wand of swift invisibility

[rye0006]

i'm playing a hexblade rogue and was thinking of using swift invisibility to allow me to sneak attack basically every round, though i was thinking that it will be better to cast from a wand owing to limited spells per day as a hexblade. its a 2nd level spell for a hexblade, but a 1st level for bard. do i have to pay 4500gp for a 2nd level wand or can i only pay 750gp for a 1st level?

[Cog]

A Bard wand would cost 1500 gp, but you could use it, yes.

[Douglas]

A Bard wand would cost 1500 gp, but you could use it, yes.
This is because Bards don't get level 1 spells until class level 2, btw, which means that the minimum caster level of the Bard wand is 2.

[rye0006]

this may be a stupid question, but i need to check before my dm accuses me of cheating - if i got a bard version of it in a wand for 1500 then, because its still on my spell list could i cast it freely or would i need to make a umd check?

[Cog]

Again, yes. What matters is that a spell with that name is on your class list.

[gbprime]

this may be a stupid question, but i need to check before my dm accuses me of cheating - if i got a bard version of it in a wand for 1500 then, because its still on my spell list could i cast it freely or would i need to make a umd check?

It doesn't matter who created the wand. If it's on your spell list, you can use it without a UMD check. Only the caster level of the wand and it's save DC will change.

[ericgrau]

The main concern is how many bards are there with both craft wand and swift invisibility on their spell list in the campaign setting? Wizard is the default by RAW. So basically the answer is "ask your DM". But if he says sure there's a bard who makes a living as a wand crafter then you should have no trouble using it without rolling any check. It only matters if the spell is on your class list. For wands there isn't even a distinction between arcane and divine.

[Gnaeus]

For extra gooey gross cheese:
A divine bard could also have it on his spell list
An Archivist could learn it from a divine bard, and cast it at level 1, for 750gp.
This one may not work. Only use it if you think your dm will not throw things.

[Cog]

For extra gooey gross cheese:
A divine bard could also have it on his spell list
An Archivist could learn it from a divine bard, and cast it at level 1, for 750gp.
This one may not work. Only use it if you think your dm will not throw things.
Unless they're different from Wizards, I think they have to learn it from a scroll - which makes it even cheaper (50 gp for a 1st-level Bard spell scroll).

[Elric VIII]

Unless they're different from Wizards, I think they have to learn it from a scroll - which makes it even cheaper (50 gp for a 1st-level Bard spell scroll).

I think he means that the Archivist makes the wand for the Hexblade and it only costs 750gp.

[Ernir]

The main concern is how many bards are there with both craft wand and swift invisibility on their spell list in the campaign setting? Wizard is the default by RAW. So basically the answer is "ask your DM". But if he says sure there's a bard who makes a living as a wand crafter then you should have no trouble using it without rolling any check. It only matters if the spell is on your class list. For wands there isn't even a distinction between arcane and divine.

You can cooperate to make magic items, so instead of finding a Bard with Craft Wand and Swift Invisibility on his spells known list, you could find a Bard with Swift Invisibility on his spells known list and any character who knows Craft Wand, and get them to work together. Easiest if you are one of the people involved.

[ericgrau]

Ah so a bit easier to convince the DM then.

[Grendus]

Do be forewarned that the wording on swift action wands in the DMG is... awkward. It says that most wands are a standard action, except for the ones that have a longer casting time. However, it should be noted that the only core spell with a casting time less than a standard action is Feather Fall (since there's no core-only way to craft a wand with Quicken Spell metamagic), so it probably wasn't something they thought to mention. It may have been errata'd since then though.

That said, if he allows swift action spells to be cast from wands, grab a Wand Chamber from Dungeonscape. Lets you store a wand inside your weapon, so you can cast it without having to find some way to draw, cast, and put back in one round.

[Eldariel]

Do be forewarned that the wording on swift action wands in the DMG is... awkward. It says that most wands are a standard action, except for the ones that have a longer casting time. However, it should be noted that the only core spell with a casting time less than a standard action is Feather Fall (since there's no core-only way to craft a wand with Quicken Spell metamagic), so it probably wasn't something they thought to mention. It may have been errata'd since then though.

Rules Compendium explicitly states a spell activation item takes as long as the spell.

[Greenish]

But if he says sure there's a bard who makes a living as a wand crafter then you should have no trouble using it without rolling any check.Wouldn't an artificer also work?

[Grendus]

Rules Compendium explicitly states a spell activation item takes as long as the spell.

Not sure which takes precedent by RAW, but that sounds about right.


Wouldn't an artificer also work?

If you're in Ebberon, sure, unless you've pissed off House Cannith you can probably get one commissioned. Greyhawk or Faerun you might have some difficulty, would require houseruling to even have Artificers in the world.

[Eldariel]

Not sure which takes precedent by RAW, but that sounds about right.

It's the primary source for rules, so yes.


If you're in Ebberon, sure, unless you've pissed off House Cannith you can probably get one commissioned. Greyhawk or Faerun you might have some difficulty, would require houseruling to even have Artificers in the world.

A high-level Warlock would also work and they are non-setting specific.

[CapnVan]

Rules Compendium explicitly states a spell activation item takes as long as the spell.

Wands aren't spell activation items, they're spell trigger items. Which takes a standard action.

DMG p.213.

[Greenish]

If you're in Ebberon, sure, unless you've pissed off House Cannith you can probably get one commissioned.Eh, it's not as if all the artificers work for House Cannith. I was more interested on whether Artificers can make the wand as a level 1 spell with CL 1, or if there's some clause that says wiz list takes precedence if a spell is on several lists.

[Killer Angel]

Wands aren't spell activation items, they're spell trigger items. Which takes a standard action.


Indeed, as also reported by srd. I don't know what Rules Compendium exactly says, but unless it modifies also the rules for spell trigger items, the shortest time is still a standard action.

[Eldariel]

Wands aren't spell activation items, they're spell trigger items. Which takes a standard action.

DMG p.213.

Rules Compendium changed those rules:

Page 9, Rules Compendium, footnote 2 (referred to in both, Spell Trigger and Spell Activation item activation actions - also, Command and Mental activations fall under this):
"Activating this sort of magic item takes the same amount of time as casting the spell the item’s power duplicates. If the power doesn’t duplicate a spell, activating the item is a standard action unless its description says otherwise. See note 16 for spells that have 1-round casting times."

[CapnVan]

Rules Compendium changed those rules:

Page 9, Rules Compendium, footnote 2 (referred to in both, Spell Trigger and Spell Activation item activation actions - also, Command and Mental activations fall under this):
"Activating this sort of magic item takes the same amount of time as casting the spell the item’s power duplicates. If the power doesn’t duplicate a spell, activating the item is a standard action unless its description says otherwise. See note 16 for spells that have 1-round casting times."

I don't have the Rules Compendium, so I'll take your word for it.

Anyone have any idea why they wouldn't change that in the SRD, then?

[Eldariel]

I don't have the Rules Compendium, so I'll take your word for it.

Anyone have any idea why they wouldn't change that in the SRD, then?

Apparently Rules Compendium isn't OGL so none of it has been put up on SRD. Same applies to lots of other stuff on SRD too, unfortunately. E.g. some of the Epic feats still stand in their 3.0 guise (Multispell doesn't do anything as written, for example) and their updates aren't on the SRD.

[Cog]

Anyone have any idea why they wouldn't change that in the SRD, then?
The Rules Compendium is not OGL material. The SRD sites are free to incorporate official errata for the OGL material only. This is why the Complete Psionic changes to XPH powers aren't in the SRD as well.

[Killer Angel]

Yep, srd contains only Core, Epic, Psionic and Divine rules. And Variant rules.