Eternal Wands and Dragonfire Adepts or Warlocks

[Brennan1612]

Eternal wands say that, "Any character who can cast arcane spells can activate the wand to use the spell contained in it, regardless of whether the sell appears on his class spell list."

Would a Dragonfire Adept's or Warlock's invocations (Spell-like ability) count for usability?

[Malphegor]

Probably not, as they’re not spells. But warlocks get UMD so it’s probably not an issue?

[Khedrac]

No, having access to spell-like abilities does not count as being able to cast spells.

This mainly comes up in prestige class qualification, but it is a general rule. As for UMD, DFAs also get it so it is a good option.

[Vizzerdrix]

As a side note, what is the name of the feat that allows casting a few cantrips? That may be enough to use eternal wands.

[thorr-kan]

As a side note, what is the name of the feat that allows casting a few cantrips? That may be enough to use eternal wands.
Magical Initiate, out of FRCS and...PGtF, I think? Forgotten Realms, though.

[Thurbane]

Might be obvious, but both of these classes get UMD as a class skill, and can use Eternal Wands that way.

[Jowgen]

Everyone is correct by most reasonable readings, but in the interest of balance I shall put on my devil's advocate hat and outline what argument I might use when trying to get this to fly at a table.

The Warlock and DFA might not actually have spells they can cast, but there are grounds to argue that they can be considered as such regardless. Their invocations -unlike most other SLAs- are explicitly called out as being arcane, so they do at the very least have Arcane Caster Levels. More importantly, there are multiple instances of abilities and other text that call them out as falling under the category of "Arcanists".

Thanks to Complete Arcane p. 4, Arcanist is a defined game-term: "Any character who can cast arcane spells. The term is essentially synonymous with “arcane spellcaster.”"

So while a Warlock/DFA would not be able to meet the requirement of being able to cast arcane spells of a specific level for prerequesite purposes, based on the fact they they are explicitly categorised as Arcanists, and Arcanist as a game term is defined as someone who can cast arcane spells, they arguably can meet requirements that only require being able to cast arcane spells without levels being specified.


Honestly though: the degree of distinction and game balance implications are so very minor, I think most reasonable DMs would be happy to handwave the issue even if they don't agree with the above argument.