You are allowed to spellstrike with the spell cast by the wand through your weapon.
If you are asking if you can bash them over the head with the wand charged with a spell, no.
The magus can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when using spell combat.
So the wand casting of say shocking grasp would allow the magus Wandweilder to then spellstrike with, say, her scimitar just as if the wand activation was a spell, correct?
Yes, that is exactly how it works.
Why would you want to?
You can hold the wand (don't need a free hand) and cast the spell using the wand, and then deliver it through your sword.
|
No, you can't. Look the FAQ about spell combat:
Magus, Spell Combat: What spells can I cast when using spell combat?
The relevant text of the ability is:
"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)."
The spell you cast when using spell combat has to be a magus spell you know, and it must be a magus spell prepared with one of your magus spell slots.
(Other magus abilities may modify what spells can be used with spell combat. For example, the broad study magus arcana explicitly states the magus can use spell combat to cast spells from the selected non-magus spellcasting class.)
The FAQ cite the "relevant text of the ability" and that relevant text say: "any spell from the magus spell list". The the FAQ continue explaining that that mean that the spell "has to be a magus spell you know, and it must be a magus spell prepared with one of your magus spell slots".
Spellstrike use the same terminology: "Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack."
The logic conclusion si that it mean thw same thing, i.e. "it must be a magus spell prepared with one of your magus spell slots".
Wand wielder don't give exceptions to that, it give exceptions to spell combat only.
So you can use your wand with spell combat, but not with spell strike.
Wouldn't "in place of casting a spell" replace the normal requirement of "has to be a magus spell you know, and it must be a magus spell prepared with one your magus spell slots".
I mean it has to for spell combat to work.
Wait wait wait...I see what you mean now Diego Rossi. You are absolutely right. It also seems like a terrible oversight that would make an already dubious ability, utterly worthless if you can't use it with spell strike to deliver the spell you've just cast.
The other possible interpretation would be that as long as the spell in the wand is on the magus spell list it should work. Because it still qualifies as a "touch spell from the magus spell list". I disagree that the logical conclusion is that it automatically includes "it must be prepared with one of your spell slots."
Or we can just agree that wandwielder was written imprecisely and was probably intended to be useable with both spell combat and spell strike.
No, you can't. Look the FAQ about spell combat:
Magus, Spell Combat: What spells can I cast when using spell combat?
The relevant text of the ability is:
"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)."
The spell you cast when using spell combat has to be a magus spell you know, and it must be a magus spell prepared with one of your magus spell slots.
(Other magus abilities may modify what spells can be used with spell combat. For example, the broad study magus arcana explicitly states the magus can use spell combat to cast spells from the selected non-magus spellcasting class.)
The FAQ cite the "relevant text of the ability" and that relevant text say: "any spell from the magus spell list". The the FAQ continue explaining that that mean that the spell "has to be a magus spell you know, and it must be a magus spell prepared with one of your magus spell slots".
Spellstrike use the same terminology: "Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack."
The logic conclusion si that it mean thw same thing, i.e. "it must be a magus spell prepared with one of your magus spell slots".Wand wielder don't give exceptions to that, it give exceptions to spell combat only.
So you can use your wand with spell combat, but not with spell strike.
If you want to extend an FAQ that has no mention of an ability to said ability, then logically you should extend the alteration as well.
Any by that I mean the extension doesn't have a lick of logic in it in either direction.
You cannot extend statements with based solely on similar wording.
From the magus spell list, mean exactly what it says until stated otherwise.
Unless of course you want to homebrew some other wording of it, in which case by all means, do so :)
Provided the wand is activated as part of spell combat (as per the wand wielder arcana) then a spell strike can be attempted.
Now, the issue is the fact that spell combat requires a free hand.
You have to hold a wand to utilize it.
Unless you can strike with the wand, or the wand wielder arcana modifies this need for a spare hand (which is debatable RAW, but I believe is intended) then you cannot do spellcombat with both a wand and a weapon.
Relevant SpellCom text;
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his wepons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
TL;DR: Either Wandwielder is virtually useless (wouldn't be the first ability) or it functions fine with SpellCombat/Spellstrike, and we all rest easy.
Except for the cheese screamers.
They cry because of synergy.
Diego Rossi So as long as you have prepared the spell that's in the wand you're using, you can use it?
That's a...novel way of reading the rules. Very imaginative.
|
|
Wouldn't "in place of casting a spell" replace the normal requirement of "has to be a magus spell you know, and it must be a magus spell prepared with one your magus spell slots".
I mean it has to for spell combat to work.
Wait wait wait...I see what you mean now Diego Rossi. You are absolutely right. It also seems like a terrible oversight that would make an already dubious ability, utterly worthless if you can't use it with spell strike to deliver the spell you've just cast.
The other possible interpretation would be that as long as the spell in the wand is on the magus spell list it should work. Because it still qualifies as a "touch spell from the magus spell list". I disagree that the logical conclusion is that it automatically includes "it must be prepared with one of your spell slots."
Or we can just agree that wandwielder was written imprecisely and was probably intended to be useable with both spell combat and spell strike.
Maybe, or maybe not. I see plenty of spells that I would like to cast from a wand while using spell combat even if I can't use spell strike with them.
As an example True strike become interesting when use with wand wielder. Especially if you use weaponwand and power attack while wielding your weapon with two hands.
It is a almost mandatory ability for the (admittedly weak) Staff magus.
As it can be used with a staff you get access to some interesting suits of spells.
And I just noticed that it has another interesting quirk.
"Activating a wand or staff" would replace the mentions of "casting as spell".
Spellcombat become:
Wand Wielder Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to activate a wand or staff and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a wand or staff. To use this ability, the magus must have one wand or staff, while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also activate a wand or staff. (all the stuff about casting defensively become irrelevant) A magus can choose to activate a wand or staff first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot activate a wand or staff between weapon attacks.
I think that, for spell combat, the activate a wand or staff thanks to wand wielder supersede cast any spell from the magus spell list, so nothing stop our magus from using UMD and cast whatever spell is in the wand or staff, even if it isn't in the magus list.
It is a possible interpretation of how it work, but if that is the RAI and RAW you get something that is way better than using a wand for spellstrike.
Maybe, or maybe not. I see plenty of spells that I would like to cast from a wand while using spell combat even if I can't use spell strike with them.
As an example True strike become interesting when use with wand wielder. Especially if you use weaponwand and power attack while wielding your weapon with two hands.
Can't two-hand during spell combat.
Unless you're utilizing some ability that I'm unaware of?
Wouldn't Weapon Wand and Wand Wielder work?
Weaponwand
School transmutation; Level bard 1, cleric 1, inquisitor 1, magus 1CASTING
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S, F (a magic wand)EFFECT
Range touch
Target one weapon
Duration 1 minute/level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless, object)DESCRIPTION
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.
With the interpretation of Wand Wielder Diego suggests, it would sound like you could use the wand in place of the rule for requiring an open hand, and with the Weaponwand spell, when you wield your weapon, you are considered to be wielding the wand.
Thus, you can two-hand your weapon AND use the wand for Spell Combat.
However, has it been otherwise clarified?If it had don't you think someone would've posted it by now?
Yes, because every person who posts is aware of every other relevant post, and anytime somebody is part of a clarifying post they make sure to follow all other future threads about it. Omniscience sure is nice.
[/sarcasm]