Though I'm sure a GM could, would, and should say "no," is there actually anything in the rules preventing a spellcaster from wielding and using multiple wands in the same hand?
At a glance the rules appear to say they must be held, and that they use the Cast a Spell action method of Activation.
They don't technically have to be wielded, merely held, and there does not appear to be any limitation on how many can be so held in a single hand simultaneously. Since it uses the Cast a Spell action, you can do this even when your hands are full.
Insofar as I can tell, a character can carry a small bundle of wands in one hand, then activate their spell of choice from said bundle. Or two bundles, each one in each hand. Or sub the wands for cheaper scrolls, which I think behave similarly (though I have not looked as closely at those, as of the time if this writing)
I'm sure that's not the intent, but I've not seen anything to prevent it. Do any of you know of anything beyond GM fiat powers that could stop this?
"GM fiat powers? Seriously, is that your spin on this, that it's legal unless the GM's a meany pants using their authority (fiat)? Seems the reasonable default reading would be to assume one wand per hand until rules/options mention otherwise, not to presume one could hold who knows how many wands capably. And yes, you state this in your first sentence, but you also imply it's up to the rules or GM to stop it. Or maybe it's up to the player to avoid hunting for exploits & loopholes. This falls in the "duh, of course" column IMO, and shouldn't require "fiat".
And really, how many wands would that be? Could one buy smaller wands, like at a Sprite settlement? Are Sprites hindered in wand quantity per hand? And what about specially designed gloves? Do we have to calculate the geometry involved in bundles to see how much contact they have with the wielder's hand? We've left reasonable behind, so what limits are left?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the rules for held items say you're allowed to hold "an item" per hand. So I'm not sure where you're getting this bundle thing from.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even though I agree with Castilliano, the rules do actually have this covered too.
A character carries items in three ways: held, worn, and stowed. Held items are in your hands; a character typically has two hands, allowing them to hold an item in each hand or a single two-handed item using both hands.
Singular. One item held in a hand when being used for its purpose.
|
Even though I agree with Castilliano, the rules do actually have this covered too.
A character carries items in three ways: held, worn, and stowed. Held items are in your hands; a character typically has two hands, allowing them to hold an item in each hand or a single two-handed item using both hands.Singular. One item held in a hand when being used for its purpose.
And there goes my idea for a Shoony Wizard for RP reasons modelled on my dog who is legendary in carrying and fetching sticks in his mouth.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
why limit yourself by holding bundles of wands... just keep potions open and drink them with a straw.
No free hand required... unless GM Fiat Powers... Damn you Game Masters...
Or create one of those hats, a potion hat with potions around your hat with a straw running to your mouth.
why limit yourself by holding bundles of wands... just keep potions open and drink them with a straw.
No free hand required... unless GM Fiat Powers... Damn you Game Masters...
Or create one of those hats, a potion hat with potions around your hat with a straw running to your mouth.
XD
Even though I agree with Castilliano, the rules do actually have this covered too.
A character carries items in three ways: held, worn, and stowed. Held items are in your hands; a character typically has two hands, allowing them to hold an item in each hand or a single two-handed item using both hands.Singular. One item held in a hand when being used for its purpose.
So we tie them together, making it one item.
Last I checked a crossbow and bolt were two items.
So we tie them together, making it one item.
Last I checked a crossbow and bolt were two items.
And we have dove straight in to the munchkinry deep end. Cool. B-)
I mean that's less munchkinry and more "I guess if your GM wants to homebrew that"
And we have dove straight in to the munchkinry deep end. Cool. B-)
"It's not a bundle of multiple wands. It's a single toy raft made out of...sticks...yeah."
I think if you want to combine multiple wands into a bundle you can use together in one hand that would be a crafting thing to make some kind of weird combined wand item.
I remember reading one story back when I played 3.5 where someone made a wand of magic missile gatling gun where you could fire of the wands in quick succession with a hand crank, but anything like that is essentially homebrew/gm improv territory.
If I follow the logic here "I tied 15 longbows together...so I should be able to 15 arrows at once."
That's not really equivalent as I'm not trying to fire off 15 wands at once.
Just have a nice list of spells to choose from.
If I follow the logic here "I tied 15 longbows together...so I should be able to 15 arrows at once."That's not really equivalent as I'm not trying to fire off 15 wands at once.
Just have a nice list of spells to choose from.
Then 15 crossbows so that you only have to reload after 15 attacks? ;)
If I follow the logic here "I tied 15 longbows together...so I should be able to 15 arrows at once."That's not really equivalent as I'm not trying to fire off 15 wands at once.
Just have a nice list of spells to choose from.
Spellcasters tend to have lists of spells they can choose from too. They are their prepared/repertoire spells.
I tend to stick to 1 item per hand. I mean really, go ahead and grab say a bundle of 10 spoons in one hand. Then eat a bowl of cereal without dropping the spoons or spilling anything.
Is it possible? Maybe. Is it Practical? In a tense situation? Nah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I follow the logic here "I tied 15 longbows together...so I should be able to 15 arrows at once."That's not really equivalent as I'm not trying to fire off 15 wands at once.
Just have a nice list of spells to choose from.
Spellcasters tend to have lists of spells they can choose from too. They are their prepared/repertoire spells.
I tend to stick to 1 item per hand. I mean really, go ahead and grab say a bundle of 10 spoons in one hand. Then eat a bowl of cereal without dropping the spoons or spilling anything.
Is it possible? Maybe. Is it Practical? In a tense situation? Nah.
Well... You COULD juggle 5 spoons in game and eat your cereal just fine. Granted, that's 3 feats to do that.
Well... You COULD juggle 5 spoons in game and eat your cereal just fine. Granted, that's 3 feats to do that.If I follow the logic here "I tied 15 longbows together...so I should be able to 15 arrows at once."That's not really equivalent as I'm not trying to fire off 15 wands at once.
Just have a nice list of spells to choose from.
Spellcasters tend to have lists of spells they can choose from too. They are their prepared/repertoire spells.
I tend to stick to 1 item per hand. I mean really, go ahead and grab say a bundle of 10 spoons in one hand. Then eat a bowl of cereal without dropping the spoons or spilling anything.
Is it possible? Maybe. Is it Practical? In a tense situation? Nah.
Juggler archetype really is the solution to every problem in PF2.
Juggler archetype really is the solution to every problem in PF2.Well... You COULD juggle 5 spoons in game and eat your cereal just fine. Granted, that's 3 feats to do that.If I follow the logic here "I tied 15 longbows together...so I should be able to 15 arrows at once."That's not really equivalent as I'm not trying to fire off 15 wands at once.
Just have a nice list of spells to choose from.
Spellcasters tend to have lists of spells they can choose from too. They are their prepared/repertoire spells.
I tend to stick to 1 item per hand. I mean really, go ahead and grab say a bundle of 10 spoons in one hand. Then eat a bowl of cereal without dropping the spoons or spilling anything.
Is it possible? Maybe. Is it Practical? In a tense situation? Nah.
LOL I know, right? Makes you wonder why it's uncommon then. ;)
LOL I know, right? Makes you wonder why it's uncommon then. ;)Juggler archetype really is the solution to every problem in PF2.Well... You COULD juggle 5 spoons in game and eat your cereal just fine. Granted, that's 3 feats to do that.If I follow the logic here "I tied 15 longbows together...so I should be able to 15 arrows at once."That's not really equivalent as I'm not trying to fire off 15 wands at once.
Just have a nice list of spells to choose from.
Spellcasters tend to have lists of spells they can choose from too. They are their prepared/repertoire spells.
I tend to stick to 1 item per hand. I mean really, go ahead and grab say a bundle of 10 spoons in one hand. Then eat a bowl of cereal without dropping the spoons or spilling anything.
Is it possible? Maybe. Is it Practical? In a tense situation? Nah.
It is uncommon because it is the solution to every problem.
|
The limit of 1 per hand is just a default. Bastion archetype for example plays around with letting one hand to a bit more. It's just like how there are many feats that allow you to achieve efficiency.
A magic item to let you wield multiple wands together would not be an outrageous idea. We already have scrollstaves and all kinds of ways magi glue staves and scrolls to things.
But the common thread is that it's going to cost you something.