Can a wand be used more than once per round?

[azhrei_fje]

Suppose a spellcaster uses a wand of fireball. Another spellcaster standing adjacent grabs the wand (which was voluntarily given by the first caster) and uses the wand again. This continues down a row of spellcasters.

Is this legal? I can find nothing that says a wand may be used only once per round, only that it requires a standard action to activate and that individual creatures could therefore only activate it once per round.

(I hope "Spells" was the right category for this. It also seemed to fit "Combat" -- being as it's round-oriented -- and "Equipment".)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sure, it's legal.

The only issue is how you're handing the wand back and forth. If it only takes a move action to hand it between people, then you can pull this off (i.e., use the wand; drop it in the square next to you; next guy picks it up, uses it, and drops it in the square next to him).

If, however, you can only drop things into your own square - and if you can only pick up items located in your own square - this becomes impossible beyond a few people.

 

[Dross]

The only issue is how you're handing the wand back and forth. If it only takes a move action to hand it between people, then you can pull this off (i.e., use the wand; drop it in the square next to you; next guy picks it up, uses it, and drops it in the square next to him).

Would you even need to drop the wand?

W1: uses wand, "free action: hold wand out for next person to grab"
W2: move action: to grab wand, standard action: use wand, "free action: hold wand out for next person to grab"
etc.

Granted this is purely a cosmetic change, but this would also allow breakable things like potions to be held out to grab.

 

[Gaiden]

The classic example of babies lined up by the thousands in test tubes

Your suggestion while not disallowed in the rules makes for the rather ridiculous scenario of 50 wizards in the back row of of an advancing army all in a row themselves adjacent to one another and passing a wand of fireballs down the line such that 50 fireballs are lobbed off in 6 seconds.

This is only ridiculous because of its inefficiency: if 50 wizards could do it, then 1 wizard could do it. To have a reality check to this scenario - there is the physical time it would take to pass the wand off, the time it would take the person to aim it, and then the act of speaking the command word.

Remember, the events in a round while handled sequentially are all taking place virtually simultaneously. Really, if there is a "handoff" I would most likely handle it as occuring at the point in initiative that the receiver took the object but not counting it in his/her possession until the following round (if it had already been manipulated/used by the giver).

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is only ridiculous because of its inefficiency: if 50 wizards could do it, then 1 wizard could do it. To have a reality check to this scenario - there is the physical time it would take to pass the wand off, the time it would take the person to aim it, and then the act of speaking the command word.

Remember, the events in a round while handled sequentially are all taking place virtually simultaneously.

I'm sixty feet away from my friend Bob, who is fighting a hobgoblin.

In this round:
Bob makes a full attack on the hobgoblin. The hobgoblin decides I look like a softer target, and uses a withdraw action to cover the sixty feet between us. I make a full attack on the hobgoblin.

Is this an unrealistic scenario? Would you disallow it?

Now what if instead, after Bob makes his full attack on the hobgoblin, the hobgoblin uses a withdraw action to travel sixty feet in a circle, ending up standing in front of Bob again. Can Bob make a second full attack on the hobgoblin in the same round?

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

Suppose a spellcaster uses a wand of fireball. Another spellcaster standing adjacent grabs the wand (which was voluntarily given by the first caster) and uses the wand again. This continues down a row of spellcasters... Is this legal?

3.0 DMG p. 62, "Keeping Things Moving: Simultaneity":

Sometimes it's important for you to impose ad hoc simultaneity.

This is one of those times.

 

[kjenks]

Sure, it's legal.

The only issue is how you're handing the wand back and forth. If it only takes a move action to hand it between people, then you can pull this off (i.e., use the wand; drop it in the square next to you; next guy picks it up, uses it, and drops it in the square next to him).

If, however, you can only drop things into your own square - and if you can only pick up items located in your own square - this becomes impossible beyond a few people.

What rule gives you the idea that you can only pick up items in your own square? You have a 5 ft. reach. You could make an unarmed strike on a prone opponent in any adjacent square. Surely you can pick up an item on any adjacent square just as surely as you could grapple a defenseless wand.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What rule gives you the idea that you can only pick up items in your own square?

Well, he did say "if"...

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

Ah, the old light-speed bucket. Get a line of people, all 5 feet apart. All after the first ready action to pass the bucket. The first person picks up the bucket. By the rules, there is no technical limit to how far this bucket can go, that includes past the speed of light.

In reality, The DM should just put practical limits on matter. I can see four apprentice wizards using a single wand in a round, or even 6. 50 is beyond reason to me. If a party were to use this trick, I would let it fly. If an army were to use it, I would say no.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What rule gives you the idea that you can only pick up items in your own square?

None - but I've seen lots of DMs who feel otherwise.

That's why I prefaced it with "If ..." twice ...