Wands and Staves don't have any overt limitation on Rare etc spells, as long as spell is on your spell list.
But they require spending actions appropriate to the spell, as well as somatic and verbal components (as well as material, for Staves).
So it seems plausible that you should need to know the spell in order to know those components accurately.
Would that just be a Arcane etc skill check to know about a spell, impacted by it's Rarity DC etc...? Should you have "learned" the spell?
Even if one doesn't understand that as strict rule, it would seem by RAW a caster would need to correctly guess the # of actions and components?
EDIT: Would a wand/stave suffice as source to learn a rare/etc spell FROM?
Would a wand/stave suffice as source to learn a rare/etc spell FROM?
You can't learn a spell from a wand or staff.
You can gain access to a new spell of your tradition from someone who knows that spell or from magical writing like a spellbook or scroll. [...]
To learn the spell, you must do the following:
• Spend 1 hour per level of the spell, during which you must remain in conversation with a person who knows the spell or have the magical writing in your possession.
• Have materials with the Price indicated in Table 4–3.
• Attempt a skill check for the skill corresponding to your tradition.
I think this is handled by the identify magic activity. You don't have to learn the spell and add it to your book or your repertoire or whatever, but you do have to identify the item, unless of course you're GM hand waves that and just tells you it's wand or scroll or staff of whatever when you get it
Fair enough, maybe not 100% obvious but reasonable enough from Identify's wording "[you learn] any means of activating it", so good enough for me. Identify should then also let you know any specific material/focus/etc components you need to provide.
It seems weird if conversing with another caster, or with scroll/spellbook in hand is ONLY way to gain access to Rare etc spell... Considering with Identify you can "learn all the attributes of the magic" exactly the same as with wand/stave as with scroll of the spell, which all seem reasonable to have gained "Access". By definition, there isn't anything else to learn beyond "all the attributes", which Identifying a wand/stave is supposed to grant.
Although I also think it's weird a Sorceror must spend money to learn a spell, the same amount that a Wizard does (who is also scribing it in book).
Bullets aren't hard to make. They're just shaped lead.
Properly primed bullet casings on the other hand...
From a balance perspective, a GM might want to give a rare wand but not have you learn it. So you can cast it at some level 1/day, instead of 4/day and heightening.
That said, it seems like a fine houserule.
Actually, It’d be more like learning how to shoot bullets from your fingers when you know how to shoot a gun.
That said, I think it’s a fine house rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd personally let a caster with the magic crafting feat learn a spell from a wand or stave as they would a scroll or book. seems cool to reverse engineer the magic
I like this and think that it would make an excellent house rule, thankyou ofMars :)