Can a wand be used more than once per round?

[azhrei_fje]

Wow.

Wow. I'm sorry I asked.



I appreciate all the rules haggling, and I appreciate how everyone is willing to haggle those rules "in public", as it were.

But arguing over the length of a standard action vs. a move action was not my point!

As I mentioned 30-40 posts ago (!), I'm going to allow a command word activated item to be used twice per round. The first time as a standard action (plus a move action), with the second creature receiving the item as part of its move action and then activating it (standard action). That's not terribly broken and it is reasonable within the framework of both the turn-based combat system as well as the simultaneity concept.

Thanks all!

 

[LokiDR]

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.

Activating a wand takes only the knowledge and a single word. Its called a spell trigger item, invoking images of guns. Where do you get the idea the wand itself is limited?

Obviously I disagree.

Obviously, but that doesn't support your possition.

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

Did you just imply a wand can be used while held?

The point I was making was concentration is limited in 6 seconds. It may only take 1 second to do what you need to do physically to activate the wand, but the concentration required prevents other complex actions.

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.

Note the word I bolded in your statement. Note how it does not occure in mine. That would make your statement a straw man. Fundamentally, shooting a crossbow and shooting a gun are the same sort action. The modern gun has a huge advantage on reload, but they are equal once reloaded. You said firing the gun is more like a swift action. Reloading a crossbow has always been seperate. You did imply you house rule firing a crossbow to be a swift action.

I'm not trying say you do this, or that you haven't read the rules. I'm implying your sense of time is not reasonable given the other facts of the game.

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.

That is essentially correct.

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.

First off, you never said the analogy was flawed, you pretended to address it directly. That is the essence of the straw man, implying my argument was other than it was.

Now, lets be clear here. Throwing the ball is a standard action. Dribbling the ball could be part of a move action. I'm dealing only with the standard action of throwing, so your analogy is actually the flawed one. I'm equating the standard action of throwing to the standard action of using the wand, as they are mechanically the same.

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.

No, I don't think you understood the analogy at all. I'm equating standard actions to standard actions. You are inserting move actions. The wizard cannot use the wand and then throw it to the next wizard. But if they can throw, there is no reason to bar the use.

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.

Now you are just contradicting yourself. You specifically said "nowhere am I arguing that the wand exploit is overpowered", you aren't arguing this is a rules exploit for power. You have said it is only a matter of representing real time. Please be consistant.

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.

It is exactly your issue of suspension of disbelief that I take issue with.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Activating a wand takes only the knowledge and a single word. Its called a spell trigger item, invoking images of guns. Where do you get the idea the wand itself is limited?

Firing a gun is so quick and simple that in-game I'd consider it a Free Action. Using a wand is a standard action. No images of guns are invoked, as far as I'm concerned.

Obviously, but that doesn't support your possition.

As well as you've supported yours.

Did you just imply a wand can be used while held?

No, I implied nothing of the sort.

The point I was making was concentration is limited in 6 seconds. It may only take 1 second to do what you need to do physically to activate the wand, but the concentration required prevents other complex actions.

So the wand-user is concentrating really hard for 1 second...and therefore can't do anything else requiring thought for the other 5 seconds? So he's used up his "mental energy" for the round? I prefer a far simpler explanation. He has to concentrate on using the wand for long enough to require a standard action. That's why he can't do anything else. He's spent most of his time using the wand. It seems rather contrived, IMO, to suggest that he may only require 1 second to use the wand, but is somehow "mentally impaired" for the rest of the round, because of doing so.

Note the word I bolded in your statement. Note how it does not occure in mine. That would make your statement a straw man.

You're right, I did add a word that you did not use, albeit unintentionally, in truth. When I think of the differences between firing a gun and a crossbow, my mind immediately goes to the reloading issue. However, I still disagree, having fired them, that firing a crossbow is anything close to as simple as firing a gun.

Fundamentally, shooting a crossbow and shooting a gun are the same sort action. The modern gun has a huge advantage on reload, but they are equal once reloaded.

This is possibly correct, if you compare the right sort of crossbow to the right sort of gun. i.e. a hand crossbow to a pistol, standard crossbow to rifle. I think we're getting a bit far afield here, though. Regardless of out positions on crossbows, I don't think that argument has any bearing on wands.

You did imply you house rule firing a crossbow to be a swift action.

I certainly did not. I really do wonder where you're getting this.

I'm not trying say you do this, or that you haven't read the rules. I'm implying your sense of time is not reasonable given the other facts of the game.

Fair enough, I disagree. I think it's perfectly reasonable to determine that a standard action takes longer than a move action. Further, I think it's absolutely reasonable to determine that if something takes a standard action, it requires a standard action's worth of time, not "1 second, but with mental exhaustion that prevents other complex actions."

Now, lets be clear here. Throwing the ball is a standard action. Dribbling the ball could be part of a move action. I'm dealing only with the standard action of throwing, so your analogy is actually the flawed one. I'm equating the standard action of throwing to the standard action of using the wand, as they are mechanically the same.

No, they aren't. The throwing of the ball equates to the passing of the wand between wizards. It takes time to use the wand, a standard action's worth of time, which is more, as far as I'm concerned, than 1 second.

No, I don't think you understood the analogy at all. I'm equating standard actions to standard actions. You are inserting move actions. The wizard cannot use the wand and then throw it to the next wizard. But if they can throw, there is no reason to bar the use.

Because the interpretation you're putting forth is senseless. You're completely ignoring the time it takes to use the wand, and then stating that since there's enough time to move it from wizard to wizard, there's enough time for everything. You can't ignore the time it takes to actually activate the wand.

Now you are just contradicting yourself. You specifically said "nowhere am I arguing that the wand exploit is overpowered", you aren't arguing this is a rules exploit for power. You have said it is only a matter of representing real time. Please be consistant.

Please read my posts. I'm not contradicting myself at all. You seem to equate the fact that I consider the wand-passing an "exploit" to mean I am claiming it's overpowered. Not all exploits are overpowered. This maneuver exploits a weakness in the system to create a scenario that destroys believability. For me, that's a reason to check it. I've been consistantly saying that I don't think it's overpowered, but do think it's foolish, from the very beginning, and again in the part of my post you quoted.

It is exactly your issue of suspension of disbelief that I take issue with.

*shrug*

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm arguing that a full round action for each character involved in a combat = 6 seconds.[/i]

If there are six characters involved in the combat, then I can rewrite those two lines as
Your assumption is that a full round action takes six seconds. ...
I'm arguing that six full round actions = 6 seconds.

If there are three characters involved in the combat, then I can rewrite those two lines as
Your assumption is that a full round action takes six seconds. ...
I'm arguing that three full round actions = 6 seconds.

Not that three full round actions = 6 seconds and 6 seconds and 6 seconds. The total time that elapses while all three FRAs are taken, even if they're taken consecutively, is 6 seconds.

Hyp, it has always been my understanding that the round was meant to represent a simultaneous 6 seconds of action. Yes, things get strange at times, because you can't have true simultenaity, but that's always been my understanding of the game construct. 1 round = 6 seconds, everyone is taking 6 seconds worth of actions, ostensibly at the same time.

Your interpretation has the odd side-effect that the more combatants in a combat, the more blindingly fast their movements. If one guy fights another guy, each of them requires 3 seconds to make a full attack. But if 30 guys fight 30 other guys, now they each only need one tenth of a second to execute the same full attack.

Instead, I see the round as being a turn-based representation of a simultaneous 6 seconds. Therefore, no matter how many people are engaged, each of them can do the same amount of stuff in the same amount of time.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Instead, I see the round as being a turn-based representation of a simultaneous 6 seconds. Therefore, no matter how many people are engaged, each of them can do the same amount of stuff in the same amount of time.

That's not just the way you see it, that's exactly the way the rules define it. The rules define it with a de facto paradox and there's no way around it.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I would keep it simple - one spell cast from a given wand in a round, regardless of number of users. If it is a quickened spell (in a wand?!) then a total of two may be cast by two different users. You are not allowed to cast multiple unquickened spells in a given turn, so I would use that as the benchmark.

The Auld Grump

 

[Kahuna Burger]

To tease the simultaneous issue out from the magic issue* a little...

A ranger armed with a magical quarterstaff is fighting an unarmed monk. The ranger has the better initiative and full attacks, including twf, and strikes at the monk 5 times, hitting with three of them. The monk full attacks, including flurry, and for his first attack disarms the ranger. As he is now holding the quarterstaff, which is included in the monk special weapon list and has some nice enchantments, so he does the rest of the flurry attacks with it, hitting the ranger twice out of 4 rolls.

As a DM who believes in simultaneous combat:

1) can the same quarterstaff full attack twice in one round?

2) can there be two full attacks in one round that cannot have taken place simulatenously?

3) if the monk grabbed the quarterstaff on his first iterative attack, does that mean that one or two of the three hits he took really didn't happen since he had control of the quarterstaff by that point in the round?

Are the answers to any of these questions different if the ranger and monk were on the same side and the ranger managed to hand the quarterstaff off to the monk after he full attacked? (we'll say the monk only uses a single attack in this case.)

*I don't believe there is any good reason to say a wand by it's nature cannot be activated more than once in a round, but I'm leaving that aside for now.

 

[LokiDR]

I would keep it simple - one spell cast from a given wand in a round, regardless of number of users.

What, in the rules, do you use to justify this opinion?

You are not allowed to cast multiple unquickened spells in a given turn, so I would use that as the benchmark.

But there can be multiple spells by different people in a round. That is the real issue.