[3.5] Wandstrike

[Thurbane]

I'm not sure I understand the point/usefulness of the Wandstrike feat (CArc). If I'm reading it correctly, you use a standard action to make a melee touch attack for 1d6 damage, and can simultaneously trigger the wand - although the creature you struck must now be the target/centre of the spell effect.

Since the 1d6 specifically cannot be augmented with sneak attack (or any other means), this seems about a useful as nipples on a breastplate (to borrow a phrase). You're blowing a feat for a 1d6 touch attach?

Is there some application of this feat I am overlooking?

Cheers - T

[Psyren]

Nipples on a breastplate is a pretty apt analogy (but don't tell Batman that.)

...Okay, it is technically a roundabout way to let you use your Str score to hit with a ray instead of your Dex - but Dex being the more useful stat, this seems like a step backwards to me.

It's also an extra 1d6 at first level, if you somehow managed to get a wand. That's like another Shocking Grasp! Or something.

[hex0]

It is a pretty horrible feat. You might be able to get some use out of it as a Duskblade since if you hit with a ray with the melee touch attack, it automatically hits. I dunno if you could squeeze a bizarre build out of it...maybe double wand wielder it might work. But....meh.

The whole (not a sneak attackble action) is stupid since you can already sneak attack with a wand.

[NNescio]

Wouldn't it also burn through charges at twice the normal rate? The feat says that "you can activate the wand as part of the attack," but I don't see any provision that activating the wand wouldn't consume another charge.

[Thurbane]

Wouldn't it also burn through charges at twice the normal rate? The feat says that "you can activate the wand as part of the attack," but I don't see any provision that activating the wand wouldn't consume another charge.
I believe you are correct, but if you only wanted the 1d6, it would only be 1 charge. You'd improve the damage potential of a 0-level wand like Acid Splash, I guess.

[hex0]

I believe you are correct, but if you only wanted the 1d6, it would only be 1 charge. You'd improve the damage potential of a 0-level wand like Acid Splash, I guess.

That's true. But still it wears off as a feat after the early levels. :smallannoyed:

[panaikhan]

I don't have that book, so I'm grasping here.
Is the target automatically effected by the wand if you activate it?
It might be useful to exchange the standard to-hit of a spell into a touch attack, at the cost of a charge.
What kind of damage is the 1D6? would it bypass damage reduction?

[CTrees]

Does using a wand while threatened normally provoke an attack of opportunity? Because this would seem like it doesn't. Nope, it looks like wands don't normally provoke.

Hrm...

Um... I got nothing, actually. WotC made a lot of truly terrible feats, so I think I'd just chalk this up to being another one of those.

[Psyren]

I don't have that book, so I'm grasping here.
Is the target automatically effected by the wand if you activate it?
It might be useful to exchange the standard to-hit of a spell into a touch attack, at the cost of a charge.

Provided you hit them, yes the spell would land. But spells are usually touch attacks anyway, so you gain nothing. In fact, you actually lose hit chance by doing this - for most spellcasters, Dex tends to be higher than Str, but without Weapon Finesse you'll be using your Str to hit with this even with a spell that is normally a ranged touch attack (like a ray.)

If you had a spell that was normally an attack roll this could improve its chances - say, a wand of Decapitating Scarf. But such spells are rare.

And targeted spells (like Magic Missile) don't need an attack roll at all, so you're adding a chance to miss or fumble for little gain.



What kind of damage is the 1D6? would it bypass damage reduction?

It's ambiguous. The damage appears to be magical (since you expend a charge from the wand to produce it) but it is not explicitly stated, nor is the feat itself explicitly supernatural or otherwise magical. If it is not magical, then the bonus damage would be subject to damage reduction. It's unclear and depends on your DM, though I wouldn't bother.

[FMArthur]

Wandstrike would be awesome if it had anything to do with a regular attack routine instead of being its own action. Same with Double Wand Wielder. I once had to handwave both of those things to let a stubborn and insane player of mine actually remain functional as a combatant.

[Crasical]

Wandstrike would be awesome if it had anything to do with a regular attack routine instead of being its own action. Same with Double Wand Wielder. I once had to handwave both of those things to let a stubborn and insane player of mine actually remain functional as a combatant.

I seem to remember hearing a story about a player who took Wandstrike, Double Wand Wielder and either Monkey Grip or Oversized TWF and went around beating people with a pair of Large sized wands for 1d8 damage. Was that this guy?

[Psyren]

a pair of Large sized wands

So, Staves? (...Rods?)

[Piggy Knowles]

Going out on a limb here, in hopes of eking some usefulness out of this, but...

...the feat says that if it is a targetted spell, the creature you hit is considered the target. However, it doesn't actually specify that it has to be a LEGAL target in order to work. Could you use this to bypass the spell's normal "target" line?

The first thing that comes to mind is doing something silly like using Wandstrike to hit someone with Animal Messenger (which normally targets a tiny animal), although the text of Animal Messenger probably precludes this from working. But still, there are probably other spells that might work.

Perhaps use it to make personal-only buffs effect your teammates? Take some minor damage... but unleash the fury!

[FMArthur]

I seem to remember hearing a story about a player who took Wandstrike, Double Wand Wielder and either Monkey Grip or Oversized TWF and went around beating people with a pair of Large sized wands for 1d8 damage. Was that this guy?

Yes. It was the first post in a "worst builds players have shown you" thread I started. None of it works at all; the actions interfere and wands can't really be Large (and Wandstrike didn't really have anything to do with size...). Each had to be houseruled otherwise.

The worst part came later when he realized (had pointed out to him) that simply picking plain damage spells didn't actually make his ridiculous gimmick any different in effect from a normal combat brute. Being the excellent planner that he was, he then decided that he should use area of effect damage spells to differentiate himself, and died to a single goblin's spear after laying into a crowd with two Fireball wands the next session.

[Machinekng]

Question:

For the purpose of Wandstrike, does the wand count as a melee weapon? If so, it would be able to be used with the Duskblade's Arcane Channeling to use 2 spells at once?

[Manateee]

Question:

For the purpose of Wandstrike, does the wand count as a melee weapon? If so, it would be able to be used with the Duskblade's Arcane Channeling to use 2 spells at once?
It's not an attack; it's a standard action of its own.

[King Atticus]

Being the excellent planner that he was, he then decided that he should use area of effect damage spells to differentiate himself, and died to a single goblin's spear after laying into a crowd with two Fireball wands the next session.

That's awesome...I was laughing so hard it brought tears to my eyes. :smallbiggrin:

[RagnaroksChosen]

I thought wandstrike could be used with a hideous blow? which makes it slightly better but. Just a thought.

I had a lot of fun with it regardless of legality.

[NNescio]

I thought wandstrike could be used with a hideous blow? which makes it slightly better but. Just a thought.

I had a lot of fun with it regardless of legality.

Same problem applies.


It's not an attack; it's a standard action of its own.

In any case, Hideous Blow still blows... hideously.

[Aharon]

Going out on a limb here, in hopes of eking some usefulness out of this, but...

...the feat says that if it is a targetted spell, the creature you hit is considered the target. However, it doesn't actually specify that it has to be a LEGAL target in order to work. Could you use this to bypass the spell's normal "target" line?

The first thing that comes to mind is doing something silly like using Wandstrike to hit someone with Animal Messenger (which normally targets a tiny animal), although the text of Animal Messenger probably precludes this from working. But still, there are probably other spells that might work.

Perhaps use it to make personal-only buffs effect your teammates? Take some minor damage... but unleash the fury!

That's an awesome idea. Totally unintended, but I think it should work.

[Strormer]

My theory would be, and my table ruling would be if I had a player with this feat, that the wandstrike could be used when grappled since the wand would already have to be in the player's hand and it is a tiny object. So in that one instance a wizard could gain a rather good benefit. Say a wizard is grappled meaning that any somatic spell is screwed, he could wandstrike for 1d6 and hit with whatever spell he has in the wand which could stun or daze or whatever giving him time to get loose and flee behind something meaty and violent.

Outside that, yeah, if personal range buffs could work from it then it would be something, but that's about it.

[NNescio]

My theory would be, and my table ruling would be if I had a player with this feat, that the wandstrike could be used when grappled since the wand would already have to be in the player's hand and it is a tiny object. So in that one instance a wizard could gain a rather good benefit. Say a wizard is grappled meaning that any somatic spell is screwed, he could wandstrike for 1d6 and hit with whatever spell he has in the wand which could stun or daze or whatever giving him time to get loose and flee behind something meaty and violent.

Outside that, yeah, if personal range buffs could work from it then it would be something, but that's about it.

You could just activate the wand instead of trying to strike your opponents with it, assuming it's already in your hand. Has a better chance of succeeding for most spells anyway. So unless you absolutely must need the +1d6 damage...

[panaikhan]

Are there any spells where the actual hitting is the issue?
I can only think of Acid Arrow, though that might be in 3.0

One thought - you could hurt a monster with a wand of something it was normally immune to...

[Strormer]

You could just activate the wand instead of trying to strike your opponents with it, assuming it's already in your hand. Has a better chance of succeeding for most spells anyway. So unless you absolutely must need the +1d6 damage...

True, I just meant if I had a player that had this feat and wanted to get something out of it, that'd look kinda cool in my head, but you are correct.

[ericgrau]

It's not 1d6 damage total, it's +1d6 damage which is normally well worth it... assuming a wand combatant is worth it. Dual wand wielder seems good for double spells. Can that make a viable build? Can you add wandstrike onto that for +2d6? That'd be nice.

[Manateee]

One benefit it might have is a simultaneous spell + poison delivery system.

Are there any other tagalongs that can be worked into it?

[Strormer]

Why don't we try to build ourselves a viable wandstriker? This could be an interesting build. What class should we start with? I'm leaning towards artifacer for making lots of useful wands on the cheap as well as thematic congruity.

[Manateee]

Artificer would be pretty trivial. Just build it as a standard controller/debuffer, and whip out the wandstrike during the cleanup phase of combat - once everything's shut down and it's just a formality to tear things apart alongside the Fighter and Rogue.

Lurk Augments look like they'd also work with this... I'm getting an idea for an absolutely terrible (but maybe playable?) character to save for later.