Wandstrike=1 or 2 charges?

[Legendairy]

Wandstrike
( Complete Arcane, p. 84)

[General]

You can channel the magical energy of a wand through your melee attacks.

Prerequisite: Use Magic Device 4 ranks,

Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a melee touch attack with a wand, expending one charge to deal 1d6 points of damage to the creature struck. You apply no extra damage to this attack regardless of its source (including sneak attack, favored enemy, and smite bonuses), but you can activate the wand as part of the attack. If the spell cast from the wand is a ray or a targeted spell, the creature struck is the spell's target (with ray spells hitting automatically). If the spell affects an area or creates a spread, you can designate the spell's point of origin at any grid intersection point of the creature's space (but doing so might put you in the affected area). Spells with an effect that does not cover an area (such as the various summon monster spells) cannot be used with a wandstrike attack.

Well there is how it is written, so my question is 1 charge or 2? It says 1 to do the d6 damage and as part of the attack you can activiate the wand, so does that mean you have to expand another charge to get the wand to do what its intended? Well thank you all in advance.

[Fax Celestis]

You can spend 1 charge to get the extra d6. Doing so gives you the opportunity to spend a second charge to cast the spell.

[Legendairy]

Thats how I read it as well, makes it a dumb feat :smallbiggrin: IMO

[Crasical]

Technically you could use with a cheap 0th level spell wand instead of trying to hit them with your staff or a dagger.

[Fax Celestis]

It's a little dumb, but the auto-hit clause has its uses. Take, for instance, a wand of charm person. Smack them upside the head and you now have a buddy. Or maybe a wand of hold person. Now you have a stun baton.

I have seen this feat put to hilarious use with eternal wands and a bloodstorm blade: throw your eternal wand of inflict critical wounds, hit them as a touch attack, spend two charges for 1d6+4d8+7. Or use it with curative/buff touch-range spells to deal 1d6 but then buff your buddy from range. It's kind of a niche situation, but there are some really interesting things that can be done in that space. If you go artificer for a bit, take the Metamagic Spell Trigger feat, or get some metamagic wand sheathes, it can get pretty ludicrous.

[ericgrau]

Isn't there some kind of dual wand feat that makes it better?

The advantage isn't the d6. It's that you get a wand spell AND a d6 in the same turn. It's like a minor quickened spell. If wands weren't lousy for attack spells this would be powerful. If there are more feats to boost offensive wands then offensive wands could become worth using. It's not about the measly cost of a wand charge, it's about doing something that's as good as whatever else you might spend your turn on.

[Venger]

Isn't there some kind of dual wand feat that makes it better?

The advantage isn't the d6. It's that you get a wand spell AND a d6 in the same turn. It's like a minor quickened spell. If wands weren't lousy for attack spells this would be powerful. If there are more feats to boost offensive wands then offensive wands could become worth using. It's not about the measly cost of a wand charge, it's about doing something that's as good as whatever else you might spend your turn on.

yes, there is a feat called "double wand wielder" but whether it makes it better depends on whether you can use both wands in one turn. there doesn't seem to be any language in the feat that says this would be true.

{{Scrubbed}}

while there may not be a lot of options for offensive wand use as opposed to defensive/buff/curative, you can shoehorn enervation in there, and that's good for anything living.

[dextercorvia]

What if the Wand was in the wand chamber of a spell storing weapon? Could you get both with the same touch attack?

How would it play with a Rod of Many Wands?

[ericgrau]

yes, there is a feat called "double wand wielder" but whether it makes it better depends on whether you can use both wands in one turn. there doesn't seem to be any language in the feat that says this would be true.

http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-arcane--55/double-wand-wielder--692/

while there may not be a lot of options for offensive wand use as opposed to defensive/buff/curative, you can shoehorn enervation in there, and that's good for anything living.
The feat language implies it, and the summary text says "You can activate two wands at the same time"; it's not like a situation where the specific text contradicts the summary. So now it's like a quickened spell plus 2d6 quickened damage. Double wand damage plus 2d6 might be worth it. Though ranged double enervation might be better than the risks of melee for only 2d6.

[Mystify]

It's a little dumb, but the auto-hit clause has its uses. Take, for instance, a wand of charm person. Smack them upside the head and you now have a buddy. Or maybe a wand of hold person. Now you have a stun baton.
It says ray spells hit automatically, not that there is no save.

[Fax Celestis]

It says ray spells hit automatically, not that there is no save.

There are ways around that.

[Venger]

The feat language implies it, and the summary text says "You can activate two wands at the same time"; it's not like a situation where the specific text contradicts the summary. So now it's like a quickened spell plus 2d6 quickened damage. Double wand damage plus 2d6 might be worth it. Though ranged double enervation might be better than the risks of melee for only 2d6.

Perhaps I misspoke. I did get the vibe that RAI was to use two wands in the same turn. What I was a little hazy on was what sort of action that represented. Is it a standard? a full-round? what it boils down to is can one move and also use double wand wielder in one turn? if so, then a wandstrike double wand wielder could be an absolute machine.

if not, then it's still powerful, don't get me wrong, it just makes the wandstrike part of the equation a little less appealing. while melee wizards are obviously possible, they require a bit more planning than the normal kind.


It says ray spells hit automatically, not that there is no save.

true indeed. however, some ray spells don't have a save (like enervation) and using 2 enervation wands via wandstrike is tantamount to twinning the spell as far as action economy goes without the ludicrous metamagic cost.

[hymer]

@ Fax Celestis: Can you bear to enlighten a mere pixie with some of those ways?

[Alienist]

Perhaps I misspoke. I did get the vibe that RAI was to use two wands in the same turn. What I was a little hazy on was what sort of action that represented. Is it a standard? a full-round?



Benefit: As a full-round action, you can wield a wand in each hand (if you have both hands free), with one wand designated as your primary wand and the other your secondary wand. Each use of the secondary wand expends 2 charges from it instead of 1.


It is a full round action.

Unfortunately, technically speaking that makes it completely incompatible with Wandstrike, which specifies that it is a standard action.

What Wandstrike could do, apparently, is break the full round casting requirement.... unfortunately the most obvious use of that (summon monster(s)) is explicitly ruled out by the feat text.



what it boils down to is can one move and also use double wand wielder in one turn? if so, then a wandstrike double wand wielder could be an absolute machine.

if not, then it's still powerful, don't get me wrong, it just makes the wandstrike part of the equation a little less appealing. while melee wizards are obviously possible, they require a bit more planning than the normal kind.


If you decided to waive or bend the standard action restriction from Wandstrike, say for instance to allow a standard and a swift to be used in the same turn or via Double Wand Wielder, then the second restriction kicks in, and the secondary wand would expend two charges to do 1d6 and another two charges to do the spell effect.

At that point you're potentially spending 6 charges a round (2 from primary, 4 from secondary), which seems like an expensive way to break the action economy.

An alternative (and rules legal) way to get two wand blasting (note: not melee!), is to have one of the wands use a standard action to activate, the other uses an immediate or swift. No feats required. No extra charges expended.

[Waddacku]

That using two wands with Double Wand Wielder is a full-round action and Wandstrike is a standard action would seem to render them incompatible.

[Cerlis]

my main thought is that the wand strike is a touch attack, while most wands are touch attacks or targeted abilties. The fact that you auto hit doesnt matter in the slightest, since if it was a wand of Status-effect you could have just used it from 60 feet away, while if it was say a Ray you would have hit with the touch attack anyways.

if wands dont provoke an attack of opportunity, then the only benefit is an extra d6 of dmg (as opposed to say, 10d6 if you used that charge later)

[Mystify]

my main thought is that the wand strike is a touch attack, while most wands are touch attacks or targeted abilties. The fact that you auto hit doesnt matter in the slightest, since if it was a wand of Status-effect you could have just used it from 60 feet away, while if it was say a Ray you would have hit with the touch attack anyways.

if wands dont provoke an attack of opportunity, then the only benefit is an extra d6 of dmg (as opposed to say, 10d6 if you used that charge later)
This is why I never bothered trying to do anything with wandstrike.

[Fax Celestis]

Like I said earlier, coupling it with bloodstorm blade makes it more interesting, since it basically lets you turn short-range or melee touch spells into long-range touch spells.

[dextercorvia]

About the only thing I can see it being vaguely useful for is an E6 character that doesn't get a second iterative -- but has a good activated on a hit ability). Similar cost to TWF, but maintains mobility and increases accuracy by being a touch attack. Of course, the benefit of this over just using a Wand with a ray, is only that you can benefit from flanking, or trigger a melee attack rider.

Can anyone think of a melee attack that isn't just extra damage like sneak attack? Bladeweave is all I can think of off the top of my head.

[kme]

As Crasical said, its only use is to replace your weapon with this slightly better attack using wands of cantrips or 1st level spells whose effects usually don't surpass 1d6 damage.

At level 2 rogue can use wand of ray of frost to hit for 1d6 + 1d3 and adding SA too (added to the ray not the 1d6 effect). Touch attack instead of normal, and 1d3 instead of your STR compared to using a shortsword. Or you can use a wand of daze.

[dextercorvia]

As Crasical said, its only use is to replace your weapon with this slightly better attack using wands of cantrips or 1st level spells whose effects usually don't surpass 1d6 damage.

At level 2 rogue can use wand of ray of frost to hit for 1d6 + 1d3 and adding SA too (added to the ray not the 1d6 effect). Touch attack instead of normal, and 1d3 instead of your STR compared to using a shortsword. Or you can use a wand of daze.

You can't apply SA to the ray, since it autohits -- SA requires an attack roll. The only roll you are making is for the 1d6, which specifically disallows sneak attack and other extra damage.

[kme]

You are correct. Hmm, then I guess it is only useful when you don't qualify for SA or you simply can't hit their non touch AC. Or you can use it with some strong first level spells for this situation. Power word pain and sunstroke come to mind.

I guess the quick fix would be to lower the prereqs to only 2 ranks and make it 1d6 per spell level.