| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could I just tie or glue a bunch of wands together so that when I draw one, I have a few to choose from?
Not looking to USE multiple wands at once, just HAVE like three or four tied together/glued together/attached somehow so I can activate whichever one I want rather than drawing a new one...
Thoughts?
Talk to your GM about what they think about the idea. The rules don't really address holding multiple items as one, but it's presumed each hand can only hold/use one item at a time.
Right now I'm the GM. :D I don't see any reason why NOT to do this... it just seems... slightly abusive? I don't think there are any rules addressing this one way or the other, was hoping others might have insight.
There are some VERY knowledgeable people on here. It's kinda intimidating at times. ;)
I'm just imagining, say, four wands specially crafted to interlock with each other so that they LOOK like one item... They can be taken apart and used individually, attaching them to each other doesn't DO anything from a magical/mechanical perspective, but it's almost like having a wand with four separate functions and four charge 'pools' in one item...
There seem to be no rules on this.
If any precedent exists, it's probably the limitation on magical rings. Most humanoids have 4 fingers and a thumb, but even so, we can only use one magical ring per hand. Whatever the justification is for that, e.g. magical items that close to each other create some kind of magical interference (I just made that up as an example), it's plausible that the same justification might apply to limit one wand per hand.
Not a rule, just extrapolating a precedent.
Of course, if we go too far down this rabbit hole, we have to ask how we can have one ring AND still use one wand with the same hand...
I'm just imagining, say, four wands specially crafted to interlock with each other so that they LOOK like one item... They can be taken apart and used individually, attaching them to each other doesn't DO anything from a magical/mechanical perspective, but it's almost like having a wand with four separate functions and four charge 'pools' in one item...
Wait until your player wants to craft those four wands with the same command word...
Well, if you're OK with it, go for it =p.
It does break the normal economy of actions setup a little is all. Though it does come with the limitation that it could potentially be disarmed/sundered as one item instead of 4 as well.
You could have wands strapped to your arm via weapon cords I'd say and still be able to drop/swap as a move action and choose a new one each round anyways. That would limit you to a 5ft step each round, rather than have a full move action left like the select-a-wand option.
I'm just imagining, say, four wands specially crafted to interlock with each other so that they LOOK like one item... They can be taken apart and used individually, attaching them to each other doesn't DO anything from a magical/mechanical perspective, but it's almost like having a wand with four separate functions and four charge 'pools' in one item...Wait until your player wants to craft those four wands with the same command word...
Yeah, something like this will inevitably come up at some point too in just about any gaming group =p
This notion keeps coming up.
The short answer is that no, you can't tie/glue together multiple wands and have them work, even one at a time.
If a player tried to do this, as DM I would make him do special spellcraft roll, with a high chance of misfire, meaning that a random magical effect would take place in addition to, or instead of the intended effect, with a small chance of having one or more of the wands actually blow up, doing 1d6 damage per 5 charges remaining in it.
But RAW says nothing about this being possible, or what the consequences might be.
|
You can't activate multiple wand at once. it is a standard action to activate a single wand. Sharing the same command word don't change that.
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.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. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
I'm not trying to activate them all at once... just have them in hand.
I was wondering if any rules allow/disallow/talk about this.
It does beg for further rules though, if someone were to make this ingame and make them all have the same command word... How would you adjudicate? I would just roll a 1D4 and that wand would work...
But for my original question, no rules one way or the other?
Yes, but he isn't trying to activate multiple wands at once, just have say four of them in his hand at the same time, so as to avoid the action cost of drawing a new wand out.
If it's a special artifact-like setup designed by the DM, sure, why not. If it's just a player trying to scam the system, I'd either Just Say No, or else impose drastic and unforseeable consequences on a semi-random basis.
Wands are not command word items, they are spell trigger items.
Even if they were command words, and you set multiple items to the same command word, uttering a command word to purposefully activate an item is a standard action, and still has to be specific to the item.
While it is true that a command word item may activate accidentally if the command word is spoken, there is nothing that says it will automatically do so, and if/when it happens without spending the standard action to activate the item is entirely up to the GM.
Most GMs, at least if they understand this, would never have items with the same command word activate in a way that would benefit someone trying to get around the action rules.
Lets not get off topic though... if one were to smoosh a bunch of wands together, JUST so they didn't have to draw/drop them all individually, are there any rules about THAT?
I'm the OP, and I wanna know. :D
Lets not get off topic though... if one were to smoosh a bunch of wands together, JUST so they didn't have to draw/drop them all individually, are there any rules about THAT?
I'm the OP, and I wanna know. :D
I think the first two responses on this thread (not counting yours) already answered that?
There are no rules written against it, but the rules do assume that you only draw one item at a time. A clever player might find a way to abuse it.
The basic rules for holding an item is that completely occupies the hand that is holding it. It takes two hands to hold two wands.
A bunch of taped together wands, would be a 'bunch of wands' which is a single item that could be held, but since you are holding the 'bunch of wands' not the wand you want to activate (even though it is part of the bunch) you would be unable to activate the wand, since it requires that it be held (i.e. in hand and occupying the use of that hand).
I definitely wouldn't allow you to hold a bundle of wands in one hand and use one of those particular wands with that hand. Depending on the mood of the group I'd probably allow you to hold a bundle of wands with one hand and then take one wand out of the bundle and use it with your other hand. I'd imagine that many DMs might having misgivings about that since there is no rule explicitly permitting it. I'm also not aware of any rule explicitly prohibiting it though. Either way the DM could enforce his or her desired action economy by ruling that pulling a wand out of the bundle this way is a free action or a move action. I guess there would also need to be a ruling for the action cost to put the wand back in the bundle.
Probably the worst problem with allowing a PC to carry multiple object in one hand is that you will then need to make rulings on how many objects and which combinations of objects can reasonably be grasped at the same time. It is pretty easy to carry two bottles of beer with one hand. I'd imagine that most people can carry 3 or 4. Whether or not they could also manage to carry a pencil, a d20, and a sheet of paper at the same time is more likely to get tested around the game table than on top of it (though maybe that's where some of the stuff will land if they fail)
I guess you could also get into weird situations where players ask about allowing the PC to hold items with his or her mouth. I guess this might seem more reasonable if attempted by an animal companion, familiar, or Druid in wildshape.
I'm gonna stick with the simple approach... one item per hand. IRL I can easily grab a dozen chopsticks... but Pathfinder isn't real life. ;)
I vaguely recall there being a magic item that allowed for something like what I was asking about, I think three wands in one thingy... you couldn't use them all at once, but it kept them all available...
Anyone know what I'm talking about?
I'm gonna add it to my game if it doesn't already exist... not that anyone USES wands, but I have an NPC idea... :D
The big problem with allowing any holding of multiple wands, is the extrapolation that players will make from that.
It is a very short step from being allowed to hold up to 4 wands, to combining multiple metamagic rods - after all, they're only about the same size as a staff...and many casters will quickly find that being able to pick from 4 rods each round much more useful than having to spend a move action to return a rod and another move to retrieve the next.
Just say "no, the magic of the wands interferes with each other so they don't work for a round after they've been so close together."
Anything that breaks the action economy, especially for a caster, is overpowered.
use something like the assassins creed thing but instead of poping out a blade on command it pops out the wand you want ..... >.> and make it so it van hold and switch out between different wands on command as well. >.> i would load one with cure wands and the other with different kinds of elemental attack wands. >.> do wands have to be sticks of wood ...... wand crafted power strings....>.> then weave the strings into mittens each string wand color has a differnt power it can cast.... >.> ohh shut up steve your talking crazy again go stand in your circle. sorry about that last bit guys.
You mean a spring loaded wrist sheathe? We've already got those. It's just not quite as good as you want it to be. Nor should it be.
Wrist Sheath, spring loaded
Source Adventurer's Armory
This item works like a standard wrist sheath, but releasing an item from it is an swift action. Preparing the sheath for this use requires cranking the sheath’s tiny gears and springs into place (a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity).
Wrist Sheath
Source Adventurer's Armory
This is a sheath designed to be strapped to your forearm and hidden under a long sleeve. The sheath can hold one forearm-length item such as a dagger, dart, or wand, or up to five arrows or crossbow bolts. Alternatively, you may store up to 1 pound of ammunition in a wrist sheath. As a move action, you can bend your wrist to cause some or all of these items to drop into your hand (provoking attacks of opportunity as normal). You have a +2 bonus on Sleight of Hand checks made to oppose the Perception check of someone observing or frisking you regarding items in the sheath. You can only wear one wrist sheath per arm.
I'm gonna stick with the simple approach... one item per hand. IRL I can easily grab a dozen chopsticks... but Pathfinder isn't real life. ;)
I vaguely recall there being a magic item that allowed for something like what I was asking about, I think three wands in one thingy... you couldn't use them all at once, but it kept them all available...
Anyone know what I'm talking about?
I'm gonna add it to my game if it doesn't already exist... not that anyone USES wands, but I have an NPC idea... :D
If you grab 4 chopsticks in one hand, how easy is it to then USE said chopsticks? With practice 4 is probably manageable. But how about 6 or 8?
As a custom magic item (or custom feat) to allow holding/using multiple wands from a hand it could be interesting, still only activating one per standard action, but allow the player to hold half a dozen in one hand and pick to activate the one she wants each turn.
Ignoring the minor necro, as a GM I would allow players to hold multiple connected wands in one hand, but they would have no control over which of the wands they activate at any given time.
Why no control?
Each wand has a command word. Each command word is presumably different. So if I'm holding a Fireball wand (command word: "Toast") and a Cure Light Wounds wand (command word: "Heal"), and then I point my wands at my injured buddy and say "Heal", you're going to tell me that I have a chance to accidentally Fireball him even though I didn't say "Toast"?
