Can a wand be used more than once per round?

[azhrei_fje]

"The light-speed bucket", eh? I hadn't heard that, but it certainly seems apropos.

I think I agree with the imposition of simultaneity. During a single round, the wand can only be used a single time because the action occurs at the same time as other actions.

It feels ... "arbitrary" ... because other things in combat are clearly not simultaneous (the attack-move-attack mentioned above).

It also makes the party more powerful. If a single wand can be passed around during a single round, effectively every wizard in the party has such a wand. This is equivalent to increasing the asset value of each party member. At lower levels, this gives the party a higher APL due to their larger resources. The party will be victorious more often again ELs that are supposed to be challenging, so the DM has to increase the EL, which increases the corresponding treasure reward. AN ever-increasing ramp-up of power.

If/when this comes up again, I'm going to rule that the wand can only be used once per round. I might allow a character to delay until an initiative point in the following round, then use their action that round on the wand (since they sacrificed their turn in the previous round), but the wand would still be usable only once. (Hmm. Maybe not. I need to think on this a bit more.)

Thanks, everyone! There were a few things mentioned that I hadn't considered!

 

[Mistwell]

You might consider allowing twice per round. A round is 6 second. It's only a simple move action while standing in place to grab the wand. Seems perfectly reasonable to be able to use the wand twice between two people, 3 second each.

 

[LokiDR]

"The light-speed bucket", eh? I hadn't heard that, but it certainly seems apropos.

A very old exploit pointing out the rules are imperfect.

I think I agree with the imposition of simultaneity. During a single round, the wand can only be used a single time because the action occurs at the same time as other actions.

Simultaneity is a myth. These actions don't occure at the same time, or we would have to declare them all at the top of the order then act. If I down monster A and you were also attacking monster A, simultaneity says you also attack said creature I just downed, not run off to monster B as you should. We know that doesn't happen.

It feels ... "arbitrary" ... because other things in combat are clearly not simultaneous (the attack-move-attack mentioned above).

You can see why players might disagree. The light speed bucket doesn't work, but you can still pass a bucket to several people in a round. Not miles, mind you, but certainly more than one.

It also makes the party more powerful. If a single wand can be passed around during a single round, effectively every wizard in the party has such a wand. This is equivalent to increasing the asset value of each party member. At lower levels, this gives the party a higher APL due to their larger resources. The party will be victorious more often again ELs that are supposed to be challenging, so the DM has to increase the EL, which increases the corresponding treasure reward. AN ever-increasing ramp-up of power.

Hmm, does it though? Those charges are rather expensive, and at most the average party isn't going to use it more than a few times in a round anyway. Remember, two half-full wands has the same cost as one full wand. This trick doesn't allow more charges then before, just more charges to be used up faster than before.

Is it effective? Yes. Is it more effective than other tricks of ability synergy, like a wizard buffing the fighter? I don't think so. You can rule as you wish (its your game) but I think the rules are relatively clear that more than one person could use the wand.

 

[dcollins]

Simultaneity is a myth. These actions don't occure at the same time, or we would have to declare them all at the top of the order then act. If I down monster A and you were also attacking monster A, simultaneity says you also attack said creature I just downed, not run off to monster B as you should. We know that doesn't happen.

3.0 DMG p. 69, "Movement":

Although there's no way to avoid representing movement in a start-stop-start-stop fashion, try to keep in mind -- and try to stress to the players -- that actually all movement throughout an encounter is fluid and continuous.

Duly stressed.

 

[vulcan_idic]

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).

I would think this could not happen, at least not in a single round, because initiatives statistically would not align with whatever line they had set up thus breaking up the 50 into at least 2 rounds.

 

[diaglo]

so who won init in your line of wizards?

waiting for the last wizard to go... means eventually the bad guys get to act too.

edit: imagine this line of wizards... init: 3 14 16 7 10 1 24


the 3 init guy has the wand. so... just how does your scenario work?

 

[Deset Gled]

Simultaneity is a myth.

Too true. Simultaneity is a property of reference frame.

 

[Azul]

so who won init in your line of wizards?

waiting for the last wizard to go... means eventually the bad guys get to act too.

edit: imagine this line of wizards... init: 3 14 16 7 10 1 24


the 3 init guy has the wand. so... just how does your scenario work?

All the wizards after the first delay their initiative so they act in the correct sequence (delay - p.160 PHB). It work per RAW.

I've had to rule on rapidly swapped wands (or other items) before. Occasionally, I'll tolerate using the wand and handing it off to another PC for use (especially if it helps the gave flow well) but whenever I feel the players are abusing it, I simply rule that the wand needs a few seconds before its ready to be used again/attunes to you (i.e. it won't work until your next turn). It's an ad hoc thing but it work out well enough.

For me, the main issue is "is it dramatically appropriate or does it feel like silly rules abuse". Handing off a wand once (typically to someone else who can better use it in this instance), probably just a reasonable move. Handing it back and forth so both get to use it (or doing the daisy chain thing), not cool and I use DM's fiat to prevent it.

 

[diaglo]

All the wizards after the first delay their initiative so they act in the correct sequence (delay - p.160 PHB). It work per RAW.

I've had to rule on rapidly swapped wands (or other items) before. Occasionally, I'll tolerate using the wand and handing it off to another PC for use (especially if it helps the gave flow well) but whenever I feel the players are abusing it, I simply rule that the wand needs a few seconds before its ready to be used again/attunes to you (i.e. it won't work until your next turn). It's an ad hoc thing but it work out well enough.

For me, the main issue is "is it dramatically appropriate or does it feel like silly rules abuse". Handing off a wand once (typically to someone else who can better use it in this instance), probably just a reasonable move. Handing it back and forth so both get to use it (or doing the daisy chain thing), not cool and I use DM's fiat to prevent it.

and what about the 1 init guy. so they all delay and then the 24 init guy delays until after the 1. still... if the bad guys have init 4. i'd kill the second guy in line.

 

[LokiDR]

3.0 DMG p. 69, "Movement":



Duly stressed.

That would be nice, but it makes no sense in terms of rules mechanics. That IS a good way to look at the game to have fun, but it completely fails to explain how the combats proceed.