Can a wand be used more than once per round?

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

Are you responding to me? I don't hold up simultenaity as "some golden ideal" at all. An abstract game isn't going to perfect emulate actual scenarios, and I'm perfectly fine with that. But the game is intended to represent simultaneous actions, so if a player of mine where to try and exploit the fact that the system doesn't do so perfectly, I would feel the need to curtail it. This is what I'm seeing in the presented scenario: an attempt to get more than would be possible, by exploiting the turn-based rules of the game.

 

[Evilhalfling]

This looks lovely - assuming I am going to stay with the concept that a wand can be used twice at most in a round, when is the next time I can torment my players with this.....
a wand of fireballs, being passed rapidly back and forth between a Wiz and his apprentice,
Hold person or blindness between a cleric and a wiz,
or a dojere of Energy stun - electric, CL 5 gp6000 dc16, 4d6, ref and will saves in 5' radius -

muhhahaha

 

[azhrei_fje]

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.

Well, I didn't go into all of the details on that scenario. There are other possibilities, including one of the middle creatures delaying into the middle of the following round. In summary, it's important to note the initiative of when the spell was cast and use that as the terminating point, not "the caster's next turn" as the RAW state. :-/

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.

You're right. I wasn't factoring in the option of being able to purchase the wands at less than fully charged. IMC, I only sell full wands at full price (or more!) from mage guilds and the like. Any wand with less than 50 charges has to be RP'd to purchase. And my players don't do that.

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.

But you're assuming that standard actions take longer than move actions. My understanding is that the RAW do not specify the amount of time taken. In fact, it's possible that standard actions and move actions are both exactly 3 seconds, and that the rules specify only a single standard action and move action per round for balance but not for any other reason.

In fact, if the standard action were longer, then the movement speed of a creature would be different if it were using a move action vs. a standard action, and the movement speed does not change. That implies that the length of time is actually the same, but the actions are limited in order to prevent the abuse described in this thread.

 

[interwyrm]

Eh... I really wouldn't let it be used more than once. My way of looking at it would be more like... assigning the wand actions. i.e. it takes the wand a standard action to be activated... so it can't be activated again that round. Of course, if you throw it, it can move at its fly speed of 90 with its move action

 

[LokiDR]

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.

You would perform explict check for the end of the round. As I've had to do this before, it does break the flow of action. This is especially true when one user is at the top of the order and the other is at the bottom of the order. They can do exactly what you don't want them to do, simply by placement of the round break.

I wasn't responding to your kobolds, and nowhere am I arguing that the wand exploit is overpowered.

I will keep this in mind.

I'm arguing that it breaks believability, and can be easily dealth with with a RAW solution, which I use.

I think your interpretation goes against the rest of the rules. See below.

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

Can you tell me exactly how long it takes to use a wand? Two people can't use it at the same time, but there is enough time in a round to fire more than once.

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.

What exactly do you think a standard action represents? In the case of many actions, it is not what you apparently think it is. An archer that moves 30 feet then fires an arrow spends most of his round moving 30 feet. A spell cast represents more a matter of concentration than action.

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.

Well, all the crossbow users must be happy to hear that you house-rule their weapons to be faster. The RAW disagrees, however.

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.

Of course you think the analogy shows your way correct, you didn't address MY analogy. You made up a different situation. I believe this is called a 'straw man'.

Look, picture a simple passing drill from basketball. The players all stand still, and ready to toss the ball to the next person. In six seconds, that ball can be safely passed several times without any real fear of dropping it.

As Hyp pointed out so very well, ruling simultaneous actions in your way means more problems for the full attacking fighters than the wizards. I think, after a reading of spell trigger items, its fairly clear.

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.

 

[Gaiden]

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.

First off, they could all ready actions, but that is besides the point. Recall why I said the line of 50 wizards was ridiculous - because if 50 wizards could do it, logically 1 wizard could certainly fire it 50x. Because 1 wizard can't use a wand more than 1x/rd (all else being equal), 50 wizards should not be able to.

 

[tomBitonti]

How about forcing the second wand user to wait ...

In this scenario:

W1 @ Init 1: Use Wand, hold out
W2 @ Init 2: ** Do something to use up first part of round **, Take Wand

This one is harder:

W1 @ Init 1: Use Wand, Hold Out
W2 @ Init 11: Take wand, which is ready by his/her go; use wand

Basically, rule that the second wizard can't take the wand until
a certain point in their initiative, here ruled arbitrarily to be half
of a round after the first wizard starts.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Can you tell me exactly how long it takes to use a wand? Two people can't use it at the same time, but there is enough time in a round to fire more than once.

Why are you saying there's enough time in a round to fire more than once? The only case in which this is true is with a creature that has taken a specific feat, which reduces the time it takes to fire a wand. A wand takes a standard action to fire, that's "exactly how long it takes" to use it, and now that 3.0 Haste is gone nobody gets 2 standard actions in a single round. They can get two move actions in a single round. Now, it's been argued that this is not a matter of time (which I believe it is meant to represent) but purely mechanics (a balance issue). I can understand that argument, even though I don't agree with it. For me, it is a matter of time. There's not enough time to do it twice in a round.

What exactly do you think a standard action represents? In the case of many actions, it is not what you apparently think it is. An archer that moves 30 feet then fires an arrow spends most of his round moving 30 feet.

Obviously I disagree.

A spell cast represents more a matter of concentration than action.

The concentration is the action. It's one of those "purely mental actions" that Hold Person is so fond of mentioning.

Well, all the crossbow users must be happy to hear that you house-rule their weapons to be faster. The RAW disagrees, however.

I'm not equating firing a crossbow with firing a gun, so I'm making no such houserule. If you think firing and reloading a crossbow is the same as firing and reloading a 9mm, you are sorely mistaken.

Of course you think the analogy shows your way correct, you didn't address MY analogy. You made up a different situation. I believe this is called a 'straw man'.

I have not taken formal debate, so I may have the terminology wrong, but I believe a "straw man" is when you set up an argument the other side did not make in order to easily defeat it, thus claiming your side's superiority to a position the opposition never took.

My analogy did not (or was not meant to) do that. I felt your analogy was flawed. It did not take into account actual using of the item (the ball, in the analogy) but only the passing of it. Saying one could move the ball 4-6 times in six seconds didn't address the issue at all, because none of the participants were doing anything with the ball while they had it. I therefore modified the analogy to take that into account, in an attempt to use it to illustrate my point.

Look, picture a simple passing drill from basketball. The players all stand still, and ready to toss the ball to the next person. In six seconds, that ball can be safely passed several times without any real fear of dropping it.

Yes, I understood your analogy. As I mentioned above, I provided a counter-analogy because I don't believe merely passing the ball between players means anything. If you'd rather, I concede that six wizards could all pass the wand from one to the next in a single round...without using it.

As Hyp pointed out so very well, ruling simultaneous actions in your way means more problems for the full attacking fighters than the wizards.

Hyp did point out another part of the game where simultenaity breaks down, no doubt about that. But I think you misunderstand my intent or belief in this discussion. I'm not arguing that simultenaity doesn't break down. It does, and I know it. And for the most part I don't think about it too hard. I just take it as a necessary part of a game that is trying to simulate real time action with turn-based rounds. But if I were to have a player or players try and exploit that system, then I'd feel the need to do something to bring things back under control. There's a difference between everyone ignoring the cracks in the wall and playing is if they weren't there, and a few players blatantly trying to squeeze things through it.

In that case, I take my cue from the RAW, which informs me that there may be times I need to enforce ad hoc simultenaity in the game, and do exactly that to preserve suspension-of-disbelief in my games.

 

[Artoomis]

Why are you saying there's enough time in a round to fire more than once? The only case in which this is true is with a creature that has taken a specific feat, which reduces the time it takes to fire a wand. A wand takes a standard action to fire, that's "exactly how long it takes" to use it, and now that 3.0 Haste is gone nobody gets 2 standard actions in a single round. They can get two move actions in a single round. Now, it's been argued that this is not a matter of time (which I believe it is meant to represent) but purely mechanics (a balance issue)...

Actually, as a matter of time, it is indeed possible to use a wand twice (with two different people) while maintaining the fact that all actions happen pretty much at the same time - assuming you can transfer the wand as a free action.

How? And why ONLY twice?

Because it takes a standard action and you can do the standard action in the first or second "half" of you round.

Thus"

PC 1 Use the wand (first "half" of the round). As a free action, transfer to another PC (or hold it out to be taken).
PC 2 Use a move action to do nothing, using up the first "half" of the round. Use the second "half" of the round to (free action) take the wand and to use the wand.

There you have it. Two uses in one round. Uses both the written turn-based rules and the concept of simultaneous actions.

What do you think?

 

[dcollins]

Because it takes a standard action and you can do the standard action in the first or second "half" of you round.

Most folks agree (when time-representation is discussed) that a standard action is more than half the round. That's what Lord Pendragon's post #39 was about.