PDA

View Full Version : Sharing a wand for fun and profit



Thespianus
2009-10-05, 06:03 AM
I've read up on how to make a log move at supersonic speeds by having a long line of commoners all readying an action to move the log as soon as the guy to his right moves the log, etc.

It got me thinking: How about 50 level 1 wizards (or UMD-enabled characters) in a ring, where one pulls out a wand of , say, Magic Missile, and everyone else readies an action to grab the wand and launch a magic missile at the creature in the middle of the ring.

That would result in 50 Magic Missiles launched at the target per round, without having to spend more than 750 gp on a wand. :-D

In a less insane scenario, would this work as a party tactic? Say the Rogue and the Wizard wants to blow up the BBEG with the Cool Spell(tm) in the Rod/Staff/Wand, the Rogue goes first, blasts the BBEG, and allows the Wizard to grab the wand after the spell has been launched, to launch a second spell from the wand in the same round?

If nothing else, it would be an AMAZING way to create LOTS of wood with a Wand of Blockade(Complete Scoundrel) :smallbiggrin: , or Grease up a really large area. :)

Edit: Granted, you can do the same thing with 50 separate wands of Blockade, but this seems more fun :)

Rixx
2009-10-05, 06:30 AM
Grabbing the wand would be a move action, and you can't prepare both a move action (grabbing the wand) and a standard action (activating it). Sorry! Nice idea, though.

Thespianus
2009-10-05, 06:50 AM
Grabbing the wand would be a move action, and you can't prepare both a move action (grabbing the wand) and a standard action (activating it). Sorry! Nice idea, though.
Oh dang. :(

Ok, thanks! :)

ShadowFighter15
2009-10-05, 07:02 AM
Just for the two-person variant; what if the wizard doesn't take it out of the rogue's hand? Just grabs it enough to trigger it (which with command-word items would probably mean holding it anywhere)? It's been a while since I've read the readied action rules, but could you ready a swift action and a standard action?

Jack_Simth
2009-10-05, 07:05 AM
Grabbing the wand would be a move action, and you can't prepare both a move action (grabbing the wand) and a standard action (activating it). Sorry! Nice idea, though.
If that's your only objection, it works with Delaying, rather than Readying, though. And with Delaying, you get to choose where in the initiative lineup you go.

Thespianus
2009-10-05, 07:44 AM
Just for the two-person variant; what if the wizard doesn't take it out of the rogue's hand? Just grabs it enough to trigger it (which with command-word items would probably mean holding it anywhere)? It's been a while since I've read the readied action rules, but could you ready a swift action and a standard action?

No, I think just one of them. :)

Ceaon
2009-10-05, 07:50 AM
They could just all delay, though, using the same wand 50 times in 6 seconds.

Round 1: all wizards delay to the lowest of their IT counts.
Wizard 1: magic missile, move action: give wand to next wizard.
Wizards 2-49: do what Wizard 1 did.
Wizard 50: magic missile, move action: draw a new wand.

Next round: repeat.

Cool trick, no sane DM would allow it, awesome stuff.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 08:00 AM
I have actually used this tactic in game, with a wand of clw. Just pass it among players that need healing. There are obvious disadvantages though, like how close you have to be to pull it off.

Also, it burns charges like candy.

Thespianus
2009-10-05, 08:21 AM
They could just all delay, though, using the same wand 50 times in 6 seconds.
Ah, Delay would do it, rather than Ready. Thanks! :)


Cool trick, no sane DM would allow it, awesome stuff.
Then all that's required is to find fun spells to stick in a wand that make this trick even more crazy. :)

ericgrau
2009-10-05, 09:44 AM
Burning hands decorative fountain display.
Ghost sound high pitched singing voice, shatter all glasses in a 35x35 foot area.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 10:07 AM
It's a move action to accept the wand from someone else, and to pass it to someone else.

You don't get a standard and two move actions. So you are still not capable of doing it with delay either.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 10:41 AM
You can take an item from someone else(provided it's not opposed) as a move action, no?

heck, you can pick up an item off the ground as a move action, and dropping is a free action. If anything, taking it from their hand should take less time.

Random832
2009-10-05, 10:50 AM
You can take an item from someone else(provided it's not opposed) as a move action, no?

heck, you can pick up an item off the ground as a move action, and dropping is a free action. If anything, taking it from their hand should take less time.

Those "if anything" arguments don't work when you're already abusing physics with strict RAW interpretations.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 10:50 AM
Then, if you prefer, drop and pick up the wand. Same end result, still legal.

Roderick_BR
2009-10-05, 11:17 AM
Grabbing the wand would be a move action, and you can't prepare both a move action (grabbing the wand) and a standard action (activating it). Sorry! Nice idea, though.
In fact, you can. You can do a move action and a standard action in one round. Where does it say you can't? What you can't do is a move-like and a full-round action.
Everyone needs to have quickdraw to pick something up as a move-action, though, else picking it up is a standard action.

Hmm... nice idea for a barrage of attacks. Cheaper than everyone having his own wand. Way more useful than the log that loses all it's supersonic speed the instant it stops moving to be tossed by the last commoner in line :smalltongue:

Eloel
2009-10-05, 11:20 AM
In fact, you can. You can do a move action and a standard action in one round. Where does it say you can't? What you can't do is a move-like and a full-round action.
Everyone needs to have quickdraw to pick something up as a move-action, though, else picking it up is a standard action.

Hmm... nice idea for a barrage of attacks. Cheaper than everyone having his own wand. Way more useful than the log that loses all it's supersonic speed the instant it stops moving to be tossed by the last commoner in line :smalltongue:


Grabbing the wand would be a move action, and you can't prepare both a move action (grabbing the wand) and a standard action (activating it). Sorry! Nice idea, though.

I believe Rixx thought it had to be readied, which was later shot down as it didn't have to be readied. His sentence is still 100% correct.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 01:09 PM
Just for the two-person variant; what if the wizard doesn't take it out of the rogue's hand? Just grabs it enough to trigger it (which with command-word items would probably mean holding it anywhere)? Wands aren't command word items; they're spell trigger items. While you use a word as part of triggering the spell, the mechanism isn't clear.
Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. So it's up to DM interpretation to decide if that knowledge about how to use a wand precludes having other hands on it.

Everyone needs to have quickdraw to pick something up as a move-action, though, else picking it up is a standard action. Sorry, wrong. Pick up an item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#manipulateanItem) is already a move action.

The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. That's probably going to impose a lot of overhead in this multi-user wand scenario, with a whole lot of Identify spells. After all, that's how you the user determine what spell is in a wand. Hearing it from someone else isn't determining (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determine) it. :smallwink:

Thespianus
2009-10-05, 03:28 PM
That's probably going to impose a lot of overhead in this multi-user wand scenario, with a whole lot of Identify spells. After all, that's how you the user determine what spell is in a wand. Hearing it from someone else isn't determining (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determine) it. :smallwink:

So Clerics without the Magic domain can never find out how to use a wand of CLW? Since they don't have Identify, they can never use it? :smalleek:

tyckspoon
2009-10-05, 03:39 PM
That's probably going to impose a lot of overhead in this multi-user wand scenario, with a whole lot of Identify spells. After all, that's how you the user determine what spell is in a wand. Hearing it from someone else isn't determining (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determine) it. :smallwink:

I'm not sure how you would come to this conclusion, assuming the item is built for easiest identification. If the wand has "Magic Missile" and a command word engraved on the side and the guy before you just fired a Magic Missile from it while saying that command word.. I think it is pretty well determined that it is, in fact, a wand of Magic Missile, and what the command word is. Even if you are going to play silly buggers with dictionary definitions on a non-game-defined term.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 06:37 PM
I'm not sure how you would come to this conclusion, assuming the item is built for easiest identification. If the wand has "Magic Missile" and a command word engraved on the side
Let's stop right there, shall we? There's no reason to assume that wands are "built for easiest identification", especially when the rules state you can't use them at all until you've determined the spell contained inside.
The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it.
Spell trigger items don't have "command words". While you do need to speak a word as part of the trigger, it's quite reasonable to assume that all spell trigger items use exactly the same word.
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. It's the special knowledge of spellcasting that lets you trigger the spell once you've identified it; the word is just formulaic.

tyckspoon
2009-10-05, 06:40 PM
Let's stop right there, shall we?[LIST] There's no reason to assume that wands are "built for easiest identification", especially when the rules state you can't use them at all until you've determined the spell contained inside.


I assumed it would be built for easy identification because the thread posited a situation where multiple people would be attempting to use the same wand. In such a situation, the wand's original owner would know what the wand was. And then everybody else would know what the wand was because they saw him use it even if they couldn't tell from the wand itself. There is no requirement for every single person to Identify the wand in order to figure out what spell it casts in this situation.

woodenbandman
2009-10-05, 06:56 PM
Use a very high Sleight of Hand check to lift it as a free action.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 06:58 PM
And then everybody else would know what the wand was because they saw him use it
I'm afraid the rules don't allow for spell identification in such circumstances. To Identify a Spell Being Cast:
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spellís verbal or somatic components.) But nobody's casting the spell; instead, they're triggering it. Seeing somebody trigger a wand, by RAW, doesn't provide any clues as to the spell contained therein.

tyckspoon
2009-10-05, 07:05 PM
You're seriously going to tell me that when this happens:
Wizard one pulls a wand, points it at a target, and says a word. A Magic Missile comes out of the wand and hits the target he pointed at.

49 other Wizards can't tell that wand casts Magic Missile?

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-05, 07:06 PM
I'm pretty sure these 50 wizards are in cahoots, so all you have to do is tell them that it's a wand of Magic Missile beforehand. If you're going through the trouble of getting them together, you should probably make that clear anyway.

Makensha
2009-10-05, 07:14 PM
You could also pass the wand around pre battle and have everyone identfy it...

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 07:20 PM
You seriously can't identify spells cast via an item the way you could identify one cast from the players usual spell pool?

That seems....counter intuitive. And would seem to mean that anyone without an identify spell readied could not use a wand at all. Yes, for this example, they could all pre-identify this, but this particular interpretation would divide triggered and cast magical effects...leaving triggered effects immune to spellcraft, counterspells, etc. It'd be very odd indeed.

A more likely explanation is that Identify is only necessary to determine the command word(Since that's the explanation of what you get by using the Identify spell on a magic item). If the command word is freely shared, there is no need to Identify, then.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 07:23 PM
You're seriously going to tell me that when this happens:
Wizard one pulls a wand, points it at a target, and says a word. A Magic Missile comes out of the wand and hits the target he pointed at.

49 other Wizards can't tell that wand casts Magic Missile?
Nope. All they know is that the guy pulls out a wand and says the spell trigger word. There aren't even any distinguishing colors or sounds from that spell's description, so Spot and Listen aren't going to help. The guy who triggered the wand has the special knowledge of spellcasting, so he knows what's going on. The fact that it's a Magic Missile effect isn't apparent to anybody else -- not even the enemy on the receiving end. It's just damage, presumably from some magical source.

Random832
2009-10-05, 07:24 PM
And then everybody else would know what the wand was because they saw him use it

That's a DC16 spellcraft check.

EDIT: which I see some people are saying you don't get. Whatever. A wizard who in fact _knows_ a spell (not just has it on their list) should be able to use it just by being told what spell it is.

"determine" has no definition in RAW, so by default it's anything that would give you IC knowledge of the fact (including being told)

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-05, 07:25 PM
Nope. All they know is that the guy pulls out a wand and says the spell trigger word. There aren't even any distinguishing colors or sounds from that spell's description, so Spot and Listen aren't going to help.
The spell trigger word, maybe?

The fact that it's a Magic Missile effect isn't apparent to anybody else -- not even the enemy on the receiving end.

It's a magic missile. It produces a visible missile, of the type that a Magic Missile spell would produce. You don't get Invisible Spell free on all wands.

Keld Denar
2009-10-05, 07:27 PM
I'm pretty sure these 50 wizards are in cahoots, so all you have to do is tell them that it's a wand of Magic Missile beforehand. If you're going through the trouble of getting them together, you should probably make that clear anyway.

If you have 50 wizards hangin out together, you should just have them all cast MM themselves....

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-05, 07:34 PM
Yeah, but what if it's a higher level spell in the wand? 50 level 1 Wizards would be all you need for 50 (for example) CL 20 Chain Missiles. Of course you would also be out a 45000 gold wand.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 07:36 PM
The spell trigger word, maybe?
Oh, absolutely. The spell trigger word -- the same one that's used for every wand and staff in existence.

It's a magic missile. It produces a visible missile, of the type that a Magic Missile spell would produce. The spell's description doesn't say the missile is visible.
A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage. And that's only if the spell is cast; with a triggered version, your finger would be wrapped around the wand rather than pointing at a target.

Spells have exactly the visual and audible effects in their description, and nothing more. There's no statement that this missile of magical energy has any visible manifestation, nor do I know of any default statement that magical energy was detectable by sight or sound (Spot or Listen). Unless you can provide a rules statement to the contrary?

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 07:38 PM
It's a pretty reasonable assumption that a spell that would dart from your fingertips if you cast it would dart from the wand(or your fingers, whatever), if cast from the wand.

It's not terribly reasonable to assume that the spell suddenly becomes invisible and silent.

Besides, if you want to be pedantic, there is no particular reason that the missile couldn't dart from your fingertips, even if they are on the wand.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 07:47 PM
It's not terribly reasonable to assume that the spell suddenly becomes invisible and silent.
Who's doing that? I'm just assuming that the spell has no visible or audible manifestations because the description doesn't include any. The spell effect doesn't become invisible and silent; it just always is.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-05, 07:48 PM
Oh, absolutely. The spell trigger word -- the same one that's used for every wand and staff in existence.
Having a single, solitary spell trigger word be used for all spell trigger items is not a necessary conclusion of the semantics of the spell trigger rules.


And that's only if the spell is cast; with a triggered version, your finger would be wrapped around the wand rather than pointing at a target.
Why must we assume thus?


Spells have exactly the visual and audible effects in their description, and nothing more.
Do you have a citation for this? I don't have a citation for my point, that I will freely admit; but if you could provide a hard rules reference that would be enlightening.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 08:00 PM
Do you have a citation for this? I don't have a citation for my point, that I will freely admit; but if you could provide a hard rules reference that would be enlightening.
There's no clear rules statement for my case, so I'm going by three indicators:
A complete lack of any statement that spells generally do have manifestations.
The RAW principle that specific trumps general. Thus every statement in a spell description that specifies some sight or sound is overriding the general nature of spells. Occam's Razor would have us conclude that the most likely default is nothing: no sight, and no sound.
The requirement to identify a spell with Spellcraft that you see or hear the spell's casting components. If there were generally something to see or hear from the spell's effect, don't you think they would have mentioned that?

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 08:02 PM
Who's doing that? I'm just assuming that the spell has no visible or audible manifestations because the description doesn't include any. The spell effect doesn't become invisible and silent; it just always is.

It has a verbal component. When cast via wand, it has a command word. I would assume that like any other spoken word, it will be audible by default.

Likewise, the text describes a missile darting forth and striking the target. I would assume that by default, missiles are visible.

Most items and actions in D&D are visible/audible by default, the exceptions are specified.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 08:05 PM
The requirement to identify a spell with Spellcraft that you see or hear the spell's casting components. If there were generally something to see or hear from the spell's effect, don't you think they would have mentioned that?
[/LIST]

Nope. Counterspells happen as a result of spellcraft checks. Justifying countering the spell by watching the effect of it is a bit difficult. Spellcraft is trying to pre-emptively identify the spell.

Even a dumb fighter can learn what a grease spell does by watching the effects of it being cast. He might not know what the magical details are, but basic pattern matching should be sufficient to realize that "hey, this spell looks and acts just like the one our party wizard calls Grease".

Siosilvar
2009-10-05, 08:18 PM
There's no clear rules statement for my case, so I'm going by three indicators:
The RAW principle that specific trumps general. Thus every statement in a spell description that specifies some sight or sound is overriding the general nature of spells. Occam's Razor would have us conclude that the most likely default is nothing: no sight, and no sound.
Occam's Razor would lead us to no such thing. Both conclusions are equally simple AND they make different conclusions, thus invalidating Occam's Razor in this situation.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 08:25 PM
When cast via wand, it has a command word. I would assume that like any other spoken word, it will be audible by default. Yes, so someone with a knowledge of spellcasting knows that you activated a spell trigger item. That's a long way from knowing what spell was triggered.

Likewise, the text describes a missile darting forth and striking the target. I would assume that by default, missiles are visible. I would make no such assumption about missiles composed of magical energy.

Most items and actions in D&D are visible/audible by default, the exceptions are specified. Rules citation, please?

Nope. Counterspells happen as a result of spellcraft checks. Justifying countering the spell by watching the effect of it is a bit difficult. Spellcraft is trying to pre-emptively identify the spell.

I don't get your point. Counterspelling isn't relevant to this discussion. That particular use is only one of 13 non-Epic applications of Spellcraft. (They also include a way to identify a non-instantaneous spell that's already in place.) It's very shortsighted to think that counterspelling is the only possible reason to use Spellcraft to try to identify a spell.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 08:34 PM
Occam's Razor would lead us to no such thing. Both conclusions are equally simple AND they make different conclusions, thus invalidating Occam's Razor in this situation.
It's simple to assume that spells have (unspecified) visible effects and (unspecified) audible effects?

Please check your dictionary for the word simple, because mine says "not elaborate", "uncomplicated".
When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.

The simple explanation is no effects except those mentioned; i.e., postulating the fewest manifestations.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 08:42 PM
The point is that, to identify a spell via spellcraft in time to counterspell it, the effects of it are not yet available as information.

There is another, lesser used use of spellcraft as follows: Identify a spell thatís already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry. "

There is no identify spellcasting use of spellcraft save for those that are either pre-effect, or that allow the use of effects to determine the spell.


As for a source for the fact that invisibility is the exception, and visible and audible effects are normal, note that skills and spells exist to make things silent and invisible, and are written as if these are unusual. It's ludicrous to expect a melee attack to be invisible/inaudible by default, even if it's not explicitly defined in the action as visible and audible. Everything is written as if it's simply assumed that they are.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-05, 09:34 PM
As for a source for the fact that invisibility is the exception, and visible and audible effects are normal, note that skills and spells exist to make things silent and invisible
Mostly those exist to make casting silent and nonvisible, not the spell effects themselves.

It's ludicrous to expect a melee attack to be invisible/inaudible by default
But spells are generally not melee attacks; only non-ranged touch spells are melee attacks. It's quite reasonable for ranged effects to obscure the source.

Siosilvar
2009-10-05, 09:39 PM
It's simple to assume that spells have (unspecified) visible effects and (unspecified) audible effects?

Please check your dictionary for the word simple, because mine says "not elaborate", "uncomplicated".

The simple explanation is no effects except those mentioned; i.e., postulating the fewest manifestations.

Yes. Because then you don't need to check which ones have those effects every time, as the ones that state the effect is invisible do so.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-05, 09:42 PM
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Invisible_Spell_(DnD_Feat) makes it quite clear that spells typically do indeed have visible effects.

It also specifically says "If the spell reasonably makes noise, has odor, or a tactile effect of some kind these effects are not hidden, it operates like any other invisibility effect".

There would be no need for such a spell if effects were not visible/audible unless explicitly described as such. The magic missile has no more reason to be silent and invisible than a Lighting Bolt (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Lightning_bolt). The lightening bolt doesn't explicitly SAY that the bolt of lightening from your fingertips is visible, just as magic missile doesn't explicitly SAY that the missile from your fingertips is visible.

However, positing that the natural assumption is that lightning bolts are invisible seems awkward. Lightning bolts in nature are visible, so one would assume that, by default, magically created ones are too, unless they say differently. This is true for a wide variety of spells. Once you accept this, it's clear that all effects are visible to bystanders by default unless the spell description says differently.

deuxhero
2009-10-06, 08:41 AM
Your first mistake was a wand of magic missile. Unless you are an Artificer wands are not for blasting, but for low level spells you cast a lot, like Endure Elements, Cure Light Wounds/Lesser Vigor and if you can grab it as a first level spell from the Assassin list Invisibility. The only damaging wands you want are a ranged touch attack one for sneak attack.

Thespianus
2009-10-06, 09:11 AM
Well, the point of the thread was more to find out what kind of wierdness you could get from draining a Wand of X in one round, effects that you normally wouldn't be able to gain, etc.

Not damage per se.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-06, 09:20 AM
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Invisible_Spell_(DnD_Feat) makes it quite clear that spells typically do indeed have visible effects.
I had a problem finding that word "typically" in the link.
Benefit: A hidden spell incorporates an illusion that renders it and its effects invisible. Invisible Spell does not conceal the casting of the spell, only the spell effects.
Many spells have listed visible effects, so there's plenty of reason for Invisible Spell to exist.
A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point.
A bank of fog billows out from the point you designate. The fog obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet.
This spell conjures a field of rubbery black tentacles, each 10 feet long. If there's some place in the rules that indeed says spells typically have visible effects, please point it out. Otherwise I have to assume you're relying on a house rule rather than RAW.

Yora
2009-10-06, 09:23 AM
Grabbing the wand would be a move action, and you can't prepare both a move action (grabbing the wand) and a standard action (activating it). Sorry! Nice idea, though.

Can't you Quick Draw a wand that is held in a way meant for you to grab it? ^^

Thespianus
2009-10-06, 09:28 AM
The section on Describing Spell Effects in the DMG says that "Magic is flashy" and goes on to describe various ways the Magic Missile can be described.

It doesn't explicitly say that all spells have flashy effects, but it gives the impression that they meant magic to be fairly visual in the game.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 09:30 AM
And do the black tentacles specify that they are visible? No...but you assume they are. Why would you not assume the same of the missile created by magic missile?

By typical, I am merely referring to the fact that the majority of spells describe their effects in flavor text, and most of those describe some sort of effect that can reasonably be assumed to be visible, audible, or both. Spells such as "Silent Image" explicitly specify what effects they cannot create.

Thus, I presume that any effect described in the spell description is visible/audible if such an effect reasonably could be either, and does not contain explicit text to the contrary.

Acid arrow? Creates an arrow that speeds to target. Arrow is as visible and audible as a normal arrow flying would be.

Magic missile? Creates a missile that speeds to target. Missile is as visible and audible as a rock or other thrown missile would be.

SensFan
2009-10-06, 09:39 AM
So let me get this straight, Curmudgeon.

I am a decently-powered caster of some sort, and I go to a wizard I know and buy a Wand of Inivisibility. As soon as I leave the shop, someone I know is after me appears at the end of the street, running towards me.

Are you saying I can't cast Inivisibility on myself, since I have no way of 'determining' what spell is stored in the wand?

Edit: I can source a rule that Magic Missile is explicitly visible.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-06, 10:23 AM
Otherwise I have to assume you're relying on a house rule rather than RAW.

This isn't about RAW. You don't have a clear citation either. This is about assumption and sense. Your argument is strong, and I can't refute it; but I don't see how it's founded in RAW.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 10:30 AM
Yes, RAW does not explicitly specify visibility of effects of spells, merely of casting. For effects, the best we can do is go off the flavor text, and go with what is implied, and most logically coherent for them.

minchazo
2009-10-06, 11:09 AM
OK, for fun I looked things up in the SRD:


Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but itís 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. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it.

That's also unlike the Command Word which "can be a real word."


Spellcraft:Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spellís verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

Is that the "single work that must be spoken" a verbal component? I believe it is, since it doesn't state that it "can be a real word."

Oh, and to take Curmudgeon's side on one point: if a fighter sees a glowing bead coming at him, he can't identify the spell. He can guess based on past experience that it's a Fireball, but he doesn't know. It could be a Delayed Blast Fireball and he'd be none the wiser, possibly even thinking that it's a dud when it doesn't explode for a round or two.

Gnaeus
2009-10-06, 11:36 AM
After all, that's how you the user determine what spell is in a wand. Hearing it from someone else isn't determining (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determine) it. :smallwink:

That's silly. Of course it is. If you needed to cast identify, there wouldn't be all the language about if a wizard picks up a spell trigger item and that item stores a wizard spell, she knows how to use it. In that context, determine clearly means, "have an idea what spell is in it, like by having been told".

Your dictionary definition doesn't help you in the slightest.

Bob says its a wand of magic missile. 50 of us stand here.

"to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision."

The group of us just came to a conclusive decision that is a wand of magic missile BECAUSE BOB SAID IT WAS.

"to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc."

I observe bob saying it was a wand of Magic missile. I reason bob wasn't lying. I conclude that it was a wand of Magic Missile.

Seriously, that is the worst RAW/RAI argument I have heard in a long time. You can do better.

Another_Poet
2009-10-06, 12:03 PM
Bob says its a wand of magic missile. 50 of us stand here.

"to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision."

The group of us just came to a conclusive decision that is a wand of magic missile BECAUSE BOB SAID IT WAS.

"to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc."

I observe bob saying it was a wand of Magic missile. I reason bob wasn't lying. I conclude that it was a wand of Magic Missile.

Seriously, that is the worst RAW/RAI argument I have heard in a long time. You can do better.

Ditto. Also, ditto.

Deth Muncher
2009-10-06, 12:14 PM
A minor derail, but I feel this bears relevance:

Say Wizard 1 tells Wizards 2-50 "Ok, this is a Wand of Magic Missile! Everyone ready?"

And then he activates it. Except it's really a Scorching Ray, unbeknownst to the other Wizards. So since they assume it's MM, are they unable to activate the wand?

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 12:31 PM
I would say that if they were under the impression that it was something other than a wand of magic missile, they would be unable to activate it until they had correctly identified it.

In practice, they might notice that the spell cast does not appear to match the spell they were told it was. They'll also know they were lied to as soon as the wand fails to cast magic missile.

Realistically, neither applies to this scenario, since it assumes that everyone involved is cooperating to do this. There are far easier ways of breaking the chain, like chucking the wand in your bag of holding or something.

Thespianus
2009-10-06, 01:50 PM
Seriously, that is the worst RAW/RAI argument I have heard in a long time. You can do better.

It gets even better since Clerics don't have Identify, and are therefore forever barred from using Wands.

Funny that.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-06, 01:54 PM
Is that the "single work that must be spoken" a verbal component? I believe it is, since it doesn't state that it "can be a real word." Verbal components apply only to spellcasting, not spell triggering. The trigger word can be used by characters who are not spellcasters, and thus don't know spell components at all.

Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who canít actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) Anyway, this is just a tangent anyway, because Spellcraft doesn't apply here.
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spellís verbal or somatic components.)There's no mention of spells being triggered.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-06, 02:05 PM
It gets even better since Clerics don't have Identify, and are therefore forever barred from using Wands.
Identify appears on the Magic and Oracle domain spell lists, and can also be obtained via Anyspell from the Spell domain. Analyze Dweomer appears on the Commerce domain spell list. The Commerce, Pact, and Wealth domains add Appraise to the Cleric's class skill list, and the feat Appraise Magic Value can identify magic items with an Appraise check. Finally, every Cleric has Divination on their spell list, which "can provide you with a useful piece of advice in reply to a question concerning a specific goal, event, or activity that is to occur within one week". Assuming you're planning on using a wand within a week, Divination should be able to tell you what spell it contains.

There are lots of ways a Cleric can determine a wand's contents.

Thespianus
2009-10-06, 02:18 PM
There are lots of ways a Cleric can determine a wand's contents.

Ok. I understand this is your opinion. I would believe it's not shared with most 3.5 gamers, but ok.

EDIT: Let me update this. Instead of a Cleric, I give you a Druid. The Druid has Cure Light Wounds on his spell list, but he doesn't have Identify. He has no domains that he can get extra spells from, he doesn't have Appraise as his class skill, and he doesn't have Divination on his spell list.

So. No wands for you, Mr Druid, even if the sample NPC druids in the DMG are equipped with a Cure Light Wound wand. What an oversight from the game designers, huh?

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 02:27 PM
Finally, every Cleric has Divination on their spell list, which "can provide you with a useful piece of advice in reply to a question concerning a specific goal, event, or activity that is to occur within one week". Assuming you're planning on using a wand within a week, Divination should be able to tell you what spell it contains.

There are lots of ways a Cleric can determine a wand's contents.

And how would divination work in a way that merely asking someone and receiving a correct response would not? If one works, wouldn't the other as well?

Curmudgeon
2009-10-06, 02:59 PM
And how would divination work in a way that merely asking someone and receiving a correct response would not? If one works, wouldn't the other as well?
Well, gee, if I were a Cleric I'd probably trust an answer from my deity more than ... well, anybody. :smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2009-10-06, 03:01 PM
Magic doesn't work due to trust.

Thespianus
2009-10-06, 03:01 PM
Well, gee, if I were a Cleric I'd probably trust an answer from my deity more than ... well, anybody. :smallsmile:

But it's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of "Does the trigger action for the wand work", rather than "Is my friend since 10 levels back lying to when he says that the command word is ZZap".

EDIT: Bah.. Ninjas.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-06, 03:15 PM
Magic doesn't work due to trust.
I'm not so sure about that.
Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but itís 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. If you know what spell is contained in wand you can trigger it. If you only kinda sorta think it's a certain spell because that's what your companion told you, you don't have that special knowledge.

Thespianus
2009-10-06, 03:22 PM
I'm not so sure about that. If you know what spell is contained in wand you can trigger it. If you only kinda sorta think it's a certain spell because that's what your companion told you, you don't have that special knowledge.

Ok then I kill all wand magic by invoking the Demon of Descartes. We can't really be sure of anyting outside of our own mind, so absolute knowledge of the outside world is impossible, hence we can never know if the wand even exists.

It does kinda put a dampener on the game, though, doesn't it?

Another_Poet
2009-10-06, 04:23 PM
Ok then I kill all wand magic by invoking the Demon of Descartes. We can't really be sure of anyting outside of our own mind, so absolute knowledge of the outside world is impossible, hence we can never know if the wand even exists.

It does kinda put a dampener on the game, though, doesn't it?

Best thread win ever.

SensFan
2009-10-06, 04:51 PM
Curmudgeon,

I noticed that since I told you I can cite a rule about Magic Missile being visible (which implies most spells are visible), you stopped arguing. Will it take someone remembering/sumbling upon an obscure rule that you can 'know' what the wand does by someone telling you for you to stop arguing this point as well?

Curmudgeon
2009-10-06, 05:29 PM
Curmudgeon,

I noticed that since I told you I can cite a rule about Magic Missile being visible (which implies most spells are visible), you stopped arguing.
I didn't see that, and I now see that you added it with an Edit. Please do cite the rule.

SensFan
2009-10-07, 12:04 AM
I didn't see that, and I now see that you added it with an Edit. Please do cite the rule.
The edit was right after hitting submit.

As for the rule, I know I read it somewhere: UA maybe? Anyways, it was about how if Bob the Sorceror wants his Magic Missile to be a pair of gloves that smack the target upside the face, that was totally cool. It went on to warn that this was only within reason; having your Fireball look like blue flames is fine, having it look like a massive red dragon douses the target in flames isn't.

Thespianus
2009-10-07, 12:25 AM
The edit was right after hitting submit.

As for the rule, I know I read it somewhere: UA maybe? Anyways, it was about how if Bob the Sorceror wants his Magic Missile to be a pair of gloves that smack the target upside the face, that was totally cool. It went on to warn that this was only within reason; having your Fireball look like blue flames is fine, having it look like a massive red dragon douses the target in flames isn't.

That's in the section in the DMG I was referring to earlier.

Random832
2009-10-07, 12:27 AM
I'm not so sure about that. If you know what spell is contained in wand you can trigger it. If you only kinda sorta think it's a certain spell because that's what your companion told you, you don't have that special knowledge.

The "special knowledge" is your training in spellcasting ability in general (i.e. as part of it you have learned the proper way to wave wands around or whatever. It's part of the stuff you studied in your 2d6 years at cleric school) This clause does not refer to "special knowledge" about a specific wand and there is no way to twist it to make it so.

Back to the main question:

One definition of knowledge is a "justified true belief".
A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if, and only if:
1. P is true It is in fact a wand of magic missile
2. S believes that P is true, and Your friend told you it was and you don't in fact doubt them
3. S is justified in believing that P is true Your friend in fact has a good track record about these sorts of things, and/or he is backed up by multiple independent witnesses / a shop receipt / whatever

But anyway, the term "know" or "knowledge" isn't anywhere referring to what you must satisfy as regards to what the contents of the wand are:

"The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it."

I would argue that this is not a proper requirement at all, since it is given by analogy ("still") to spell completion, which does not in fact have a requirement to "determine what spell is stored in the item". ("decipher the writing" under the scroll section is the closest thing, and clearly doesn't apply to a non-written form of the spell, and doesn't call for identify anyway)

Thespianus
2009-10-07, 12:58 AM
Opinions are like healing belts: Everyone's got one.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-07, 01:17 AM
Healing belts are useful.

Most opinions, however...

Bogardan_Mage
2009-10-07, 02:39 AM
Curmudgeon, as many others have said but bears repeating, this is the type of situation your reasoning leads to:

DM: Among the treasure from your last encounter is a strange wand.
Wizard: I cast Identify.
DM: You identify it as a Wand of Magic Missiles.
Wizard: I don't really need that, I'll give it to the party Rogue who's maxed out his UMD.
Rogue: Sweet! I cast Magic Missile at the darkness!
DM: You can't do that! You don't know what kind of wand that is! You need to cast Identify yourself!
Rogue: But I'm a rogue, I can't cast that spell.
DM: Then you can't use wands! Ever!

Thespianus
2009-10-07, 02:55 AM
Curmudgeon, as many others have said but bears repeating, this is the type of situation your reasoning leads to:

DM: Among the treasure from your last encounter is a strange wand.
Wizard: I cast Identify.
DM: You identify it as a Wand of Magic Missiles.
Wizard: I don't really need that, I'll give it to the party Rogue who's maxed out his UMD.
Rogue: Sweet! I cast Magic Missile at the darkness!
DM: You can't do that! You don't know what kind of wand that is! You need to cast Identify yourself!
Rogue: But I'm a rogue, I can't cast that spell.
DM: Then you can't use wands! Ever!

Letting the Rogue find a Wand of Identify might be the most ironic situation evvar. :smallwink:

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-07, 03:22 AM
The rogue could, with a scroll of identify, lol.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-07, 03:32 AM
DM: You can't do that! You don't know what kind of wand that is! You need to cast Identify yourself!
Rogue: But I'm a rogue, I can't cast that spell.
DM: Then you can't use wands! Ever!
Actually, the Rogue can always fall back on Use Magic Device's old reliable: Activate Blindly.
The Use Magic Device skill is for using magic items that you normally could not otherwise activate. Activating a wand has a DC of 20, as shown on the table in the Use Magic Device skill description. However, this assumes that you already know what spell the wand stores. If you donít, you have to activate the wand blindly (DC 25). If you successfully activate a wand blindly, you know what spell it contains, and your subsequent attempts to activate that particular wand are at DC 20. So one UMD check at DC 25, and then the rest are at DC 20.

Thespianus
2009-10-07, 04:17 AM
Actually, the Rogue can always fall back on Use Magic Device's old reliable: Activate Blindly. So one UMD check at DC 25, and then the rest are at DC 20.

So a Rogue can use a wand created by a Druid, but the Druid who created the wand can't?

Because, the Druid who created the wand doesn't know that the creation of the wand actually worked, and there is no way he can find out what spell he actually put into the wand!

Even if the Rogue shows him that the newly created wand of Cure Light Wounds actually results in a Cure Light Wounds-spell being cast, the Druid can't use it, because he doesn't "know".

Good stuff.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-07, 05:34 AM
Because, the Druid who created the wand doesn't know that the creation of the wand actually worked, and there is no way he can find out what spell he actually put into the wand!
There is no failure chance for Craft Wand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#craftWand). The Druid who creates a wand knows what spell it contains. And of course any Druid can take a feat like Appraise Magic Value and identify a wand in that way.

Thespianus
2009-10-07, 06:41 AM
There is no failure chance for Craft Wand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#craftWand). The Druid who creates a wand knows what spell it contains.
Well, I guess you're right there. I stretched to silliness too far.

However, if the wand has ever been out of his sight, for example when he sleeps, he can't KNOW with absolute certainty that it's the same wand that he himself made. The Rogue might have switched it to another wand looking exactly the same. (We all know how Rogues are.)

So, even if the Rogue swears that he hasn't switched the wands, the Druid can't KNOW this to be true. Alas, poor Druid.


And of course any Druid can take a feat like Appraise Magic Value and identify a wand in that way.

Yeah, he can reach 5 ranks in Appraise when he's level 7, so he can take that feat as his 9th level feat, it's true. Until then he can't use wands of Cure Light Wounds, according to you.

Doesn't it seem a tad odd?

Johel
2009-10-07, 06:45 AM
There is no failure chance for Craft Wand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#craftWand). The Druid who creates a wand knows what spell it contains. And of course any Druid can take a feat like Appraise Magic Value and identify a wand in that way.

(I quote this message because it's your last but what follows is true for most of the discussion here)

The letter of the rules seem to back you. And that's sad, since it's clearly not the spirit. But since the thread's subject is about the letter of the rule, you stand correct and nobody should use the "Common Sense" argument to prove you wrong.

Common sense should tell us that the whole "wand sharing between 50 persons" is impossible in 6 seconds (1 round). That's about 0,12 seconds for each wizard to :

Grab a wand from somebody
Point it at the target
Scream something/Make a funny gesture
Pass the wand to the next person

Even with training, that's at least 4 moves (not move actions, just moves) in the blink of an eye.

For the wand, rule-wise :
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wands.htm

Spell Trigger
Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but itís 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. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who canít 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.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm


Spellcraft
You can identify spells and magic effects. The DCs for Spellcraft checks relating to various tasks are summarized on the table below. (...)
20 + spell level : Identify a spell thatís already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm

Activate Blindly
Some magic items are activated by special words, thoughts, or actions. You can activate such an item as if you were using the activation word, thought, or action, even when youíre not and even if you donít know it.

So, that's either a Identify spell (or similar divinations) or :

Activate blindly : fire the spell from the wand, UMD, DC25
Spellcraft : identify the spell through its effects, Spellcraft, DC 21

Now, since UMD is a trained only skill, your average druid will have to cooperate with a Wizard (or a Sorcerer, or a Bard, or a Priest with appropriate domain) to get an Identify spell. Or take lessons in UMD.

Thespianus
2009-10-07, 06:59 AM
Common sense should tell us that the whole "wand sharing between 50 persons" is impossible in 6 seconds (1 round).

Well, obviously. The thread is a joke about a silly rule abuse that no one could ever get by a real DM.

I'll leave the "Identify-to-Know"-argument alone and continue to allow first level Druids to use wands of CLW.

Johel
2009-10-07, 08:13 AM
Well, obviously. The thread is a joke about a silly rule abuse that no one could ever get by a real DM.

I'll leave the "Identify-to-Know"-argument alone and continue to allow first level Druids to use wands of CLW.

Hť !! Not saying it's not a good idea.
Just that 50 wizards is a bit overkill in 6 seconds.
10, maybe, with practice.
6 ? Sure !!

Random832
2009-10-07, 08:51 AM
I can underline stuff from the SRD too.


Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but itís 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. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who canít 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.

The first part i highlighted is because Curmudgeon incorrectly said you have to have "special knowledge" about the specific wand. Obviously that's not something that "any appropriate character" (as defined as anyone with it on their spell list) would know.

The second part is, as I pointed out: "Still" with reference to what? Spell completion (which it's called out as similar to) doesn't have a "must determine what spell is stored in the item" requirement in RAW, nor therefore any description of what this entails. The term "still" means this is not a new requirement for spell trigger activation but rather one carried over from the one it's being defined by comparison to.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 09:34 AM
Well, obviously. The thread is a joke about a silly rule abuse that no one could ever get by a real DM.

I'll leave the "Identify-to-Know"-argument alone and continue to allow first level Druids to use wands of CLW.

Look, if the DM lets me have 50 wizards, I suspect that them being able to share a wand is the least of his worries.

Johel
2009-10-07, 09:35 AM
The second part is, as I pointed out: "Still" with reference to what? Spell completion (which it's called out as similar to) doesn't have a "must determine what spell is stored in the item" requirement in RAW, nor therefore any description of what this entails. The term "still" means this is not a new requirement for spell trigger activation but rather one carried over from the one it's being defined by comparison to.

"Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who canít 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."

That's the same as saying :
"-If your class allows you to cast the spell, then you can use the wand. But first, you must know what spell is stored inside the wand."

Hope it helps

Curmudgeon
2009-10-07, 10:10 AM
The letter of the rules seem to back you. And that's sad, since it's clearly not the spirit. But since the thread's subject is about the letter of the rule, you stand correct and nobody should use the "Common Sense" argument to prove you wrong.

Common sense should tell us that the whole "wand sharing between 50 persons" is impossible in 6 seconds (1 round).
It's precisely in the spirit of exposing absurdities in the letter of the rules that I've been maintaining this argument. It's good, clean fun, and keeps us off the streets. Someone trying to share a wand 50 ways in one round seems like the perfect occasion to get persnickety about some other part of the rules and make them suffer for their hubris.

I've got a penchant for reading the rules carefully. So I know that if you make an archer's full attack provoke AoOs that's a house rule, because the statement about ranged attacks provoking is only under the "Standard Actions" section of the Combat chapter, whereas the "Full-Round Actions" section says a full attack doesn't provoke AoOs. Fire one arrow and suffer an attack of opportunity. Fire a whole bunch of arrows and you're safe. :smallsmile:

Would a reasonable DM impose a house rule in all of these cases? I certainly hope so. But if "common sense" is excluded from the armory, it's good to bring some other type of ammunition to the fight. Call me a RAW gunslinger. :smallcool:

Random832
2009-10-07, 10:15 AM
"Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who canít 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."

That's the same as saying :
"-If your class allows you to cast the spell, then you can use the wand. But first, you must know what spell is stored inside the wand."

Hope it helps

Except it says you must "still" know, but the requirement wasn't there before in spell completion [which spell trigger is defined by its differences from] for it to "still" be there. But more to the point, it doesn't say how you must know, or that being told correctly what it is isn't sufficient.

----

Anyway, it's pointless because you don't need to say they can't cast spells from the wand to say that the action required (two move actions plus a standard) can't be readied or accomplished in a single round.

Thespianus
2009-10-07, 10:44 AM
It's precisely in the spirit of exposing absurdities in the letter of the rules that I've been maintaining this argument. It's good, clean fun, and keeps us off the streets. Someone trying to share a wand 50 ways in one round seems like the perfect occasion to get persnickety about some other part of the rules and make them suffer for their hubris.
But.. well, your very odd definition of "know" isn't explicitly supported by RAW, (and as I've shown, it makes a few other things very weird) , so I'm not sure why your otherwise exquisite knowledge of RAW should come into play here?

Nowhere does the rules say that "know" is defined as harshly as you say it is.

However, I agree that the 50 uses of a wand in a round is just stupid and should be shut down immediately in a real game.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-07, 10:51 AM
But.. well, your very odd definition of "know" isn't explicitly supported by RAW, (and as I've shown, it makes a few other things very weird) , so I'm not sure why your otherwise exquisite knowledge of RAW should come into play here?
Since "know" isn't a D&D game term, I'm just relying on the primary dictionary definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know):
to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
If someone else hands you a wand, it seems to me that you can't apprehend clearly and with certainty what spell it contains; you don't know the situation fully.

Thespianus
2009-10-07, 10:58 AM
Since "know" isn't a D&D game term, I'm just relying on the primary dictionary definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know):
If someone else hands you a wand, it seems to me that you can't apprehend clearly and with certainty what spell it contains; you don't know the situation fully.

Ok, so when you as a friend "Do you know Mrs Baker at the library?", you call him a liar if he says "yes" without knowing her birthday (or her bloodtype, or her complete DNA sequence)?

I don't think so.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-07, 11:12 AM
Ok, so when you as a friend "Do you know Mrs Baker at the library?", you call him a liar if he says "yes" without knowing her birthday (or her bloodtype, or her complete DNA sequence)?
No, but in D&D I'd call someone a liar if they said they knew someone was an Aasimar without having made the required Knowledge: The Planes skill check.

Of course, D&D is a role-playing game. If you wanted to play out looking over someone's shoulder as they crush a pearl, stir it with an owl feather into wine, and gaze intently at the wand in their lap for an hour after drinking before finally shouting out "Magic Missile!", that's probably good, too. Lacking that, I'll just fall back to the provided rules that actually ascertain knowledge.

Thespianus
2009-10-07, 11:20 AM
No, but in D&D I'd call someone a liar if they said they knew someone was an Aasimar without having made the required Knowledge: The Planes skill check.

Of course, D&D is a role-playing game. If you wanted to play out looking over someone's shoulder as they crush a pearl, stir it with an owl feather into wine, and gaze intently at the wand in their lap for an hour after drinking before finally shouting out "Magic Missile!", that's probably good, too. Lacking that, I'll just fall back to the provided rules that actually ascertain knowledge.

But you're making the transfer of absolute knowledge impossible, and this I find very odd.

The level 1 Wizard who cast Identify to ascertain the magical properties of the Cure Light Wounds-wand he then gave to the Druid can, in my DnD universe, say "This is a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, a spell I believe you are well aware of, and a spell you have cast on us before on several occations. Here ya go.".

You're making the 1st level Druid say "Huh? Whut? I can't use that stick", while I would say that this means that the Druid would know that the wand is a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.

I find your interpretation of an every day word kind of odd.

Thespianus
2009-10-07, 11:34 AM
Then again, I know (yea, I said it. Know) that nothing positive can come out of continuing this debate, so: You "win". :smallamused:

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 01:49 PM
Anyway, it's pointless because you don't need to say they can't cast spells from the wand to say that the action required (two move actions plus a standard) can't be readied or accomplished in a single round.

Already solved.

Dropping an item into your square or an adjacent square is a free action.
Picking up the wand is a move action.
Using it is a standard action.

Apparently it's faster to have a ridiculously fast series of wizard jack-in the boxes that to hand something to someone.

Random832
2009-10-07, 01:53 PM
Picking up the wand is a move action.

Provokes an AoO.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-07, 02:03 PM
It's not as if this were designed to be done in melee. Or even normally a practical option at all.

Anything requiring 50 wizards has already gone slightly impractical.

Random832
2009-10-07, 02:08 PM
What about 50 rogues, fluffed as ninjas?

Curmudgeon
2009-10-07, 02:31 PM
What about 50 rogues, fluffed as ninjas?
Oh, that one would be good. Soon after this starts, someone makes a Sleight of Hand check. Where'd that wand go? :smallamused:

Doug Lampert
2009-10-07, 04:50 PM
What about 50 rogues, fluffed as ninjas?
Then they can't do anything right. There are 50 of them so if they are ninjas they're mostly harmless and all 50 of them together can only use the wand once per round.

Now if there were ONE of them then he could use it 50 times in one round.

SensFan
2009-10-07, 09:45 PM
So let me get this straight, Curmudgeon.

I am a decently-powered caster of some sort, and I go to a wizard I know and buy a Wand of Inivisibility. As soon as I leave the shop, someone I know is after me appears at the end of the street, running towards me.

Are you saying I can't cast Inivisibility on myself, since I have no way of 'determining' what spell is stored in the wand?
This got ignored, and I would like an answer, since to argue against me casting Invisibility is absurd.

Bogardan_Mage
2009-10-08, 01:22 AM
The letter of the rules seem to back you.
I disagree. The letter of the rules says that you need to "know" what spell the wand contains to use it. The rules is silent about whether or not this must be first hand knowledge. The whole argument comes down to a semantic debate about the nature of knowledge.

Therefore, allow me to say that the Platonic definition of knowledge is true justified belief. If my party Wizard casts Idenify on a wand and says it contains Magic Missile, then I am justified in believing him (and if he's telling the truth, that means I "know" it contains Magic Missile). If I see a Wizard activate a wand and produce a Magic Missile effect, I am justified in believing that the wand contains Magic Missile.

Alternatively, the Cartesian view holds that wands may never be activated because all sensory data is inherently unreliable and we can never truly know what spell it contains (or, for that matter, if it exists at all).

So what definition are you using, Curmudgeon? It seems arbitrary to me.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-08, 01:45 AM
So what definition are you using, Curmudgeon? It seems arbitrary to me.
I'm using the one popular in information security (and also such diverse sources as the Soviet Secret Police and the TV show CSI: Miami): Trust, but Verify.

Thespianus
2009-10-08, 02:08 AM
I'm using the one popular in information security (and also such diverse sources as the Soviet Secret Police and the TV show CSI: Miami): Trust, but Verify.

Then allow me to compare with an example from the information security industry, the MD5 hash.

You download a software package, and to verify that it hasn't been tampered with, you run an MD5 hash check on the package. If the MD5 signature given by the software provider matches the one you calculate for yourself, you can with reasonable safety say that the package hasn't been tampered with. This is good enough for most information security applications, wouldn't you agree?

However, you can not know (with your definition of "know") that your version of the package and the software provider's version are identical. They may have been altered in a way that generates the exact same MD5 hash. The chance for this to happen? Very very slim. But you don't KNOW.

Even if you verify with both a CRC and an MD5 hash, you can't know. Even with a PGP signed document, you can't know. All you can do is say "It's reasonable to assume that Alice really received this message from Bob"

So, no, you're using a much more strict definition of "know" than most information security applications would.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 03:28 AM
can you make an attack of opportunity to grab something from someone?
How about ready action to catch it when it is dropped (into your hand).
wizard 1: move: draw wand
standard: cast spell
free action: drop wand
wizard 2: readied action/move: catch wand/pick it up from floor
standard: cast spell
free: drop wand

repeat.

Or AoO against previous wizard to snatch his wand (is this possible?)

SensFan
2009-10-08, 02:05 PM
I'm using the one popular in information security (and also such diverse sources as the Soviet Secret Police and the TV show CSI: Miami): Trust, but Verify.
Why the heck would that be required in this case, even if you were right (see the post 2 above mine)?

Let's say I give you a disk of some sort (a wand), and tell you its a music CD (Cure Light). If you have a CD Player (Cure Light on your spell list) or some other way of playing a music CD, like a laptop (UMD ranks), you can try and listen to it (activate it). If its a music CD, you listen to music (cast the spell). If its not a music CD, nothing happens.

You're saying that if you didn't see the music put on that CD, or didn't hear it played, you can't play the CD.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-08, 03:00 PM
How is the "trust, but verify" definition required by raw?

How is the word knowledge used elsewhere in D&D? Even the knowledge skills merely represent a greater chance to know things, and there is no hint at the word using that definition anywhere in there.

I think it's a wee bit ludicrous to assume that they used different definitions of the word in different places, don't you?

Curmudgeon
2009-10-08, 05:23 PM
How is the "trust, but verify" definition required by raw?
It's not. That's just my shorthand for the longer dictionary definition of "know (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know)", because that term isn't defined in D&D.

How is the word knowledge used elsewhere in D&D? Even the knowledge skills merely represent a greater chance to know things, and there is no hint at the word using that definition anywhere in there.
If you want to stick to the defined D&D term, then it is impossible to have Knowledge of the spell contained inside a wand, since there is no DC defined for that use of the skill. If you take that tack, you lose.

SensFan
2009-10-08, 05:25 PM
Stop choosing the people that give straw-mannable arguments, strawmanning those, and ignoring everyone else.

Your stance flatly doesn't hold up. As everyone with common sense in this thread has explained to you.

Fendalus
2009-10-08, 05:28 PM
Common sense and RAW mix as well as oil and water in places. This, apparently, is one of them.

That said, I've got to agree with most of the people here in that Curmudgeon seems to have a very odd definition of know.