|
Just looked at weaponwand...it doesn't even say it has to be a manufactured weapon.
I don't think that was a point of anyone's argument as to why the spell shouldn't work. If you referring to what I said earlier, my sticking point for why it 'may' fail is due to the monk's fist is counted as both a manufactured and natural weapon.
If it's both, then part of it is not a valid target for the spell. The spell doesn't say it works with natural weapons, and going by RAW if it doesn't say it can work with them, you can't assume it does.
So technically unarmed strikes arent necesarily your hands, so... YOu could put the weapon wand in any part of your body. ... ... Think about the possiblities.
|
|
You can now use the weapons (aka fists) attack bonus etc to make the touch attack for the wand.Hmm, I guess the Weaponwand spell could be argued either way as a spell "enhances" a manufactured weapon.I disagree, what 'enhancement' is gained? Nothing numerical, and not even utility, as you can still do everything by holding it in this case.
I don't think I quite follow this line of reasoning. The ability for a monk to use his fist as a weapon is dependent per RAW on that fact that a spell or effect would directly provide him some benefit for doing so.
Your example says he could use the wand itself to a better capacity(touch attacks as opposed to a normal attack roll), not the fist, so this would be a non-qualifying scenario that would not apply.
His fist attack does not benefit from being able to use a wand with touch attacks. ergo, the spell to allow this would have no effect as the pre-condition for it being applicable in the first place has not been met.
The wand gets better with this example not his attack with his fists. So you cannot yet say that the spell would work, as his fists are still not considered to be gaining any beneficial effect from doing so.
A Monk's unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon for spells.Nice tray but your body parts are not a valid target for the spell. It has to be a manufactured weapon.There is a way.
First off, be a monk.
Second, grab a wand.
Third, cast Weaponwand on your unarmed strike.
Doesn't even have to be a monk. The word "manufactured", or variations of it don't exist in the description of weaponwand. The only requirement is "weapon".
Unarmed strikes are listed in the CRB as simple weapons, so the hands should by all logic be valid targets of the spell. Monks can also put wands in their elbows, knees, and feet (though I don't think they'd count as "held" while in those body parts. It'd still be a neat way to smuggle magic into a place though, or weapons, via a wand of a spell that creates a weapon like a wand of icicle dagger).
|
|
So technically unarmed strikes arent necesarily your hands, so... YOu could put the weapon wand in any part of your body. ... ... Think about the possiblities.
While true, a wands activation specifically says it requires hands to activate.
I'm not letting a monk do this, and specifically not allowing him to 'kick' a 'shocking touch' at someone either using a touch attack.
Because even in a legal scenario where a wand is inserted into a sword, you can't use your legs, head, elbows, or anything else, save your hands, to activate a wand normally.
|
|
A Monk's unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon for spells.Nice tray but your body parts are not a valid target for the spell. It has to be a manufactured weapon.There is a way.
First off, be a monk.
Second, grab a wand.
Third, cast Weaponwand on your unarmed strike.
Doesn't even have to be a monk. The word "manufactured", or variations of it don't exist in the description of weaponwand. The only requirement is "weapon".
Unarmed strikes are listed in the CRB as simple weapons, so they should by all logic be valid targets of the spell.
You are only painting half the picture. They are treated as both a manufactured and natural weapon actually. Not one or the other based on whatever you feel is more beneficial. And then 'only' if the spell 'enhances' or 'improves' that weapon. one of the few reasons I think it doesn't apply here, is that no one yet has provided a real solid RAW improvement to the unarmed attack of the monk by doing so.
So technically unarmed strikes arent necesarily your hands, so... YOu could put the weapon wand in any part of your body. ... ... Think about the possiblities.While true, a wands activation specifically says it requires hands to activate.
I'm not letting a monk do this, and specifically not allowing him to 'kick' a 'shocking touch' at someone either using a touch attack.
Because even in a legal scenario where a wand is inserted into a sword, you can't use your legs, head, elbows, or anything else, save your hands, to activate a wand normally.
I would seem that my sarcasm has reached such an advanced level that people actually think i'm mentally deficient. ;-)
|
|
I would seem that my sarcasm has reached such an advanced level that people actually think i'm mentally deficient. ;-)So technically unarmed strikes arent necesarily your hands, so... YOu could put the weapon wand in any part of your body. ... ... Think about the possiblities.While true, a wands activation specifically says it requires hands to activate.
I'm not letting a monk do this, and specifically not allowing him to 'kick' a 'shocking touch' at someone either using a touch attack.
Because even in a legal scenario where a wand is inserted into a sword, you can't use your legs, head, elbows, or anything else, save your hands, to activate a wand normally.
You may know your being sarcastic, but how was I to know? /smile
You are only painting half the picture. They are treated as both a manufactured and natural weapon actually. Not one or the other based on whatever you feel is more beneficial. And then 'only' if the spell 'enhances' or 'improves' that weapon. one of the few reasons I think it doesn't apply here, is that no one yet has provided a real solid RAW improvement to the unarmed attack of the monk by doing so.A Monk's unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon for spells.Nice tray but your body parts are not a valid target for the spell. It has to be a manufactured weapon.There is a way.
First off, be a monk.
Second, grab a wand.
Third, cast Weaponwand on your unarmed strike.
Doesn't even have to be a monk. The word "manufactured", or variations of it don't exist in the description of weaponwand. The only requirement is "weapon".
Unarmed strikes are listed in the CRB as simple weapons, so they should by all logic be valid targets of the spell.
Why would that matter? The target of the spell doesn't specify being manufactured as a requirement. Just "weapon". Unarmed strike's listed as a weapon in a list of weapons, so it's most likely fair to consider it a weapon.
You may know your being sarcastic, but how was I to know? /smileI would seem that my sarcasm has reached such an advanced level that people actually think i'm mentally deficient. ;-)So technically unarmed strikes arent necesarily your hands, so... YOu could put the weapon wand in any part of your body. ... ... Think about the possiblities.While true, a wands activation specifically says it requires hands to activate.
I'm not letting a monk do this, and specifically not allowing him to 'kick' a 'shocking touch' at someone either using a touch attack.
Because even in a legal scenario where a wand is inserted into a sword, you can't use your legs, head, elbows, or anything else, save your hands, to activate a wand normally.
Sarcasm doesn't generally translate well to type. The "body parts" i was refering to are the one's that are generally "recreational."
|
|
Why would that matter? The target of the spell doesn't specify being manufactured as a requirement. Just "weapon". Unarmed strike's listed as a weapon in a list of weapons, so it's most likely fair to consider it a weapon.You are only painting half the picture. They are treated as both a manufactured and natural weapon actually. Not one or the other based on whatever you feel is more beneficial. And then 'only' if the spell 'enhances' or 'improves' that weapon. one of the few reasons I think it doesn't apply here, is that no one yet has provided a real solid RAW improvement to the unarmed attack of the monk by doing so.A Monk's unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon for spells.Nice tray but your body parts are not a valid target for the spell. It has to be a manufactured weapon.There is a way.
First off, be a monk.
Second, grab a wand.
Third, cast Weaponwand on your unarmed strike.
Doesn't even have to be a monk. The word "manufactured", or variations of it don't exist in the description of weaponwand. The only requirement is "weapon".
Unarmed strikes are listed in the CRB as simple weapons, so they should by all logic be valid targets of the spell.
Ah, I see your POV there. Dispel that point from my gripe list. I think I assumed the spell wanted M. Weapons, not just 'weapon.' Good call.
|
Imagine you have swallowed a tiny fairy and this fairy has a wand. Does it have line of effect to any thing outside? Nope. Honestly it sounds more like a sorcerer or magus archatype.
I believe 3.x had magic tattoos that were a bit more expensive than slotless items. So it could be this wandification instead of tattoos.
I did a google search and found this scroll like method.
Races of Faerun 3.0 has the Tattoo Magic item creation feat, single use tattoos that take up an item slot (or not, for twice as much), spell level x caster level x 50gp, max 3rd level. Craft pre-req. Activating a tattoo (must be touched) is a standard action that does not provoke AoOs. The spell erase removes tattoos.
|
|
Wands aren't slotted. They're just not built to work as internal items.In 1st and 2nd edition you also had wands with multiple spells in them...
First this doesn't work.
Secondly why not just buy slotless wands and bypass all the weird surgery foolishness? Sure they would cost twice as much but you could use them from your pocket.
Ya, wand creation rules don't allow them to be slotless, that's a wondrous item thing. Now, you could steer this back to doable by making a slotless token that let's you activate a spell effect. More expensive but that's now legal.
Doesn't even have to be a monk. The word "manufactured", or variations of it don't exist in the description of weaponwand. The only requirement is "weapon".
This then begs the question. If my friend is going to cast a ray spell, which is treated as a weapon, can I ready an action to cast weaponwand on the ray as it is being fired? And what happens to the wand when the ray spell is completed/dispersed? If the ray spell has multiple shots it can do over multiple rounds can my friend each round decide whether to fire another ray from the spell or activate the wand instead?
|
|
Sarcasm doesn't generally translate well to type. The "body parts" i was refering to are the one's that are generally "recreational."You may know your being sarcastic, but how was I to know? /smileI would seem that my sarcasm has reached such an advanced level that people actually think i'm mentally deficient. ;-)So technically unarmed strikes arent necesarily your hands, so... YOu could put the weapon wand in any part of your body. ... ... Think about the possiblities.While true, a wands activation specifically says it requires hands to activate.
I'm not letting a monk do this, and specifically not allowing him to 'kick' a 'shocking touch' at someone either using a touch attack.
Because even in a legal scenario where a wand is inserted into a sword, you can't use your legs, head, elbows, or anything else, save your hands, to activate a wand normally.
I laughed, honestly. My mind didn't even go in that direction.
|
|
This then begs the question. If my friend is going to cast a ray spell, which is treated as a weapon, can I ready an action to cast weaponwand on the ray as it is being fired? And what happens to the wand when the ray spell is completed/dispersed? If the ray spell has multiple shots it can do over multiple rounds can my friend each round decide whether to fire another ray from the spell or activate the wand instead?
Doesn't even have to be a monk. The word "manufactured", or variations of it don't exist in the description of weaponwand. The only requirement is "weapon".
Just. no.
This then begs the question. If my friend is going to cast a ray spell, which is treated as a weapon, can I ready an action to cast weaponwand on the ray as it is being fired? And what happens to the wand when the ray spell is completed/dispersed? If the ray spell has multiple shots it can do over multiple rounds can my friend each round decide whether to fire another ray from the spell or activate the wand instead?
Doesn't even have to be a monk. The word "manufactured", or variations of it don't exist in the description of weaponwand. The only requirement is "weapon".
- Wand appears directly inside ray as it travels along its path.
- Ray hits wand and thus fails to reach its intended target.
- Wand takes damage from ray, if any. Potentially your hand does as well (treat the ray as a called attack to your hand that automatically hits)
- Wand falls, as ray ceases to exist and disappears from around it after that moment.
You'd need to be adjacent to the ray's path, presumably. If nothing else, I'd allow this as a clever method of readying an action to block a ray. Though it'd be a bit irritating that a 1st level spell could be used effectively to block an 8th level one (namely Polar Ray) with this trick.
Ya, wand creation rules don't allow them to be slotless, that's a wondrous item thing. Now, you could steer this back to doable by making a slotless token that let's you activate a spell effect. More expensive but that's now legal.Wands aren't slotted. They're just not built to work as internal items.In 1st and 2nd edition you also had wands with multiple spells in them...
First this doesn't work.
Secondly why not just buy slotless wands and bypass all the weird surgery foolishness? Sure they would cost twice as much but you could use them from your pocket.
Your right... I always just considered a wielded item as a sort of slot.
The reason the spell doesn't work is because it violates RAI. As a GM I don't let people get away with violating RAI. Although if you wish to go PURE RAW. Then yes the spell can place a wand inside any body part that could be considered a weapon. BUT the spell just makes it so that when you are HOLDING the affected weapon you are also holding the wand. So you could place it inside your monk's foot or anyone's fist... but then you have to hold that body part with a free hand in order to use the wand. The spell and the wand still require you to hold the weapon.
This then begs the question. If my friend is going to cast a ray spell, which is treated as a weapon, can I ready an action to cast weaponwand on the ray as it is being fired? And what happens to the wand when the ray spell is completed/dispersed? If the ray spell has multiple shots it can do over multiple rounds can my friend each round decide whether to fire another ray from the spell or activate the wand instead?
Doesn't even have to be a monk. The word "manufactured", or variations of it don't exist in the description of weaponwand. The only requirement is "weapon".
Assuming you can find a way to instantaneously insert the wand (remember a ray is instantaneous) then the wand becomes part of the ray. Whatever happens to the ray also happens to the wand according to the spell. So the wand dissipates after hitting the target. Strange way to destroy a wand but if you are clever enough to do it... fine.
|
|
Ya, wand creation rules don't allow them to be slotless, that's a wondrous item thing. Now, you could steer this back to doable by making a slotless token that let's you activate a spell effect. More expensive but that's now legal.Wands aren't slotted. They're just not built to work as internal items.In 1st and 2nd edition you also had wands with multiple spells in them...
First this doesn't work.
Secondly why not just buy slotless wands and bypass all the weird surgery foolishness? Sure they would cost twice as much but you could use them from your pocket.Your right... I always just considered a wielded item as a sort of slot.
The reason the spell doesn't work is because it violates RAI. As a GM I don't let people get away with violating RAI. Although if you wish to go PURE RAW. Then yes the spell can place a wand inside any body part that could be considered a weapon. BUT the spell just makes it so that when you are HOLDING the affected weapon you are also holding the wand. So you could place it inside your monk's foot or anyone's fist... but then you have to hold that body part with a free hand in order to use the wand. The spell and the wand still require you to hold the weapon.
You'll need to re-skim my posts to see why I disagree with this point of view.
The quick answer is the spell would fail to begin with due to not meeting the pre-required condition of augmenting the monks attack, and therefore not qualifying the monks fist as a valid target for the spell.
Why would the ray hit the wand? You don't strike the wand with your weapon to embed the wand in it, the weapon splits open and absorbs the wand. Hence the ray splits open and absorbs the wand.
Why would the wand fall out when the ray is done? Nothing states if the weapon is destroyed or ceases to exist the wand reappears. If the weapon is broken the wand is broken, that is all. And the wand doesn't come out of the weapon till the weaponwand spell ends. So the wand should stay 'hidden' in the weapon till weaponwand ends. Then weaponwand ends but now the weapon no longer exists. What happens to the wand?
You cannot create something that does not exist. There is no Masterwork Unarmed Strike.
Doesn't exist in what sense? Isn't an entry in the items table list? Lots of new things could be added to that list that don't currently 'exist'. With genetics (or magic) couldn't a better(1) human be created - aka masterwork human? Or maybe just make part of the person better(1), like only their hands or feet.
1) Better is left open to large interpretation as desired by the reader.
Just. no.
If we are going to carry RAW to extremes (like casting weaponwand on a monks hands) I insist we go the full way :). I stopped taking this thread seriously about 3 sentences in.
^ There's no real RAW for putting a wand inside a ray, so I just came up with what I would do assuming I was running a game and had to improvise on the spot. No time to stop and look up rules.
That's simply what I posted in my response to your previous post above. Presumably others would have their own way of doing it.
|
|
Why would the ray hit the wand? You don't strike the wand with your weapon to embed the wand in it, the weapon splits open and absorbs the wand. Hence the ray splits open and absorbs the wand.
Why would the wand fall out when the ray is done? Nothing states if the weapon is destroyed or ceases to exist the wand reappears. If the weapon is broken the wand is broken, that is all. And the wand doesn't come out of the weapon till the weaponwand spell ends. So the wand should stay 'hidden' in the weapon till weaponwand ends. Then weaponwand ends but now the weapon no longer exists. What happens to the wand?
You cannot create something that does not exist. There is no Masterwork Unarmed Strike.Doesn't exist in what sense? Isn't an entry in the items table list? Lots of new things could be added to that list that don't currently 'exist'. With genetics (or magic) couldn't a better(1) human be created - aka masterwork human? Or maybe just make part of the person better(1), like only their hands or feet.
1) Better is left open to large interpretation as desired by the reader.
Just. no.If we are going to carry RAW to extremes (like casting weaponwand on a monks hands) I insist we go the full way :). I stopped taking this thread seriously about 3 sentences in.
Very well. The reasoning for the 'no' is that the ray is instantaneous, and doesn't exist long enough to be a thing a wand can be put into.
Oh but he readied an action you say, that doesn't mean it works either. The condition of the ray being present will never come, readying an action interrupts the condition it was readied for, meaning he would never get to augment the ray, as it hasn't officially been brought into existence yet. Once it is cast and generated it's already to late to interrupt as it is instant.
There is your extreme shot down by RAW.
p.s. you can't even ready a '1 round cast time' spell, so all of that above is moot anyway.