Sharing a wand for fun and profit

[Thespianus]

Seriously, that is the worst RAW/RAI argument I have heard in a long time. You can do better.

It gets even better since Clerics don't have Identify, and are therefore forever barred from using Wands.

Funny that.

[Curmudgeon]

Is that the "single work that must be spoken" a verbal component? I believe it is, since it doesn't state that it "can be a real word."

Verbal components apply only to spellcasting, not spell triggering. The trigger word can be used by characters who are not spellcasters, and thus don't know spell components at all.

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.)

Anyway, this is just a tangent anyway, because Spellcraft doesn't apply here.

Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.)

There's no mention of spells being triggered.

[Curmudgeon]

It gets even better since Clerics don't have Identify, and are therefore forever barred from using Wands.

Identify appears on the Magic and Oracle domain spell lists, and can also be obtained via Anyspell from the Spell domain. Analyze Dweomer appears on the Commerce domain spell list. The Commerce, Pact, and Wealth domains add Appraise to the Cleric's class skill list, and the feat Appraise Magic Value can identify magic items with an Appraise check. Finally, every Cleric has Divination on their spell list, which "can provide you with a useful piece of advice in reply to a question concerning a specific goal, event, or activity that is to occur within one week". Assuming you're planning on using a wand within a week, Divination should be able to tell you what spell it contains.

There are lots of ways a Cleric can determine a wand's contents.

[Thespianus]

There are lots of ways a Cleric can determine a wand's contents.

Ok. I understand this is your opinion. I would believe it's not shared with most 3.5 gamers, but ok.

EDIT: Let me update this. Instead of a Cleric, I give you a Druid. The Druid has Cure Light Wounds on his spell list, but he doesn't have Identify. He has no domains that he can get extra spells from, he doesn't have Appraise as his class skill, and he doesn't have Divination on his spell list.

So. No wands for you, Mr Druid, even if the sample NPC druids in the DMG are equipped with a Cure Light Wound wand. What an oversight from the game designers, huh?

[Tyndmyr]

Finally, every Cleric has Divination on their spell list, which "can provide you with a useful piece of advice in reply to a question concerning a specific goal, event, or activity that is to occur within one week". Assuming you're planning on using a wand within a week, Divination should be able to tell you what spell it contains.

There are lots of ways a Cleric can determine a wand's contents.

And how would divination work in a way that merely asking someone and receiving a correct response would not? If one works, wouldn't the other as well?

[Curmudgeon]

And how would divination work in a way that merely asking someone and receiving a correct response would not? If one works, wouldn't the other as well?

Well, gee, if I were a Cleric I'd probably trust an answer from my deity more than ... well, anybody.

[Tyndmyr]

Magic doesn't work due to trust.

[Thespianus]

Well, gee, if I were a Cleric I'd probably trust an answer from my deity more than ... well, anybody.

But it's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of "Does the trigger action for the wand work", rather than "Is my friend since 10 levels back lying to when he says that the command word is ZZap".

EDIT: Bah.. Ninjas.

[Curmudgeon]

Magic doesn't work due to trust.

I'm not so sure about that.

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.

If you know what spell is contained in wand you can trigger it. If you only kinda sorta think it's a certain spell because that's what your companion told you, you don't have that special knowledge.

[Thespianus]

I'm not so sure about that. If you know what spell is contained in wand you can trigger it. If you only kinda sorta think it's a certain spell because that's what your companion told you, you don't have that special knowledge.

Ok then I kill all wand magic by invoking the Demon of Descartes. We can't really be sure of anyting outside of our own mind, so absolute knowledge of the outside world is impossible, hence we can never know if the wand even exists.

It does kinda put a dampener on the game, though, doesn't it?

[Another_Poet]

Ok then I kill all wand magic by invoking the Demon of Descartes. We can't really be sure of anyting outside of our own mind, so absolute knowledge of the outside world is impossible, hence we can never know if the wand even exists.

It does kinda put a dampener on the game, though, doesn't it?

Best thread win ever.

[SensFan]

Curmudgeon,

I noticed that since I told you I can cite a rule about Magic Missile being visible (which implies most spells are visible), you stopped arguing. Will it take someone remembering/sumbling upon an obscure rule that you can 'know' what the wand does by someone telling you for you to stop arguing this point as well?

[Curmudgeon]

Curmudgeon,

I noticed that since I told you I can cite a rule about Magic Missile being visible (which implies most spells are visible), you stopped arguing.

I didn't see that, and I now see that you added it with an Edit. Please do cite the rule.

[SensFan]

I didn't see that, and I now see that you added it with an Edit. Please do cite the rule.

The edit was right after hitting submit.

As for the rule, I know I read it somewhere: UA maybe? Anyways, it was about how if Bob the Sorceror wants his Magic Missile to be a pair of gloves that smack the target upside the face, that was totally cool. It went on to warn that this was only within reason; having your Fireball look like blue flames is fine, having it look like a massive red dragon douses the target in flames isn't.

[Thespianus]

The edit was right after hitting submit.

As for the rule, I know I read it somewhere: UA maybe? Anyways, it was about how if Bob the Sorceror wants his Magic Missile to be a pair of gloves that smack the target upside the face, that was totally cool. It went on to warn that this was only within reason; having your Fireball look like blue flames is fine, having it look like a massive red dragon douses the target in flames isn't.

That's in the section in the DMG I was referring to earlier.

[Random832]

I'm not so sure about that. If you know what spell is contained in wand you can trigger it. If you only kinda sorta think it's a certain spell because that's what your companion told you, you don't have that special knowledge.

The "special knowledge" is your training in spellcasting ability in general (i.e. as part of it you have learned the proper way to wave wands around or whatever. It's part of the stuff you studied in your 2d6 years at cleric school) This clause does not refer to "special knowledge" about a specific wand and there is no way to twist it to make it so.

Back to the main question:

One definition of knowledge is a "justified true belief".
A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if, and only if:
1. P is true It is in fact a wand of magic missile
2. S believes that P is true, and Your friend told you it was and you don't in fact doubt them
3. S is justified in believing that P is true Your friend in fact has a good track record about these sorts of things, and/or he is backed up by multiple independent witnesses / a shop receipt / whatever

But anyway, the term "know" or "knowledge" isn't anywhere referring to what you must satisfy as regards to what the contents of the wand are:

"The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it."

I would argue that this is not a proper requirement at all, since it is given by analogy ("still") to spell completion, which does not in fact have a requirement to "determine what spell is stored in the item". ("decipher the writing" under the scroll section is the closest thing, and clearly doesn't apply to a non-written form of the spell, and doesn't call for identify anyway)

[Thespianus]

Opinions are like healing belts: Everyone's got one.

[PhoenixRivers]

Healing belts are useful.

Most opinions, however...

[Bogardan_Mage]

Curmudgeon, as many others have said but bears repeating, this is the type of situation your reasoning leads to:

DM: Among the treasure from your last encounter is a strange wand.
Wizard: I cast Identify.
DM: You identify it as a Wand of Magic Missiles.
Wizard: I don't really need that, I'll give it to the party Rogue who's maxed out his UMD.
Rogue: Sweet! I cast Magic Missile at the darkness!
DM: You can't do that! You don't know what kind of wand that is! You need to cast Identify yourself!
Rogue: But I'm a rogue, I can't cast that spell.
DM: Then you can't use wands! Ever!

[Thespianus]

Curmudgeon, as many others have said but bears repeating, this is the type of situation your reasoning leads to:

DM: Among the treasure from your last encounter is a strange wand.
Wizard: I cast Identify.
DM: You identify it as a Wand of Magic Missiles.
Wizard: I don't really need that, I'll give it to the party Rogue who's maxed out his UMD.
Rogue: Sweet! I cast Magic Missile at the darkness!
DM: You can't do that! You don't know what kind of wand that is! You need to cast Identify yourself!
Rogue: But I'm a rogue, I can't cast that spell.
DM: Then you can't use wands! Ever!

Letting the Rogue find a Wand of Identify might be the most ironic situation evvar.

[PhoenixRivers]

The rogue could, with a scroll of identify, lol.

[Curmudgeon]

DM: You can't do that! You don't know what kind of wand that is! You need to cast Identify yourself!
Rogue: But I'm a rogue, I can't cast that spell.
DM: Then you can't use wands! Ever!

Actually, the Rogue can always fall back on Use Magic Device's old reliable: Activate Blindly.

The Use Magic Device skill is for using magic items that you normally could not otherwise activate. Activating a wand has a DC of 20, as shown on the table in the Use Magic Device skill description. However, this assumes that you already know what spell the wand stores. If you don’t, you have to activate the wand blindly (DC 25). If you successfully activate a wand blindly, you know what spell it contains, and your subsequent attempts to activate that particular wand are at DC 20.

So one UMD check at DC 25, and then the rest are at DC 20.

[Thespianus]

Actually, the Rogue can always fall back on Use Magic Device's old reliable: Activate Blindly. So one UMD check at DC 25, and then the rest are at DC 20.

So a Rogue can use a wand created by a Druid, but the Druid who created the wand can't?

Because, the Druid who created the wand doesn't know that the creation of the wand actually worked, and there is no way he can find out what spell he actually put into the wand!

Even if the Rogue shows him that the newly created wand of Cure Light Wounds actually results in a Cure Light Wounds-spell being cast, the Druid can't use it, because he doesn't "know".

Good stuff.

[Curmudgeon]

Because, the Druid who created the wand doesn't know that the creation of the wand actually worked, and there is no way he can find out what spell he actually put into the wand!

There is no failure chance for Craft Wand. The Druid who creates a wand knows what spell it contains. And of course any Druid can take a feat like Appraise Magic Value and identify a wand in that way.

[Thespianus]

There is no failure chance for Craft Wand. The Druid who creates a wand knows what spell it contains.

Well, I guess you're right there. I stretched to silliness too far.

However, if the wand has ever been out of his sight, for example when he sleeps, he can't KNOW with absolute certainty that it's the same wand that he himself made. The Rogue might have switched it to another wand looking exactly the same. (We all know how Rogues are.)

So, even if the Rogue swears that he hasn't switched the wands, the Druid can't KNOW this to be true. Alas, poor Druid.

And of course any Druid can take a feat like Appraise Magic Value and identify a wand in that way.

Yeah, he can reach 5 ranks in Appraise when he's level 7, so he can take that feat as his 9th level feat, it's true. Until then he can't use wands of Cure Light Wounds, according to you.

Doesn't it seem a tad odd?

[Johel]

There is no failure chance for Craft Wand. The Druid who creates a wand knows what spell it contains. And of course any Druid can take a feat like Appraise Magic Value and identify a wand in that way.

(I quote this message because it's your last but what follows is true for most of the discussion here)

The letter of the rules seem to back you. And that's sad, since it's clearly not the spirit. But since the thread's subject is about the letter of the rule, you stand correct and nobody should use the "Common Sense" argument to prove you wrong.

Common sense should tell us that the whole "wand sharing between 50 persons" is impossible in 6 seconds (1 round). That's about 0,12 seconds for each wizard to :

• Grab a wand from somebody
• Point it at the target
• Scream something/Make a funny gesture
• Pass the wand to the next person

Even with training, that's at least 4 moves (not move actions, just moves) in the blink of an eye.

For the wand, rule-wise :
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wands.htm

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.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm

Spellcraft
You can identify spells and magic effects. The DCs for Spellcraft checks relating to various tasks are summarized on the table below. (...)
20 + spell level : Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm

Activate Blindly
Some magic items are activated by special words, thoughts, or actions. You can activate such an item as if you were using the activation word, thought, or action, even when you’re not and even if you don’t know it.

So, that's either a Identify spell (or similar divinations) or :

• Activate blindly : fire the spell from the wand, UMD, DC25
• Spellcraft : identify the spell through its effects, Spellcraft, DC 21

Now, since UMD is a trained only skill, your average druid will have to cooperate with a Wizard (or a Sorcerer, or a Bard, or a Priest with appropriate domain) to get an Identify spell. Or take lessons in UMD.

[Thespianus]

Common sense should tell us that the whole "wand sharing between 50 persons" is impossible in 6 seconds (1 round).

Well, obviously. The thread is a joke about a silly rule abuse that no one could ever get by a real DM.

I'll leave the "Identify-to-Know"-argument alone and continue to allow first level Druids to use wands of CLW.

[Johel]

Well, obviously. The thread is a joke about a silly rule abuse that no one could ever get by a real DM.

I'll leave the "Identify-to-Know"-argument alone and continue to allow first level Druids to use wands of CLW.

Hé !! Not saying it's not a good idea.
Just that 50 wizards is a bit overkill in 6 seconds.
10, maybe, with practice.
6 ? Sure !!

[Random832]

I can underline stuff from the SRD too.

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.

The first part i highlighted is because Curmudgeon incorrectly said you have to have "special knowledge" about the specific wand. Obviously that's not something that "any appropriate character" (as defined as anyone with it on their spell list) would know.

The second part is, as I pointed out: "Still" with reference to what? Spell completion (which it's called out as similar to) doesn't have a "must determine what spell is stored in the item" requirement in RAW, nor therefore any description of what this entails. The term "still" means this is not a new requirement for spell trigger activation but rather one carried over from the one it's being defined by comparison to.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, obviously. The thread is a joke about a silly rule abuse that no one could ever get by a real DM.

I'll leave the "Identify-to-Know"-argument alone and continue to allow first level Druids to use wands of CLW.

Look, if the DM lets me have 50 wizards, I suspect that them being able to share a wand is the least of his worries.