Can a wand be used more than once per round?

[Lord Pendragon]

The funny part about your statements is the fact that it BREAKS the flow of the game rather than increases it.

I can't imagine how this is so.

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 understand all of this.

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.

Here we disagree. Using a wand is a standard action. And in one six-second period, each creature gets a standard action and a move action. How exactly can twenty wizards use the same wand in the same six seconds? The short answer is: they couldn't. The only way it can be accomplished is by exploiting the turn-based nature of D&D.

Now, if D&D were a pure tactical combat game, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Adhering to the strict letter of the rules in such a circumstance is fine. But in a campaign where believability is at least somewhat important, such as mine, this tactic falls beyond the pale. It's no different than the fighter who drops a bag of puppies at his feat so he can cleave into the Big Bad twenty times in a single round. It's not believable, and because of that, it's not acceptable. Luckily in this case, the RAW already provides advice on how to handle this particular issue. Ad Hoc Simultenaity.

I like to reward interesting thinking and clever tatics.

So do I. I guess I just draw a distinction between clever tactics and silly exploits.

 

[dcollins]

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?

You're arguing in favor of a chain of a half-dozen wizards all using the same wand in a round, and you're worried that a pair of fighters might waste one attack in my game?

 

[azhrei_fje]

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.

Actually, it's more tricky than that. Figure three creatures at init 20, 15, and 10. The first creature casts a spell that lasts 2 rounds, ie. until the creature's turn two rounds in the future. When init 20 comes around again in the second round, the spellcaster delays until init 5, then takes an action. When does the spell end? By all rights, it should end at init 20 in the next round, otherwise the other two creatures at init 15 and init 10 gain the advantage of the spell for a third round! (Assuming that they could benefit in the first place, such as with bless or prayer.)

Second, it's not the same as subdividing the wand. If every arcane caster (and creatures with UMD) can use a wand in a single round, the balance of the game is thrown off. As I mentioned in my previous post, a group of 4 wizards become much more powerful when they all have a wand of fireball than if only a single one of them had such a wand, right? So each wizard can spend their assets on a different wand (one fireball, one haste, one slow, and one scorching ray, for example). Now they can pick and choose which wand to use 4 times per round, effectively giving each of them one of those wands. Yes, they burn through the charges much faster, but they survive a combat that they might otherwise not survive! The DM then has to increase the EL to keep the challenge level appropriate for the power level of the group, resulting in additional treasure for the party as well. They can now afford to buy another wand -- probably of yet another spell that they don't have a wand for -- and use it like the others.

Oh well. As the OP , I've decided to limit the use of magical items that require a standard action to use to only 2 uses per round. It seems to me that if the combat is simultaneous, which it is, two character could coordinate: the first uses the wand (standard action), then moves. The second takes a move action first (and obtains the wand), and then uses the wand (standard action). Those two sets of actions could be simultaneous.

I agree that it's the turn-based technique that messes things up. The only way to handle this properly would be to require players to state the actions of their characters without informing other players. Then the DM gathers all of the stated actions and resolves them. But that would really slow things down!

 

[Len]

I guess I just draw a distinction between clever tactics and silly exploits.

Yes, it's silly. Partly because most of the party members can't even use the wand. Practically, you'll be looking at the case of one PC handing off the wand to one other PC. That's not nearly so bad.

 

[LokiDR]

I can't imagine how this is so.

Your interpretation adds a check for the 'end of the round' where nothing else does. The flow of a D&D combat can ignore this if not for your reading. I say this check slows down, i.e. breaks the flow, of continues actions.

Here we disagree. Using a wand is a standard action. And in one six-second period, each creature gets a standard action and a move action. How exactly can twenty wizards use the same wand in the same six seconds? The short answer is: they couldn't. The only way it can be accomplished is by exploiting the turn-based nature of D&D.

I see you have been confused by my kobolds. They are tricky. I was speaking about a perfectly legal situation where each sorcerer cast their own spell out of their daily allotment. This still means 16d4+16 damage ignoring AC and ethrealness. That is dangerous at an EL 9, but perfectly valid.

How is a few, note the FEW limitation, characters sharing a wand that much more powerful? The limitation is on actions, and this tatic doesn't eliminate that restriction at all. As a bucket can be passed between multiple people in a round, I think a wand can see multiple uses.

Now, if D&D were a pure tactical combat game, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Adhering to the strict letter of the rules in such a circumstance is fine. But in a campaign where believability is at least somewhat important, such as mine, this tactic falls beyond the pale. It's no different than the fighter who drops a bag of puppies at his feat so he can cleave into the Big Bad twenty times in a single round. It's not believable, and because of that, it's not acceptable. Luckily in this case, the RAW already provides advice on how to handle this particular issue. Ad Hoc Simultenaity.So do I. I guess I just draw a distinction between clever tactics and silly exploits.

Don't get me wrong, silly exploits are still silly exploits. But I set the bar higher than you, I guess. There are feats out that let a single person use multiple wands in a round. A party can buy two half-full wands at cost of one full wand. I think Ad Hoc Simultenaity applies if you try to get 16 people to use the same wand at the same time. Two or three isn't a strech at all.

Lets try another example, from a more modern point of view. I have a gun, which I shoot. Then an enemy snatches that gun from me and shoots back. This is a typical scene in many action movies. Its not a strech at all. But it does happen faster than 6 seconds. Since a wand is a spell trigger item, I think the analogy fitting.

If you want a simpler example, take a group of people tossing an item along. Person 1 throws, person 2 readies to catch and throw. This can easily get through 4 or 6 people in six seconds, assuming short throws. But it is a standard action to throw. I say Ad Hoc Simultenaity keeps that chain from breaking the sound barrier, but not from a ball speed of effectively 30 MPH.

 

[LokiDR]

You're arguing in favor of a chain of a half-dozen wizards all using the same wand in a round, and you're worried that a pair of fighters might waste one attack in my game?

No, its simpler than that. Two fighters, two wizards. Simultenaity should have not problem with the two fighters, right? But somehow two wizards using a simple object is more complex than two fighters taking multiple iterative attacks? Simultenaity lets you say 16 or 12 or 6 is too many. But limiting it to one serves only to show bias against wizards. I'm worried about equal interpretation of the rules.

 

[LokiDR]

Actually, it's more tricky than that. Figure three creatures at init 20, 15, and 10. The first creature casts a spell that lasts 2 rounds, ie. until the creature's turn two rounds in the future. When init 20 comes around again in the second round, the spellcaster delays until init 5, then takes an action. When does the spell end? By all rights, it should end at init 20 in the next round, otherwise the other two creatures at init 15 and init 10 gain the advantage of the spell for a third round! (Assuming that they could benefit in the first place, such as with bless or prayer.)

That is slightly more complex. Yes, the spell stays on the same inititive as the cast was on when cast. However, there is still no need for check of 'end of round'. If you happen to use character cards, you could just make one for the spell and tick it off.

Second, it's not the same as subdividing the wand. If every arcane caster (and creatures with UMD) can use a wand in a single round, the balance of the game is thrown off. As I mentioned in my previous post, a group of 4 wizards become much more powerful when they all have a wand of fireball than if only a single one of them had such a wand, right? So each wizard can spend their assets on a different wand (one fireball, one haste, one slow, and one scorching ray, for example). Now they can pick and choose which wand to use 4 times per round, effectively giving each of them one of those wands. Yes, they burn through the charges much faster, but they survive a combat that they might otherwise not survive! The DM then has to increase the EL to keep the challenge level appropriate for the power level of the group, resulting in additional treasure for the party as well. They can now afford to buy another wand -- probably of yet another spell that they don't have a wand for -- and use it like the others.

If money is held as constant, they could still do just that, just have more wands to deal with. The wands they buy will just have fewer charges and they will run out faster. 1 wand (40 charges) = 4 wands (10 charges). I haven't changed the money at all, I've just spent it more wisely.

Oh well. As the OP , I've decided to limit the use of magical items that require a standard action to use to only 2 uses per round. It seems to me that if the combat is simultaneous, which it is, two character could coordinate: the first uses the wand (standard action), then moves. The second takes a move action first (and obtains the wand), and then uses the wand (standard action). Those two sets of actions could be simultaneous.

That satisfies Ad Hoc Simultenaity better than simply declaring a wand can only be used once a round. I'd ad hoc differently, but that's why its ad hoc. Honestly, I don't think you will really see more than two uses in a round unless someone was trying to exploit the rule.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Your interpretation adds a check for the 'end of the round' where nothing else does. The flow of a D&D combat can ignore this if not for your reading. I say this check slows down, i.e. breaks the flow, of continues actions.

Ah. I see what you're saying, though I don't know for whom it would be true. The action that you believe would break the flow of continuous actions consists of drawing a line on the list of combatants I keep, and noting that line every time we come to it. It doesn't break any flow at all. Or at least, it wouldn't in theory, as admittedly I've never had to worry about several players trying to cheese a wand.

I see you have been confused by my kobolds. They are tricky. I was speaking about a perfectly legal situation where each sorcerer cast their own spell out of their daily allotment. This still means 16d4+16 damage ignoring AC and ethrealness. That is dangerous at an EL 9, but perfectly valid.

I wasn't responding to your kobolds, and nowhere am I arguing that the wand exploit is overpowered. I'm arguing that it breaks believability, and can be easily dealth with with a RAW solution, which I use.

How is a few, note the FEW limitation, characters sharing a wand that much more powerful? The limitation is on actions, and this tatic doesn't eliminate that restriction at all. As a bucket can be passed between multiple people in a round, I think a wand can see multiple uses.

The wand can be passed around, sure. It just can't be used several times simultaneously.

There are feats out that let a single person use multiple wands in a round.

I have no problem with such feats. And, were two PCs to each have such a feat, I'd allow them to each use the same wand in a round, since they've taken a feat to halve the time it takes to activate one. (I might require a dex check if they decide to each use one wand, then simultaneously exchange wands, but it'd be doable.)

A party can buy two half-full wands at cost of one full wand. I think Ad Hoc Simultenaity applies if you try to get 16 people to use the same wand at the same time. Two or three isn't a strech at all.

I disagree. If two or three people can use the same wand in the same period of time, then one person should be able to do the same, because it obviously only takes 1/2 or 1/3 of a round to use a wand. That's not the way it works RAW, barring feats. A wand takes a standard action to use, and there's not enough time in the remaining move action to use it again.

Lets try another example, from a more modern point of view. I have a gun, which I shoot. Then an enemy snatches that gun from me and shoots back. This is a typical scene in many action movies. Its not a strech at all. But it does happen faster than 6 seconds. Since a wand is a spell trigger item, I think the analogy fitting.

The analogy has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand, because using a wand is not an instantaneous action which requires no concentration, like firing a gun. If it were, it'd be a Swift Action, not a Standard Action.

If you want a simpler example, take a group of people tossing an item along. Person 1 throws, person 2 readies to catch and throw. This can easily get through 4 or 6 people in six seconds, assuming short throws. But it is a standard action to throw. I say Ad Hoc Simultenaity keeps that chain from breaking the sound barrier, but not from a ball speed of effectively 30 MPH.

The speed of the ball has nothing to do with it. Let's assume that bouncing the ball takes roughly 4 seconds (more than half the 6 second round, which is fitting since a standard action can be used to perform a move, but a move action cannot be used to perform a standard action.) And throwing the ball to another guy only takes 1 second. So the first person bounces the ball, then throws it. 5 seconds have passed. Now the second guy has the ball. He starts to bounce it, but he's only 1/4 of the way through when the 6 seconds are up. Two guys cannot bounce the same ball in six seconds.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Oh well. As the OP , I've decided to limit the use of magical items that require a standard action to use to only 2 uses per round. It seems to me that if the combat is simultaneous, which it is, two character could coordinate: the first uses the wand (standard action), then moves. The second takes a move action first (and obtains the wand), and then uses the wand (standard action). Those two sets of actions could be simultaneous.

This is a fine House Rule, and simpler than the one I proposed. If I ever have to deal with this cheese, I'd be tempted to use yours instead.

However, technically the two actions could not be simultaneous, per the RAW. A standard action takes longer than a move action. So what you're suggesting would look something like this.

Use wand......pass wand
------------>-------->
-------->------------>
get wand......use wand

Note where the "use wand" parts overlap in the center. That'd be where the two wizards were using the same wand at the same time.

Still, for simplicity's sake, and to allow a bit of flexibility, I still like your House Rule.

 

[Arc]

Most semblances of splitting of a 6 second round break down when you start visualizing 4 or more independent actors, or actions that take a very specific amount of time (casting spells). Write down a few rounds of actual combats, and try to explain how the flows fit to 6 seconds exactly. It rarely works, because each actor has the capacity to do a fair amount within a six second interval (their action), and each actor reacts to the previous actions, so unless you compress things terribly, the flow of a "6 second round" ends up consuming 15 or 20 seconds of realistic time. If you want to try to hold up simultaneity as some golden ideal, go ahead, but it doesn't add much to the game except some numbers for timekeeping purposes. Think of it this way - if the in game clock was not a concern, and there were no spell durations, etc, would the amount of time a combat takes matter at all?