Dual or multi wielding wands

[25SoulX]

In 3.5e, If a spell caster cast girallon's blessing, and had the dual wield wand feat from the complete arcane would that spell caster be able to use 4 wands since two arms would be primary and the other two would be secondary, if not is there a way to build into a build that could do this? Any help with this would be most appreciated.

[Tzardok]

In 3.5e, If a spell caster cast girallon's blessing, and had the dual wield wand feat from the complete arcane would that spell caster be able to use 4 wands since two arms would be primary and the other two would be secondary, if not is there a way to build into a build that could do this? Any help with this would be most appreciated.

I would probably design a Multi-Wield Wand feat, just like there's Two-Weapon Fighting and Multi-Weapon Fighting. Wouldn't be that much different.

Also, you've got a little mistake in your assumption: a creature (almost; ettins for example are an exception) always has only one primary hand. All the others are secundary.

[25SoulX]

My mistake, I thought the spell said that the original 2 arms were considered primary. I'll have to tlk to my DM about allowing the multi wand feat. Is there any other way to gain the ability to do something like this? Preferably temporarily.

[aglondier]

Enchant an item with the spell effect, and add the feat effect to that. Fairly cheap to enchant a feat.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Not related to wands, but you might also be interested in the spell flower spell, which lets each individual arm hold a separate touch spell. Discharge them all in the first round of combat, then draw your wands and start blasting away!

[Drelua]

I don't think how many hands you have has anything to do with it. The activation time is still a standard action, or the casting time of the spell, whichever is longer. Wands are spell trigger activated, which means this according to the SRD:


Spell Trigger

Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

It's a standard action to activate a wand, singular, not as many wands as you can hold, or as many right hands as you have. You could be holding 20, it's still a standard action to activate one of them.

[Darg]

I don't think how many hands you have has anything to do with it. The activation time is still a standard action, or the casting time of the spell, whichever is longer. Wands are spell trigger activated, which means this according to the SRD:



It's a standard action to activate a wand, singular, not as many wands as you can hold, or as many right hands as you have. You could be holding 20, it's still a standard action to activate one of them.

Double wand wielder lets you activate 2 wands simultaneously. How that is supposed to work is more iffy. It says you spend a full-round to simply wield them. It doesn't say anything about using them other than expending extra charges. Sometimes I think feats require the description text to be part of the benefit text to make any sense of it. Even then though, it would have been nicer to be clearer in the text. Something like: Activating both wands require a full-round action (or the longer cast time spell. Which ever is longer.)

[Bayar]

I don't think how many hands you have has anything to do with it. The activation time is still a standard action, or the casting time of the spell, whichever is longer. Wands are spell trigger activated, which means this according to the SRD:



It's a standard action to activate a wand, singular, not as many wands as you can hold, or as many right hands as you have. You could be holding 20, it's still a standard action to activate one of them.

Rules compendium states that wands use the casting time for activation.

[Drelua]

Double wand wielder lets you activate 2 wands simultaneously. How that is supposed to work is more iffy. It says you spend a full-round to simply wield them. It doesn't say anything about using them other than expending extra charges. Sometimes I think feats require the description text to be part of the benefit text to make any sense of it. Even then though, it would have been nicer to be clearer in the text. Something like: Activating both wands require a full-round action (or the longer cast time spell. Which ever is longer.)

Right, sorry, forgot to look up the feat. Wow, that is badly written. I think this part stops this from working though:


with one wand designated as your primary wand and the other your secondary wand

It seems to say you have one primary wand and one secondary wand, I don't think the way it's written allows for multiple secondary wands. You could be holding a bunch of wands, you'd just have to pick 2 of them to activate when you use the action. Although if you have a swift action wand, you could activate that with one hand and then use the full-round action to activate 2 wands in your other hands, (thanks to the rules compendium thing I forgot about) so there is some advantage to having extra hands.

[Biggus]

Sometimes I think feats require the description text to be part of the benefit text to make any sense of it.

Absolutely they do, so do spells and magic items. A lot of people on this site seem to see "fluff" and "crunch" as completely separate, but it's clear from numerous examples that the game's designers don't think that way.