Looking for a way to use Wands while holding a Two-handed weapon...

[Yorae]

... that isn't a wand chamber.

Character in question is an existing human soulknife, so it's a bit hard to put a wand chamber inside the semisolid blade of energy.

Any ideas?

[gbprime]

Use a one handed weapon? :smalltongue:

[Yorae]

Use a one handed weapon? :smalltongue:

Haha, oops. Changed thread title to specify two-handed.

I know you can let go of a two-handed weapon with one hand as a free action (and then use that hand to cast a spell or something). The problem here is that I'd like to use a swift action wand and then immediately attack with my weapon with both hands (without using a move action to store the wand).

[Kaje]

Insectile template.

[Tyndmyr]

Wand Socket.

Edit: Duct Tape

Edit: Sovreign Glue

[Yorae]

Wand Socket.

Edit: Duct Tape

Edit: Sovreign Glue

Well played. I can just glue it to my hand! lol.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Wear spiked gauntlets and fit the wand chamber into the gauntlet

[Person_Man]

Third Arm: This magic item can hold things, and can attack if you power it with an Artificer infusion. There's a more expensive version that has two additional arms instead of just one. Magic of Eberron.

Spare Hand: Extra arm that can only hold things. Magic Item Compendium.

Alter Self: By starting out with an aberration, monstrous humanoid or outsider race (Elan, Neraph, or Anthropomorphic <blah> can be LA +0), you can alter into a Tako, Thri-Kreen, Diopsid, or some other multi-armed creature. Magical beasts such as Girallons are a little tougher. PHB.

Girallon's Blessing: Grow 2 extra arms. Spell Compendium.

Gloves of Man: While they don't give you hands themselves, they do allow tentacles or other non-arm appendages to manipulate objects as fully-functional hands with opposable thumbs. Unfortunately, they cost almost as much as Arms of the Naga. Savage Species p. 57, 42000 GP.

Prehensile Tail: You can use your tail attack as an arm. This is the most efficient way to qualify for Multiweapon Fighting, as there are half a dozen easy ways to get a tail attack. Serpent Kingdoms pg 147.

[gbprime]

Insectile is good.

Is this a custom made magic item? If so, what about paying 1.5x the normal wand price for an "uncustomary space". With that, you could make your Wand into a Ring instead. (Probably requiring the creator to have both feats, but not by RAW.)

[Havelock]

Swift action wands doesn't exist afaik. They all take a standard action (or more) to activate. Somewhere in MIC or whatever there might be exceptions, or maybe you just houseruled something.

Anyway, the way to go is to use gauntlets (which are weapons and thus entirely legal to put a wand chamber into). Put eager, warning and parrying on them (at least if you can sneak away with the XPH/SRD price rather than the MIC fix) for cheese.

[Hazzardevil]

I don't understand Incarnum very well, but can't you use Girralion's arms so you have an extra pair of arms? Then you can have a wand and three-hand a two-handed weapon, which I think would do X2 your strength modifier.

[Diefje]

Attach a piece of string to the wand that you loop around your wrist, like a weapon chain for your wand.

There's no tech like low tech

[Yorae]

Wear spiked gauntlets and fit the wand chamber into the gauntlet

This is a surprisingly simple solution They wouldn't necessarily need to even be spiked. I wonder if you could put a wand chamber into a mind blade gauntlet? Two birds with one stone!

Probably not since I suppose they aren't technically a weapon.


Swift action wands doesn't exist afaik.

Rules Compendium states that a wand takes the same amount of time to activate as it does to cast the spell it contains.


Attach a piece of string to the wand that you loop around your wrist, like a weapon chain for your wand.

There's no tech like low tech

Could work...

Although, a sudden idea occurs - how about a Glove of Storage? Storing or retrieving an item is a free action. Could wear the glove on my off hand, snap, use the wand, snap again, and voila.

Wasn't there a much cheaper (and better to boot) version of the Glove of Storage somewhere?

[tyckspoon]

Swift action wands doesn't exist afaik. They all take a standard action (or more) to activate. Somewhere in MIC or whatever there might be exceptions, or maybe you just houseruled something.


Rules Compendium, actually; removes the "or Standard" language from the spell-trigger rules, so it just says "takes the same action as the spell it contains."

I believe you can also put a wand chamber into a buckler, if you can live with the minor inconveniences of wearing one. Magic Item Compendium has the Casting Glove, which functions like a Glove of Storing but allows you to activate a magic item stored in it (kind of expensive option, tho.) And there's always the low-tech solution: Secure the wand to yourself via strap or chain or whatever. Use it and 'drop' it, then use Free Draw to manifest your soulblade.

[Psyren]

If you hold out a bit for Psionics Expanded, they are developing "crystal hilt" items you can use with your mind blade that should be able to hold a wand chamber.

[JaronK]

Swift action wands doesn't exist afaik. They all take a standard action (or more) to activate. Somewhere in MIC or whatever there might be exceptions, or maybe you just houseruled something.

True according to the DMG. Rules Compendium may have changed that, or not... it's not terribly well written on this point. The DMG has two rules: spells take the same time to cast via a wand as normal, and spells from a wand never take less than a standard action to cast. The Rules Compendium repeats that first rule but not the second. Sort of weird that way, because the RC should trump, but the DMG is more specific... so it's weird.

JaronK

[Psyren]

True according to the DMG. Rules Compendium may have changed that, or not... it's not terribly well written on this point. The DMG has two rules: spells take the same time to cast via a wand as normal, and spells from a wand never take less than a standard action to cast. The Rules Compendium repeats that first rule but not the second. Sort of weird that way, because the RC should trump, but the DMG is more specific... so it's weird.

JaronK

If there is a contradiction in an older book and they clarify it in a newer one, both RAW and RAI seem clear as day to me.

[JaronK]

If there is a contradiction in an older book and they clarify it in a newer one, both RAW and RAI seem clear as day to me.

Unfortunately, that's not how RAW works. By RAW, specific always trumps general. If two rules that contradict are equally specific, then the primary source (which is always the Rules Compendium, and if not that is the DMG, MM1, or PHB) trumps. In fact, other than the Rules Compendium, it's always the older book that trumps if it's just as specific.

So, if the Rules Compendium meant to get rid of the Standard Action limit, they should have specifically said so. As for RAI... not sure. They might have just forgot. There's a lot of vary dubious stuff in the Rules Compendium, and there's good reason I really don't like that book. It creates more problems than it solved (this is a great example... it was perfectly clear in the DMG).

JaronK

[Psyren]

So, if the Rules Compendium meant to get rid of the Standard Action limit, they should have specifically said so.

But they specifically state that RC trumps DMG.

"When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence."

I don't see how that can't be clear.

[JaronK]

But they specifically state that RC trumps DMG.

"When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence."

I don't see how that can't be clear.

Right... but precedence ONLY matters when they're equally specific. If the Rules Compendium just doesn't mention something (like the standard action limit) then it doesn't trump, because that never comes into play.

If the RC listed 10 feats, that doesn't mean all other feats don't exist.

JaronK

[Psyren]

Right... but precedence ONLY matters when they're equally specific.

No, the quote says that RC trumps if the rules differ. At all. That passage makes no mention of specificity.
The process is as follows:

1) Is the rule in two places? (Yes; both the DMG and RC have spell trigger rules.)
2) Do the two rules say different things? (Yes; DMG says standard action, RC says same as the spell.)
3) RC wins.

Plain and simple.


EDIT: RC never says anything about there being only 10 feats, so that example isn't relevant.

[Drelua]

I've got the perfect thing: Handy Wand Case (http://www.andycollins.net/Features/stuff_that_holds_stuff.htm). Cheaper than a Glove of Storing, and it holds six wands.

[JaronK]

No, the quote says that RC trumps if the rules differ. At all. That passage makes no mention of specificity.
The process is as follows:

1) Is the rule in two places? (Yes; both the DMG and RC have spell trigger rules.)

But the RC doesn't have any rule related to the standard action limit.

If a specific wand had a specific rule that it took 10 minutes to cast, would the RC trump that? Of course not, because it's more specific, and the RC doesn't say anything about that.


2) Do the two rules say different things? (Yes; DMG says standard action, RC says same as the spell.)

No. Both say wands take the same amount of time as the spell. The DMG has an additional rule that means wands never take less than a standard action.


3) RC wins.

RC doesn't even compete, because it doesn't talk about it.


EDIT: RC never says anything about there being only 10 feats, so that example isn't relevant.

It never says anything about a standard action limit on wands either, does it? There's lots of things the RC doesn't say. The RC does nothing for those... even when it's making a blanket statement where there's a more specific rule that overrides it.

Specific ALWAYS overrides general. See the rules on this particular subject. It's why Complete Warrior trumps the DMG on what happens when you lose the requirements for a PrC after you're already in the class... the DMG explicitly always trumps Complete Warrior, and yet Complete Warrior trumps here... because the DMG doesn't specifically mention this case, while CW does.

JaronK

[Keld Denar]

Caster Glove in MIC is like a Glove of Storage, except that you can use the item stored as if it were in your hand. They are like, 12,000g, though, which is kinda rediculous.

EDIT: JaronK, what do you think was intended by that phrase? Also, could it have been errata by omission? The act of consiously leaving out rules you want to disregard?

[Yorae]

Caster Glove in MIC is like a Glove of Storage, except that you can use the item stored as if it were in your hand. They are like, 12,000g, though, which is kinda rediculous.

EDIT: JaronK, what do you think was intended by that phrase? Also, could it have been errata by omission? The act of consiously leaving out rules you want to disregard?

Finally found it: Gloves of the Master Strategist from Ghostwalk. About a third of the price.

[Keld Denar]

Those don't let you use the item contained, do they?

FWIW, Ghostwalk is a 3.0 suppliment. Just sayin.

[Psyren]

But the RC doesn't have any rule related to the standard action limit.

It doesn't need one. It says "the same time as the spell" not "the same time as the spell unless the spell would take less time than a standard action, in which case you should use a standard action instead."

Making a swift action wand take a standard action to use would contradict the Rules Compendium ruling no matter how you try to twist it, because a swift action spell being forced into a standard action does not take the same amount of time as the spell.

[Yorae]

Those don't let you use the item contained, do they?

FWIW, Ghostwalk is a 3.0 suppliment. Just sayin.

Oh yeah, forgot it was 3.0.

Still, doesn't need to let you use it while contained, if its a free action to store and a free action to retrieve. Pop it out, use it, put it back. No actions wasted (unless I'm overlooking something obvious, which is quite possible).

[Fax Celestis]

FWIW, Ghostwalk is a 3.0 suppliment. Just sayin.

...a supplement with an official 3.5 update (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20031225a).


Page 71, Glove of the Master Strategist:
Add “Faint transmutation;” before “Caster Level.”
Is the only errata relevant to the item. It is completely usable.

[JaronK]

It doesn't need one. It says "the same time as the spell" not "the same time as the spell unless the spell would take less time than a standard action, in which case you should use a standard action instead."

Making a swift action wand take a standard action to use would contradict the Rules Compendium ruling no matter how you try to twist it, because a swift action spell being forced into a standard action does not take the same amount of time as the spell.

So, the DMG says you just qualify for a PrC when you qualify for it, and that's it... now your character always has those benefits. Complete Warrior says you can lose the PrC's benefits if you stop qualifying for it.

Losing the benefits of a PrC you no longer qualify for would contradict the DMG ruling no matter how you try to twist it, because not qualifying for a PrC after you're already in it and thus losing the benefits of it does not mean you still have the benefits of it.

Same argument, same logic. Guess which one is RAW?

As to intent... Honestly, I think the RC was so horribly written that they probably just rewrote the rules from the DMG and didn't notice there was another rule there. Removing the Standard Action limit is a completely arbitrary decision, which is not what the RC was supposed to be doing (it was supposed to be clarifying rules). So I doubt that was the intent. But I don't really know what the intent was. Could it be an errata by omission? Well, it would be the only example of an errata by omission in all of D&D, so that seems unlikely, but it's certainly possible.

Such confusion should not even be possible with a book purporting itself to be all about clarifying rules. There's good reason I really don't like that book. And there's good reason I always ask the DM in advance about using faster wand actions in any game I'm going to be in where I might want to make use of them.

JaronK

[Darrin]

Is the only errata relevant to the item. It is completely usable.

In addition to the Glove of the Master Strategist, there's the Kimono of Storing in Oriental Adventures (equivalent of two gloves, one for each sleeve). Dragon #318 updated OA to 3.5, and upped the price to 20K... but if your DM doesn't allow Dragon material, 4400 GP for the Kimono is a great bargain. (There is a separate OA Web Errata on the WotC website, but it didn't change the price of the Kimono.)

[Psyren]

So, the DMG says you just qualify for a PrC when you qualify for it, and that's it... now your character always has those benefits. Complete Warrior says you can lose the PrC's benefits if you stop qualifying for it.

Complete Warrior has no phrase about trumping the core rulebooks. This is one more irrelevant analogy.


There's good reason I really don't like that book.

That you personally dislike RC is also irrelevant, though it does explain quite a bit.