want secretly.
The intent of the rules is for you to hold the wand anyway. If you did not have to draw the wand then nobody would. Trying to use the RAW's lack of legalese as a loophole also won't help you with most GM's. The intent of the law is more important that the letter of the law.
Going strictly by RAW the games breaks.
Why so much talk about spell completion items, when the thread's about wands?
Because, while I got the mechanic of the rule correct, I called it by the wrong name.
The thing that first comes to mind to me is "wouldn't they see the spell effect?". I've played in many games where the GM didn't say until after the bad guy was defeated that "buy the way, he was surrounded by an armor shaped field of force". I would think someone might question why you suddenly have a glowing halo about you. (as I imagine a blessing or shield of faith}
I'm not drawing them, merely placing my hands on my belt and gripping the wand hafts. Visualize a gunfighter in a showdown ready for action. Not exactly a peaceful act, but more of an aggression indicator. A black-plate clad warpriest of Gorum putting his hands on his weapons and saying something like "Gorum Observes" shouldn't be too suspicious.
Well, that's why I put 'draw' in quotes. While you may not be actually drawing it out, which would be obvious to everyone, you're reaching for a 'weapon' while trying to keep it hidden. In the gunfighter analogy, if I saw your hand go to a weapon, I doubt I would wait to see if you were just resting your hand on it. I'd definately tell you to take your hand off of it.
You can apply metamagic to wands during creation. For example, I could have a wand of maximized magic missile, paying out the nose as I would for a 4th-level spell.
Try a wand with the Silent Spell metamagic feat. Suddenly, no one is going to hear you activate it. :D
I would allow a sleight of hand or Stealth to use the wand, though it would be tough.
RD makes a good point, and I am sure such tactics are not secrets so anyone putting a hand on a wand is inviting suspicion. Touching the wand is just asking for an initiative roll, even especially if the GM rules that it does not have to be drawn.
If that is how the gameworld works then it would be common knowledge to anyone that knows how to use a wand.
*plate mail under heavy cloak, greatsword, and no visible holy symbol
Guy turns his back on me when we're in a standoff--wee bit suspicious.
You can try and rationalize it anyway you want, but at the end of the day there are certain things you can do or can't do within the rules for balance purposes.
I mean logically, I should be able to duct tape a dozen wands of fireball together, have them set for the same command word, and start kicking some serious butt.
What if your DM let one of the NPC's get off a fireball from a wand in the same method, would you think that was fair?
|
|
Trust me, Tim, if I was trying to break the rules I wouldn't be concerned about using a wand discreetly. I'd be posting about using magical lineage and merciful spell and spell perfection to drop 10d6 subdual shocking grasps every round as a cantrip while spellstriking with my keen falcata on my magus. I'd be posting about RAGELANCEPOUNCE builds, or animated adamantine wagons with huge animated crossbows. I'd be dipping vivisectionist alchemist for an extra arm to do cheesy stuff with (bonus points for also dipping white haired witch and getting prehensile hair).
I just want to use a 1 minute duration buff wand... sometime... ever... without having to stand around like a retard and waste combat rounds doing so.
But, you hit to the heart of the matter: We're forever facing foes who have conveniently been handed whatever plot device is needed for them to have 5-10 rounds of buffing the instant before they encounter us. I've lost count of how many fights are set up with "BBEG drinks potion of invisibility that every BBEG seems to have when they hear the PCs overcoming the trivial obstacle that is placed in front of their room in every single scenario and has the benefit of Barkskin, Cat's Grace, Bless, False Life, Pink Elephant Brigade, Attack Five Hundred Times, Fists of Testicular Destruction, and Dancing Lights." One scenario even forced us to deploy in a 20 foot square vs a felching evoker specialist who attacked from stealth - with no perception roll to detect - in an enormous market packed so tight with shoppers that everything was difficult terrain - with melee mooks to block for him - and of course he was buffed with 5 rounds of buff spells.
I'm just trying to level the playing field a little. I think I'm going to go with the wands in the sleeves idea, and set the activation phrase to something normal I'll say before combats. If the DM doesn't catch on, neither will the npcs.
But, you hit to the heart of the matter: We're forever facing foes who have conveniently been handed whatever plot device is needed for them to have 5-10 rounds of buffing the instant before they encounter us.
I agree. This is a DM/scenario problem. I refuse to give BBEG's auto buffs just because a module says so. It is only fair the the players and NPC fight on a level playing field, the same rules apply to both. Pre-buffs need to be justified, sometimes they are reasonable, sometimes they are not. I'll admit I've seen my share that are just handwaved that somehow the bad guy knows exactly when party appears. If I'm running a prewritten adventure, I'll strike them--it's simply not fair.
Call me "thread resurrector man" today!
So, you're outside a door, and you know that there are guardsmen through the door. You activate your wand of Silence to do away with them quietly and discreetly.
What's their Perception DC to hear you use the wand?
We had this come up last night, and I ruled it started at a base DC of 0 (hear the details of a conversation), +10 because of the wall, +3 for distance (30' away), and my players howled bloody murder, saying that there was no way guards would hear a single word spoken through a closed door from 30' away.
(The streets were otherwise empty, but I gave them another +5 because I figured the guards would count as "distracted" because they were likely talking to each other, but the guards still rolled a 22 on their Perception and knew someone was outside.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Activating a wand require a command word, spoken clearly.
If the player want to complain on the basis of some real life experience (and none of us has the perception a lot of PC and NPC have), ask them if they hear people speaking in the street when they are at home with the windows closed
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll continue this necromantic ritual with the following:
A cleric of Gorum should not be doing ANYTHING discretely.
Call me "thread resurrector man" today!
So, you're outside a door, and you know that there are guardsmen through the door. You activate your wand of Silence to do away with them quietly and discreetly.
What's their Perception DC to hear you use the wand?
We had this come up last night, and I ruled it started at a base DC of 0 (hear the details of a conversation), +10 because of the wall, +3 for distance (30' away), and my players howled bloody murder, saying that there was no way guards would hear a single word spoken through a closed door from 30' away.
(The streets were otherwise empty, but I gave them another +5 because I figured the guards would count as "distracted" because they were likely talking to each other, but the guards still rolled a 22 on their Perception and knew someone was outside.)
I was one of those people that "howled bloody murder". The reason was simple, we were outside a second building, downstairs, through two walls, in Old Korvosa, surrounded by the destruction of that city. The guards had been scouted by an invisible stealth'd character so we knew where they were and we then find out, at the time we cast silence, that "Oh, they hear the single word, have no spell craft to know what that single word is..." and then the bad guys take up defensive positions and become fully alert.
What this means is, NO you cannot buff discretely in a room full of people. You cannot even cast a single wand spell out of site 30 or more feet on the other side of a building. Heck, you can't even "go to the little priest's room" unless that room is in another building. Everyone, everywhere will know that you cast that buff. Forget it. Unless you are dealing with less than level 5 opponents, no one can cast anything ever without everyone knowing.
Call me "thread resurrector man" today!
So, you're outside a door, and you know that there are guardsmen through the door. You activate your wand of Silence to do away with them quietly and discreetly.
What's their Perception DC to hear you use the wand?
We had this come up last night, and I ruled it started at a base DC of 0 (hear the details of a conversation), +10 because of the wall, +3 for distance (30' away), and my players howled bloody murder, saying that there was no way guards would hear a single word spoken through a closed door from 30' away.
(The streets were otherwise empty, but I gave them another +5 because I figured the guards would count as "distracted" because they were likely talking to each other, but the guards still rolled a 22 on their Perception and knew someone was outside.)
I was one of those people that "howled bloody murder". The reason was simple, we were outside a second building, downstairs, through two walls, in Old Korvosa, surrounded by the destruction of that city. The guards had been scouted by an invisible stealth'd character so we knew where they were and we then find out, at the time we cast silence, that "Oh, they hear the single word, have no spell craft to know what that single word is..." and then the bad guys take up defensive positions and become fully alert.
What this means is, NO you cannot buff discretely in a room full of people. You cannot even cast a single wand spell out of site 30 or more feet on the other side of a building. Heck, you can't even "go to the little priest's room" unless that room is in another building. Everyone, everywhere will know that you cast that buff. Forget it. Unless you are dealing with less than level 5 opponents, no one can cast anything ever without everyone knowing.
What's fair is that this describes that we had completely different perspectives on what was happening.
The guards were in an open-air room. There was no door at all. I added the +10 because you did take the time to go behind a second building.
Once they rolled a 22 on Perception to hear someone speaking outside, they indeed had to try to figure out what was happening with no Spellcraft at all. I set that at a DC 20 Int roll to know that the noise had been something amiss. Behind the screen, they rolled a natural 20, hitting the Int they needed, and that was when they took up defensive positions.
I felt that two hard rolls for them (first the Per to hear you and then the Int to know it wasn't normal background noise) was fair.
Since both rolls were behind the screen, you saw neither of them.
If you disagree that a Per and then an Int are sufficient, then we can discuss it in person.
|
|
Call me "thread resurrector man" today!
So, you're outside a door, and you know that there are guardsmen through the door. You activate your wand of Silence to do away with them quietly and discreetly.
What's their Perception DC to hear you use the wand?
We had this come up last night, and I ruled it started at a base DC of 0 (hear the details of a conversation), +10 because of the wall, +3 for distance (30' away), and my players howled bloody murder, saying that there was no way guards would hear a single word spoken through a closed door from 30' away.
(The streets were otherwise empty, but I gave them another +5 because I figured the guards would count as "distracted" because they were likely talking to each other, but the guards still rolled a 22 on their Perception and knew someone was outside.)
I was one of those people that "howled bloody murder". The reason was simple, we were outside a second building, downstairs, through two walls, in Old Korvosa, surrounded by the destruction of that city. The guards had been scouted by an invisible stealth'd character so we knew where they were and we then find out, at the time we cast silence, that "Oh, they hear the single word, have no spell craft to know what that single word is..." and then the bad guys take up defensive positions and become fully alert.
What this means is, NO you cannot buff discretely in a room full of people. You cannot even cast a single wand spell out of site 30 or more feet on the other side of a building. Heck, you can't even "go to the little priest's room" unless that room is in another building. Everyone, everywhere will know that you cast that buff. Forget it. Unless you are dealing with less than level 5 opponents, no one can cast anything ever without everyone knowing.
If you are arguing that it isn't possible to perceive someone in that situation, be careful in what you ask. It is way more common for the PC to be those that hear something in that situation. You really want to get your GM to decide that a Dc of 22 is enough to make a noise totally non-perceivable?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The intent for anything related to magic and speaking words, be they command words, verbal components, etc, is that you are speaking boldly and clearly, not timidly and quiet.
Any priest of Gorum who speaks timidly should require an atonement. :)
T
But, you hit to the heart of the matter: We're forever facing foes who have conveniently been handed whatever plot device is needed for them to have 5-10 rounds of buffing the instant before they encounter us. I've lost count of how many fights are set up with "BBEG drinks potion of invisibility that every BBEG seems to have when they hear the PCs overcoming the trivial obstacle that is placed in front of their room in every single scenario and has the benefit of Barkskin, Cat's Grace, Bless, False Life, Pink Elephant Brigade, Attack Five Hundred Times, Fists of Testicular Destruction, and Dancing Lights." One scenario even forced us to deploy in a 20 foot square vs a felching evoker specialist who attacked from stealth - with no perception roll to detect - in an enormous market packed so tight with shoppers that everything was difficult terrain - with melee mooks to block for him - and of course he was buffed with 5 rounds of buff spells.
I'm just trying to level the playing field a little. I think I'm going to go with the wands in the sleeves idea, and set the activation phrase to something normal I'll say before combats. If the DM doesn't catch on, neither will the npcs.
Two points.
1. The NPC's have the home field advantage, you're plowing through their forces, fighting their guards, so it's logical that they have certain advance notice that you can't have. And frequently scenarios will note what buffs the NPC's DON"T have up if you're good enough at stealthing through. It's not their problem if you have a loud clanker spoiling your stealth strategy.
2. The buffs that the NPC's do get only serve to reduce the amount of one round kills that parties frequently get on what should be a fight that lasts long enough for some drama and suspense.
T
But, you hit to the heart of the matter: We're forever facing foes who have conveniently been handed whatever plot device is needed for them to have 5-10 rounds of buffing the instant before they encounter us. I've lost count of how many fights are set up with "BBEG drinks potion of invisibility that every BBEG seems to have when they hear the PCs overcoming the trivial obstacle that is placed in front of their room in every single scenario and has the benefit of Barkskin, Cat's Grace, Bless, False Life, Pink Elephant Brigade, Attack Five Hundred Times, Fists of Testicular Destruction, and Dancing Lights." One scenario even forced us to deploy in a 20 foot square vs a felching evoker specialist who attacked from stealth - with no perception roll to detect - in an enormous market packed so tight with shoppers that everything was difficult terrain - with melee mooks to block for him - and of course he was buffed with 5 rounds of buff spells.
I'm just trying to level the playing field a little. I think I'm going to go with the wands in the sleeves idea, and set the activation phrase to something normal I'll say before combats. If the DM doesn't catch on, neither will the npcs.
Two points.
1. The NPC's have the home field advantage, you're plowing through their forces, fighting their guards, so it's logical that they have certain advance notice that you can't have. And frequently scenarios will note what buffs the NPC's DON"T have up if you're good enough at stealthing through. It's not their problem if you have a loud clanker spoiling your stealth strategy.
2. The buffs that the NPC's do get only serve to reduce the amount of one round kills that parties frequently get on what should be a fight that lasts long enough for some drama and suspense.
I'll disagree only insomuch as I play the NPCs are under the exact same restrictions as the PCs: They have to make the Perception rolls, they have to perceive a threat, etc.
In the aforementioned scenario we had, my BBEG was watching the fight, assuming he'd have time to buff once the enemy reached the second tier of defenses. Because of his poor tactical decisions, he ended up in the fight unbuffed. But that was his choice.
I'm a fairly easygoing GM, in my own mind: Whatever effects/limitations/restrictions affect the PCs, affect the NPCs as well.
And the PCs are sure as heck going to hear the NPC buffing...
As others have pointed out, while spell trigger doesn't specify the volume, (neither does command word) it is reasonable that the same rules apply as verbal components. I think most GMs would rule that way, and I would certainly expect that in PFS most of the time. Additionally, 'hold in hand' doesn't mean touching it while it is on your belt. You have to take an action to get the wand into your hand, which must otherwise be empty as if wielding a weapon. Typically this is a move action.
Unless you had some special rules based exception for your character, I would indeed rule that using a wand is obvious and easily recognizable as a possible hostile action, just like casting a spell or something similar.
Try a wand with the Silent Spell metamagic feat. Suddenly, no one is going to hear you activate it. :D
This doesn't actually work. Silent spell means you don't need a verbal component for a spell, but it doesn't change the activation requirement of a magic item. Even a spell with no verbal component requires a spoken spell trigger word when placed in a magic wand.
Wands don't need the spells verbal component when being activated anymore than they need the spells somatic or material components.
I'd add a couple of points for consideration.
Were the guards on alert? If so I think a roll is justified in that they are trying to be quiet and watching/listening for things. If not I'd say that they should most likely have a standard 'take 10' on perception which is the example used most often for take 10 - a guard at a gate watching for contraband/known criminals/etc. Being 'on alert' is stressful and leads to making mistakes if done for too long a period of time.
If they were not on alert a further issue would be if they were distracted not paying attention at all - but without a pre-notice that there was something to be extra careful about (or threats to pay attention more than normal) I'd just have them take 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(The streets were otherwise empty, but I gave them another +5 because I figured the guards would count as "distracted" because they were likely talking to each other, but the guards still rolled a 22 on their Perception and knew someone was outside.)I was one of those people that "howled bloody murder". The reason was simple, we were outside a second building, downstairs, through two walls, in Old Korvosa, surrounded by the destruction of that city. The guards had been scouted by an invisible stealth'd character so we knew where they were and we then find out, at the time we cast silence, that "Oh, they hear the single word, have no spell craft to know what that single word is..." and then the bad guys take up defensive positions and become fully alert.
What's fair is that this describes that we had completely different perspectives on what was happening.
The guards were in an open-air room. There was no door at all. I added the +10 because you did take the time to go behind a second building.
Figuring out exact and appropriate perception modifiers can be tough. Sometimes a whole lot of trouble can be saved simply by telling PCs what the DC is in a certain situation. If you had figured out the DC to hear them from where the guards were as 18 before they did anything they probably wouldn't have been upset if the guards heard them (or they might have moved another 30 feet down the street.) If they believed (however wrongly) that what they were doing was already virtually impossible to detect, but afterwards your adjudication made it fairly likely (18 isn't that high of a DC) then it is understandable that they would be upset.
One of the biggest responsibilities a GM has is making sure that the players see the world (and that often means the numbers behind the game) the same way that he does. The GM is the only conduit for the players to understand where their character is and how they can interact with their environment.
I'd add a couple of points for consideration.
Were the guards on alert? If so I think a roll is justified in that they are trying to be quiet and watching/listening for things. If not I'd say that they should most likely have a standard 'take 10' on perception which is the example used most often for take 10 - a guard at a gate watching for contraband/known criminals/etc. Being 'on alert' is stressful and leads to making mistakes if done for too long a period of time.
If they were not on alert a further issue would be if they were distracted not paying attention at all - but without a pre-notice that there was something to be extra careful about (or threats to pay attention more than normal) I'd just have them take 10.
Yeah, that's where I think we're having the serious issue. You have a group of guards sitting in room, tasked with 'watching for trouble' for 4 hours.
There's no outside noise (the area is described as 'devoid of life'), then someone uses a wand.
At that point as the GM do you keep them at their 'take 10' perceptions, or do you rule that because it's something unusual that they'd be likely to notice, do you roll a die?
In this particular case, their Perception bonus was +9, so their take 10 of 19 was enough to hear given the restrictions I'd added (0 + 10 + 3 + 5). But because it was something unusual, I had them roll, and they ended up with a 22 (not a significant difference).
The bigger one for me is the, "OK, you've heard something unusual, what do you do?" issue.
Obviously, Torath and I are in disagreement on this one. I felt that hearing something out of the ordinary meant some kind of roll to determine how they reacted. On a natural 20, they assumed the new noise was a threat (though they didn't know what it was) and took defensive positions.
Unfortunately, as far as I know, the rules-as-written have no guidelines as to, "Your NPCs hear something. What do they do?" tables.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, Torath and I are in disagreement on this one. I felt that hearing something out of the ordinary meant some kind of roll to determine how they reacted. On a natural 20, they assumed the new noise was a threat (though they didn't know what it was) and took defensive positions.
Unfortunately, as far as I know, the rules-as-written have no guidelines as to, "Your NPCs hear something. What do they do?" tables.
The disagreement isn't as much as you might think. My disagreement isn't with the rules as written or as interpreted. My problem is that the chosen chance we would be heard wasn't made clear before everything went south. You could have just said... As a group of players you've planned for an hour and you should know based on your character's perceptions of +20 or more that it's nearly impossible for them not to hear you use that wand from that place you think is safe behind a different building (because you can clearly hear THEM). You need to move at least 200 feet away or get 2 more walls between you and them or they will hear. We know this now; it won't be any issue anymore. Helping the players understand the world is what we were howling about.
On a side note, I guess every GM can expect that anytime a party needs to go into a situation, the first thing they will all do is stand quietly, outside and spend a moment taking 20 on perception rolls to hear everything inside before they start. I mean they may as well... someone's perception is over +20, and there isn't any negative for failure, and it says right in the rules that they can "try again"... so, get ready to describe all the random conversations. And those BBEGs that every AP says cast buffs before combat. Realize the PCs can hear them, from 3 rooms over... and will know given some spellcraft what they cast and they just won't engage until the round and/or minute ones are done. The BBEG will need to come to attack I guess and run into an ambush every time.
THAT is the problem with the system... it doesn't work very well on either side. Once you make it so everyone can pretty much hear everything it's a bit silly. But we can all certainly agree, those are "the rules".
The disagreement isn't as much as you might think. My disagreement isn't with the rules as written or as interpreted. My problem is that the chosen chance we would be heard wasn't made clear before everything went south. You could have just said... As a group of players you've planned for an hour and you should know based on your character's perceptions of +20 or more that it's nearly impossible for them not to hear you use that wand from that place you think is safe behind a different building (because you can clearly hear THEM).
Did you hear them? I would agree that's a fair point - especially if you were planning something for so long. That being said perception is one of those goofy things - and a GM has to figure out if it's reasonable to hear something usually incorporating a ton of variables into the mix - sometimes the players expect more secrecy than they have and vice versa - sometimes not all variables are taken into easy account.
The other thing to account for is essentially the fact that Pathfinder - even with the intrigue rules - makes it very clear that *all* spellcasting requires a firm loud sound, and even if silenced visible and telltale signs the magic is happening. A wand is no exception the command word must be spoken loud and clearly to work. The visual effects are flashy - always. I always let my players hear spellcasting (usually when they start to hear it - the perception modifiers make it difficult or impossible to determine *what* is being cast - but they still hear it).
On note even a silenced, stilled, component free spell will be visible and detectable by the rules. You get the feeling that the guys involved in the design *really* (no - really may be to light a word) hated people who hid spellcasting. As such unless you house rule stuff magic is pretty much a giveaway to an enemy and players (and GMs) have to work with and around that fact.
The game is just a "grumpy" dynamic. It's players I've been gaming with for years, plus a couple of gamers for whom I'm running the game who have two very noisy, very needy toddlers.
So tempers run high during the game, and any frustration gets magnified far beyond its cause.
One of those situations where you want to cancel the game because it's so high-stress for everyone involved, but it's the only game the two people causing all the stress have, so a balance between "I want to enjoy myself" and "I understand that people have real lives, and real stresses, and I'm willing to take a bit of a hit to do them a favor."
Though it never DOES seem like they enjoy the game, they always contact me afterwards and ask, "When can we next play?"
A long way of saying, "Yeah, there's a lot of underlying stress for this particular group."