Can a wand be used more than once per round?

Azul said:
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.
DM's fiat isn't a RAW issue, but I know what you mean. However, would it really be so bad to allow two guys to swap a wand back and forth? I can imagine a 'spell-brothers' party or even organization devoted to this useful tatic. When does a good tatic become abuse?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

LokiDR said:
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.

Well, anytime you detect a situation where you think that the general rules mechanic "makes no sense" in this regard, that's when the DM has to step in and impose ad hoc simultaneity. That's exactly what the "Ad Hoc Simultaneity" rule is in the DMG for.
 

dcollins said:
Well, anytime you detect a situation where you think that the general rules mechanic "makes no sense" in this regard, that's when the DM has to step in and impose ad hoc simultaneity. That's exactly what the "Ad Hoc Simultaneity" rule is in the DMG for.
I agree.

The wand maneuver is basically an exploit of a system using a turn-based mechanic to represent simultaneous actions. You're using the turn-based nature of things to string along a series of 6-second intervals consecutively, instead of concurrently as they're meant to represent.

I'd allow one wizard to use the wand, and another wizard to grab the wand, but I wouldn't allow the second wizard to use it in the same round. While the second wizard is doing whatever he decides to do is when the first wizard was using the wand. Ad Hoc Simultaneity.
 

Lord Pendragon said:
I'd allow one wizard to use the wand, and another wizard to grab the wand, but I wouldn't allow the second wizard to use it in the same round. While the second wizard is doing whatever he decides to do is when the first wizard was using the wand. Ad Hoc Simultaneity.

And what if they are in "different rounds"?


Example one (Wizard one won init):

Round one: Wizard one uses wand, Wizard two cannot (according to what you wrote)


Example two (Wizard two won init):

Round one: Wizard two does something else, Wizard one uses wand
Round two: Wizard two uses wand


Do you not allow a back to back use of the wand in example one, but do allow a back to back use of the wand in example two?

From the point of view of the order of when events happen in the game, if you rule this way, you could have back to back Fireballs from the wand in Example two where none of the enemies get a chance to act between castings (i.e. Wizard one is last init and Wizard two is first init in each round) whereas that could not happen in Example one.


In our game, there is rarely anything that we consider a "round". We just have 3x5 cards with everyone's init and we cycle through them. If something happens on that init and the character's init moves (due to delay or ready), we put a marker card in that place in the stack (e.g. for when a spell expires or when an enemy comes out of stun, etc.).

Do you keep track of "which round it is" in your game?
 


KarinsDad said:
And what if they are in "different rounds"
Interesting. My ruling was based on my thoughts on the scenario. I've never had a player attempt it in my game, so I've never had to deal with possible loopholes in my ruling. I'm not sure how I'd rule the second example. I have a feeling that if it happened once, I'd allow it. If the players decided to make it a mainstay tactic to get off two fireballs before a foe can act, I'd have to find another House Rule instead. ;)
Do you keep track of "which round it is" in your game?
No. But neither do I have to worry about players trying to trade wands back and forth. If I did, it would become necessary to do so. It wouldn't be too hard, in any case. I write down everyone's name and initiative, then number them in the order they act. So it'd be a simple matter to declare a new round each time it gets to "number one"'s turn in the initiative count.
 

Sounds like it should work, but let's not forget the combat round is supposed to be around 6 seconds You're not going to have 50 wizards drain the wand in one round, but you might get 2-3 wizards to do the trick (assuming that the action of taking and casting is 2 seconds).

It's kind of like the old trick with having several loaded crossbows on a table in front of you as the monster comes through the door down the hall...
 

dcollins said:
Well, anytime you detect a situation where you think that the general rules mechanic "makes no sense" in this regard, that's when the DM has to step in and impose ad hoc simultaneity. That's exactly what the "Ad Hoc Simultaneity" rule is in the DMG for.
I see. So, when two fighter types are hitting the same foe, and the first fighter would have taken it down, you force the second to keep swinging at it?
 

punkorange said:
This is a good question, and something that should be watched out for, you can generally tell when a good tactic is attempted to be abused though.
In life, this is handled by mitigation. If you have a great tatic, your opponent will start using it. Clearly, some tatics are better than others. Perfectly legal tatics, like units using terain, tower shields, pikemen, and archers can be pretty dangerous. That is because they are good tatics, and they should be copied, not eliminated.

If one players is always more effective in combat than the rest of the party because of his choice of actions, would you call it abuse? What if the actions he was taking were perfectly legal and the rest of the party was mearly taking foolish actions?

It is a case by case basis, but most often, good tatics should be encouraged not ruled out. That is part of the creativity of the game.
 

Lord Pendragon said:
I agree.

The wand maneuver is basically an exploit of a system using a turn-based mechanic to represent simultaneous actions. You're using the turn-based nature of things to string along a series of 6-second intervals consecutively, instead of concurrently as they're meant to represent.
The funny part about your statements is the fact that it BREAKS the flow of the game rather than increases it. Effects do not last 'until the end of the round' as they have in prior editions, they last until that characters next action, ensuring it would be 1 full round, no matter where you are in the order. After the opening round of combat, rounds don't matter, only order. You can delay into another round without penalty. I don't think this is a rules exploit any more than having 16 1st level kobold sorcerers all cast magic missle at the same time. It is a good thing to do if you need more firepower in a shorter time. Since all you are doing is, in effect, sub-dividing the wand, I really so no problem.

Then again, I like to reward interesting thinking and clever tatics.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top