Is it possible to renew a long duration spell each day using a wand?
The rules for long duration spells refer to spell slots, making no mention of alternative forms of spellcasting, such as wands. Is there anything indicating that this is possible?
If it is possible, would it matter if I alternated between wands, slots, and other sources of spells from day to day?
If it is not explicitly stated in the rules as being possible, do you think there should be a rule to allow the extension of long duration spells via wands and/or other alternative means? Would you permit it in games that you run?
In particular, I'm wondering about a wand of disguise magic, which would be used to mask a modify memory spell cast upon an individual that I likely would not have access to after the initial casting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the rule text does pretty clearly cover this case.
You can’t do this if the spell didn’t come from one of your spell slots.
As a GM I would probably allow recasting the wand as part of daily preparations in order to do the same thing. But not mix and match with spell slot one day and wand the next.
But only because of that sentence. It wouldn't be hard to convince me to houserule it so that you could mix and match if needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think so, because the duration rule specifies spell slot which wands don’t interact with. The same reason you couldn’t shift it off to a scroll either.
As a GM, I’d require the spell to be coming from a spell slot.
Well, the rule text does pretty clearly cover this case.
You can’t do this if the spell didn’t come from one of your spell slots.
Oh wow. I totally missed that line.
Funny how they chose to bury something that important in a sea of text. You'd think it would be emphasized in some way.
I actually haven't seen this rule until now. I'm wondering now if there's a practical difference between this and just casting the spell again after preparation.
I think it is new wording/mechanics in Player Core.
The difference would be up to an hour each day during daily preparations when the old casting of the spell ends, but you don't have your spell preparation/wand/staff charges available to cast it again.
Depending on the spell that may be inconsequential, or potentially catastrophic.
Mystic Armor would probably fall into the inconsequential level unless the GM is going to ambush the party during their daily preparations. Which I wouldn't recommend doing.
Mirage would be more of a problem if the intent of the spell is to set up an area that fools people for more than a day. When the resort oasis in the desert turns back into desert for 15 minutes every morning, people (even lower level people who typically fail all of their saves against the spell effect) are bound to get suspicious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With a spell like modify memory or dominate, recasting it would allow a new save. Just expending the slot keeps it going indefinitely, even if you are nowhere near the target.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the rule text does pretty clearly cover this case.
You can’t do this if the spell didn’t come from one of your spell slots.Oh wow. I totally missed that line.
Funny how they chose to bury something that important in a sea of text. You'd think it would be emphasized in some way.
This is one of the reasons I try to 'copy and paste' the relevant rule into my own posts: About half the time, I discover that the answer is actually spelled out and I just missed it somehow...
I think it is new wording/mechanics in Player Core.
Looks like it was in the Core Rulebook as well.
... unless the GM is going to ambush the party during their daily preparations. Which I wouldn't recommend doing.
And if you *do* decide to do that, be prepared to get into the nitty gritty about who is doing what during the various watches throughout the night FOREVER.
I think it's deliberate decision to require slots as opposed to items.
If it was items, one could relegate the permanence to a gp cost (the cost of the appropriate wand) as opposed to spending one of your own resources.
I agree with shroudb. The design thought process was likely along those lines.
It probably is reasonable to handwave if a player really wanted to, though, since wands are pricy and there aren't *that* many long duration spells you'd care about. It'd also be reasonable to disallow it because you want them to feel the slot cost.
I think it is new wording/mechanics in Player Core.Looks like it was in the Core Rulebook as well.
Ah. Yes it is. Page 305.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Logical marking/layout is not their style in general. Only bare minimum like degrees of success and targets are marked. Well, you know it yourself.
To be fair, in the playtest they were trying to use simpler, clearer and more rules focused language... and a large enough majority of people really hated it to get them to change to more "natural" language, which is significantly more work to maintain consistency in.
Not that it was perfect in the playtest either, but that paizo was actually dissuaded from going further down that route.