Here's the thing. You take a magic sword and say "Whokhelm" and it bursts into flame. That's a Command Word. You take a scroll and cast the spell's finishing words and gestures and you can cast Knock on a locked chest even though you hadn't prepped it. The preparation went into the scroll and so all you have to do is finish it off. That's Spell Completion.
Spell Trigger is somewhere in the the middle, but I'm not sure where. You say a word, just like the magic sword--but you can only do it if you're a caster. Why? What's the deal with that? I mean I understand it as a game mechanic--so there are some magic items that only spellcasters can use--but what is it really in the story? It doesn't seem to make sense. If it's an activation word it seems like a wand should be no different than a belt or a cloak that anyone can use. If it's an item with partially completed spells in it, then the caster should have to use components, say words and do motions of the wand or staff to use a charge from it and complete the spell(this by the way, is the interpretation I like best so far).
I guess the question is, what do you guys think Spell Trigger is supposed to work like?
That concept's always been a bit vague. I've gone to thinking of it as a "condition" of completion. It's sort of like wards and glyphs, or traps, etc. You set it up...it's ready to go except for the condition necessary to set it off. If the condition is a missing component, as soon as the component is present, it goes off. If the condition is a word or gesture, as soon as those are given, it goes off. It's a passive potential until everything that is needed is present. Perhaps it's missing everything except the magic and the presence of a strong enough mage or magical item is enough to feed it. Give those some thought and see if they help visualize it.
Read page 213 of the DMG Grimcleaver (the Using Items section). That tells you everything you need to know.
As for why it makes any sense you have to ask the designers of the game. A lot about this game doesn't make sense. From a theatrical standpoint though, spell trigger items only work in the hands of someone who can channel the magic in the item. Just as a fighter can't cast magic missile neither can he use a wand of magic missiles. He can't use the item because he can't access the power stored within it.
I always figured it's for the same reason that Joe Shmoe can't just repeat the mumbo-jumbo that a caster uses to cast a spell. The mumbo-jumbo is only half of what makes the spell work; the other half is in the caster's mind or soul.
I was looking over this type of stuff a while ago, and it occured to me that I knew I had read many times that if a spell has a casting time longer than a standard action, then a spell completion or spell trigger item took that same, longer amount of time to utilize. However, I didn't find it in the description of item activation methods in the DMG. Did I simply overlook it somehow, is it in another spot in the book, or is that a relic of 3.0, and now any spell trigger or completion item uses only a standard action to activate no matter what (which seems wrong to me)? Thanks!
As for Grimcleaver's question, I agree with what others have already said. The magical energies have to be present within the body/mind/soul of the user before it can activate. Think of staves (staffs? I know we've gone over this before, and I can never remember!). They're kind of like magical batteries. But, you can't drill a hole in a wooden wagon, shove the battery in it, and expect the wagon to go under the battery's power.
Likewise, you can't give a staff to a fighter or barbarian and expect them to be able to use it. The analogy isn't 100% perfect, I admit (maybe somewhere around 53%, if that), but I hope you get the idea.
Or, you could come up with your own radically different explanation. It is simply a matter of game mechanics, so you can use any rational you want to explain it. The above just seems to be the easiest.
The more I think about it, the more sold I am on wands and staves as basically multi-use scrolls (with multiple spells each in the case of staves). You still intone the verbal component and wave the wand or staff in a parallel of the somatic component, but the material components are unnecessary.
I think it gives wands and staves a lot more flavor and gets rid of the whole "magic battery" explaination that I'm really finding kind of flat. Anyone can use a wand, but they make the same roll versus mishap you do with a scroll. Ever see in Willow when he's trying to change the sorceress back from a muskrat to a woman? Yeah. There you go.
staves (staffs?)
Both are correct. I prefer staves, personally.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What a terrific topic!! This is how I explain the concepts to my players:
Let's start with the fighter and the command word that lights his flaming spear. I've always considered that to be the equivalent of, say, the triggering event for a Magic Mouth or such. It's a condition the spear is always "looking for," rather than anything the weilder "does." It would be just as easy for the creator to have installed a command gesture, or a command "color of hat." (Wouldn't that be a hoot? A weapon which crackles with electricity, but only when held by an elf wearing the badge of Twilight's Valley.)
Spell Completion is a lot like MS Office's "Wizards". Most of the heavy lifting of the spell is already set; the caster fills in the last few "arguments" (the effect's location, etc.) and hits "cast." It takes somebody who knows how magic works --either through class abilities or the Use Magic Item skill -- to interact with the scroll.
Spell Trigger is, as people have said, somewhere in the middle. I assume that "wand use" is one of the first lessons that wizards learn and sorcerers intuit. There's still some decisions to be made when operating a wand or a staff (distance to effect location, and determination of staff effect, come to mind), so a fighter without any skill in use Magic Device isn't going to know how to "answer" the basic questions the item "asks" and successfully pull the trigger.
The warlock doesn't necessarily know how to work these things, 'cause she doesn't cast spells per se, but she has an inside track in learning how, because her invocations are similar.
(Which makes me think that "ability to use spell trigger items" might be a racial feat for, say, a fey character ...)
Remind me, 'cause I don't have my books here: can the alternate magicians in the Tome of Magic use spell trigger items? What about spellthieves?
And runestaves, fom this week's new WotC hardbound, are kind of like wands or staves with the batteries removed. They can create effects, but they need to be fueled by the release of raw arcane energies. Which makes me wonder if there are "high magic" or "ley-line" locations that might fuel a runestaff without the user having to sacrifice a spell.
Looking at the descriptions of command word, spell completion, and spell trigger, they seem to work in the following manner:
Command word- a magical enchantment that causes a spell effect to occur in response to specific words/etc.; requires no spellcasting ability or knowledge, just knowledge of the activation criteria.
Spell completion- a single-use magical framework for casting a spell; incorporates/replaces any material requirements; requires specific spellcasting ability and knowledge (must be the appropriate class/level to cast the spell normally or there is a chance of failure).
Spell trigger- a more advanced framework for casting a spell or a more basic enchantment for activating a spell effect; requires spellcasting ability or knowledge (must have the spell on the class spell lists), but not as specific (can trigger the spell without needing to be of sufficient level to cast the spell normally).
The skill Use Magic Device allows a character simulate spellcasting ability and knowledge or attempt to activate a spell effect without knowing the activation criteria.