wand loophole

[Invader]

Duel wand wielder allows you to use 2 wands as a full round action with a wand in your off hand expending 2 charges instead of one.

Reckless wand wielder says that by expending an additional charge you can use a wand as if it's caster level was 2 higher that it actually is.

By the ambiguity of the wording couldn't you count the additional charge expended from the off hand wand to increase its effective CL?

Obviously it's definitely not RAI but it's lack of specifics seems like it would let you get away with it.

[shylocke]

Its two desperate abilities. You would have to pay the cost for both.

[Gotterdammerung]

the way wreckless wand wielders wording is set up, it requires you to use a charge to fuel the feat specifically. If you want it to work your way it would have had to say something like "anytime you spend an extra charge the wands caster level is raised by 2".

Although you could argue your point by stretching the language out of context, it would fly in the face of the general protocol for charge/use fueled abilities.

[Invader]

Its two desperate abilities. You would have to pay the cost for both.

Correct by RAI but what's to say I can't count one as payment for the other.

[shylocke]

If you have weapon focus wand and all that other stuff then argue for a synergy bonus like how having a high tumble give bonus ac

[weckar]

RWW says an 'additional' charge. It doesn't stipulate 'two' charges. So I would not let this fly.

[Gotterdammerung]

Correct by RAI but what's to say I can't count one as payment for the other.

It isn't JUST correct by RAI it is correct by RAW as well. You see sometimes you can justify multiple interpretations of RAW. In other words, unspecific wording allows for multiple translations. And since we don't have the author in front of us to pin down the correct meaning, ALL the interpretations are simultaneously RAW.

But in a scenario where multiple RAW interpretations are available, if one of those interpretations aligns with the RAI and the general protocol of the game, it is usually prudent to choose that interpretation as the most likely interpretation.

Now you could lean on your silly interpretation of the rules, and force the issue. But I wouldn't call it a reliable interpretation, and most TO threads would likely take issue with your interpretation, especially for any kinds of contests. And very few GMs would swing towards your interpretation.

In other words, you could dub this interpretation Weak RAW.

[Slipperychicken]

Since you're almost certainly playing an Wandificer and therefore swimming in wand charges, I'd rule that each feat takes a charge to use regardless of RAW.

Also, each feat wants you to spend an additional charge. It's kind of like how you can't spend the same dollar bill on two different products: they each cost one, so getting them both costs two.

[Nettlekid]

Correct by RAI but what's to say I can't count one as payment for the other.

Dual Wand Wilder says that each use of the secondary wand expends two charges. Two charges are used per use. By expending an additional charge, you can use Reckless Wand Wielder. Because that's what Reckless Wand Wielder says: expending an additional charge. Another charge, more than the charges you're spending. In this case, one more than two. Two plus one is three. By expending three charges, you can use both feats. Three. Not two. Three.

Psionics has a lot of stuff like what you're trying to do here. The whole "pay 1 extra PP for an extra d6 of damage, for every 2d6 extra damage increase the DC by 1" kind of thing. This doesn't work that way, though. There is no RAW basis for what you're trying to do. Arguments by RAW do not mean "If I redefine every word in this feat, can it be broken?"

EDIT: Guys, please, at least read the feats. Double Wand Wielder doesn't even say "expend an additional charge," it says that the off-hand wand costs two charges per use. There's no ambiguity to even be gained from the whole "expend an additional charge to activate all my feats that say 'expend a charge'" (which is still not RAW or RAI supported) because only one feat of these two requires the expenditure of an "additional charge," while the other sets a different base number of charges to expend per use.

[Invader]

Before we start hurling accusations I'm not tying to refine the wording or take advantage of anything. I'm not even using the feat in a build and I'm not arguing that it's how or it does or should work and as I already said I realize it's not RAI. I was simply asking if anyone else could see it acting the way I explained.

Personally I can see the the argument for how it would by how it's worded. This is simply a a question to see what everyone else thinks so there's no need to get all riled up about a friendly discussion.

[Invader]

EDIT: Guys, please, at least read the feats double Wand wielder doesn't even say "expend an additional charge," it says that the off-hand wand costs two charges per use.

For the record that's precisely what I said in my OP. I never claimed you "expend an additional charge" as you're quoting so I'm not sure if you're referring to me or someone else in the thread.

[Nettlekid]

Before we start hurling accusations I'm not tying to refine the wording or take advantage of anything. I'm not even using the feat in a build and I'm not arguing that it's how or it does or should work and as I already said I realize it's not RAI. I was simply asking if anyone else could see it acting the way I explained.

Personally I can see the the argument for how it would by how it's worded. This is simply a a question to see what everyone else thinks so there's no need to get all riled up about a friendly discussion.

for the record that's precisely what I said in my OP. I never claimed you "expend an additional charge" as you're quoting so I'm not sure if you're referring to me or someone else in the thread.

There is absolutely no basis in RAW in making the feats work in conjunction the way you want them to. That's the end of it, and any attempts at trying to force them to do so is to redefine words. Your claims weren't so preposterous, but I'm getting really sick of seeing ridiculous suggestions on this board about what you can do RAW, and then applying a dubious personal interpretation of RAW, which is not RAW.

And that second part, in my edit, was directed toward Slipperychicken et al.

[Zionara]

A lot of these discussions would never happen if people learned english, read the actual rules, and applied their brains before posting.

"So my Halfling is gonna take a level as Ogremage and then he will become a medium creature for ever."

[Invader]

A lot of these discussions would never happen if people learned english, read the actual rules, and applied their brains before posting.

"So my Halfling is gonna take a level as Ogremage and then he will become a medium creature for ever."

And insulting people's intelligence when they pose a simple question isnt productive at all.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm getting really sick of seeing ridiculous suggestions on this board about what you can do RAW, and then applying a dubious personal interpretation of RAW, which is not RAW.

And that second part, in my edit, was directed toward Slipperychicken et al.

I didn't try to pass off my suggestion as unambiguous RAW. I just said how I would rule it, then tried to take a stab at RAW in the next paragraph. The two just happened to coincide.

I usually try to make it clear when I'm stating an opinion (typically something like "this is how I'd rule it", or "it would be fair to..") and when I'm attempting to determine RAW. I'll try to be more clear about it in my future posts though.

[Nettlekid]

I didn't try to pass off my suggestion as unambiguous RAW. I just said how I would rule it, then tried to take a stab at RAW in the next paragraph. The two just happened to coincide.

I usually try to make it clear when I'm stating an opinion (typically something like "this is how I'd rule it", or "it would be fair to..") and when I'm attempting to determine RAW. I'll try to be more clear about it in my future posts though.

No, no, what my edit was referring to was when you said that "Also, each feat wants you to spend an additional charge," which is not true. Reckless Wand Wielder wants you to spend an additional charge, Dual Wand Wielder wants you to spend two charges. Although two charges is an additional charge more than the normal one charge, the OPs argument seemed to be rooted around spending "an additional charge" two fuel both feats, and I wanted to point out that (among other things) Dual Wand Wielder doesn't say "an additional charge," which is what you seem to say it says.

[KillianHawkeye]

Its two desperate abilities. You would have to pay the cost for both.

Are you trying to say that you'd only spend extra charges on a wand if it's an act of desperation? :smallconfused:

[Invader]

Are you trying to say that you'd only spend extra charges on a wand if it's an act of desperation? :smallconfused:

This entire thread was worth it just for this :smallamused: