Weaponwand and Rods

[Firengineer]

Hello everyone!

I'm wondering if I would be able to use weaponwand on rods?

Spoiler:

When you cast this spell on a weapon, you cause a portion of the weapon to open like the skin of a partially peeled apple, revealing a space large enough to insert a single wand within. As part of the spell’s casting, you can insert a single wand into the weapon, at which point the weapon returns to its original form with the wand held inside of it without negatively impacting the weapon’s integrity. For the spell’s duration, a character who wields the transmuted weapon is also considered to be wielding the wand as well. You can attack normally with the weapon or use the weapon as if it were the encased wand. If the effect created by the wand requires an attack roll to successfully strike a foe, you may make the attack roll as if you were making an attack with the weapon at its highest bonus (including any bonuses the weapon would normally receive) rather than just a normal attack with the wand—doing so does not allow you to add the weapon’s damage to the wand’s attack roll, but instead allows you to use your skill with the weapon to boost your chance of hitting with the spell.

At the end of the spell’s duration, the encased wand is ejected from the weapon. If you have a free hand, you may catch the weapon as a free action; otherwise, the wand drops to the ground. If the weapon housing the wand is broken or destroyed during the duration of weaponwand, the encased wand is similarly broken or destroyed.

Thus, I would treat the rod as if I am holding it, allowing me to cast spells, modify it with the rod, and deliver the spell with spellstrike as a magus.

Cheers!

[pocsaclypse]

Are you asking if you can use weaponwand to put a wand in a rod or to put a rod in a weapon?

[blackbloodtroll]

Some Rods are weapons as well.

In this case, they can be combined.

[Firengineer]

My apologies. I would like to put a rod in a weapon.

[pocsaclypse]

In that case, no. The spell only specifies wands.

[HaraldKlak]

pocsaclypse wrote:

In that case, no. The spell only specifies wands.

+1.

Apart from that, allowing rods in weapons would be very good. While the weaponwand as written is very situational at best, the whole portion of striking with the weapons almost always worse than making a touch attack.
EDIT: Unless I misunderstand, and the weapon-based attack remains a touch attack?

[Firengineer]

HaraldKlak wrote:

pocsaclypse wrote:

In that case, no. The spell only specifies wands.

+1.

Apart from that, allowing rods in weapons would be very good. While the weaponwand as written is very situational at best, the whole portion of striking with the weapons almost always worse than making a touch attack.
EDIT: Unless I misunderstand, and the weapon-based attack remains a touch attack?

It's not a touch attack, but remember that touch spells do not dissipate if you miss, allowing you to strike later with other melee attacks to use the spell on the enemy. So this grants you a free attack with your melee weapon on the enemy.