Can You Counterspell a Wand?

[Deset Gled]

In order to counterspell a spell, you need to first identify it via Spellcraft check.

This is incorrect. According to the SRD - Magic Overview: "You can use dispel magic to counterspell another spellcaster, and you don’t need to identify the spell he or she is casting." Admittedly, you are limited in your spell choice if you can't identify the spell, but it's not impossible.

I don't think there are any rules about identifying a spell from a wand. You could use the method Deset Gled just described, but that would be a house rule.

Can you give any support to this ruling? As andargor pointed out, using a wand is still "casting a spell", it just uses a spell trigger method rather than normal casting, and as such doesn't have any somatic, material, or focus components (wands also have a command word to activate them, but whether or not this is the same word as the verbal components of the normal spell is not clear). Why would identifying a spell cast from a wand be any different than identifying a spell cast with Still Spell and Eschew Materials?

 

[Jdvn1]

Using a wand is not casting a spell. Note that you can use a wand without drawing an AoO. The wand is creating the spell effect. There's no actual spellcasting involved.

RAW, I don't believe you can counterspell a wand. Contrarily, I've never seen a spellcaster try to counterspell, in any game I've ever run or played since 3.x came, so I'd allow it in my games.

*points at andargor's first quote*
"casting a spell from a wand" Seems pretty clear to me. I don't see how you'd refute it, with the RAW.

But if you want more in-depth...
*points at corlon's and desert geld's posts*

Maybe if you used some SRD references I might understand your point better, but it seems pretty cut-and-dry so far.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

As andargor pointed out, using a wand is still "casting a spell"

Can my paladin share a Cure Serious Wounds, from a wand, with his Special Mount?

Can I use a Lesser Rod of Maximizing to maximize a Fireball cast from a wand?

Can I add +1 to the DC of my Wand of Fireballs if I have Spell Focus (Evocation)?

The answer to all of these is "no." Because you aren't casting a spell, you're using a wand.

Also, let's take a look at the SRD for a second.

COUNTERSPELLS
It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.

How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing the ready action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. (You may still move your speed, since ready is a standard action.)

If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do either of these things.

Note the bold portions.

You disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. The fact that another character has cast the spell is specifically pointed out. Not just another spell, another spell cast by another character.

And if you cannot make the Spellcraft check to identify the spell, you can't "do either of these things." The first thing being identifying the spell. The second thing being countering it. Straight up, you need to succeed at the Spellcraft check to counter a spell. (The one exception to this is using Dispel Magic, which is still foiled by the first point.)

It's a shame that the RAW tend to use "cast a spell" imprecisely. But there are clear differences between actually casting a spell, and using a scroll, wand, staff, Ring of Spell Storing, or other magic item.

 

[andargor]

Can my paladin share a Cure Serious Wounds, from a wand, with his Special Mount?

Yes, you cast spells when you activate a wand. Nothing in the description prevents sharing instantaneous spells.

Share Spells: At the paladin's option, she may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) she casts on herself also affect her mount

Can I use a Lesser Rod of Maximizing to maximize a Fireball cast from a wand?

No, the Rod acts as if you had the metamagic feat.

Metamagic Feats
...
The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. A spellcaster can't use a metamagic feat to alter a spell being cast from a wand, scroll, or other device.

Can I add +1 to the DC of my Wand of Fireballs if I have Spell Focus (Evocation)?

No, only staffs allow this.

Magic items produce spells or spell-like effects. For a saving throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item, the DC is 10 + the level of the spell or effect + the ability modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that level of spell.

Staffs are an exception to the rule. Treat the saving throw as if the wielder cast the spell, including caster level and all modifiers to save DC.

The answer to all of these is "no." Because you aren't casting a spell, you're using a wand.

Your logic is flawed, because it is based on the erroneous premise that using a wand is not casting a spell. None of the above answers are based on that. Here's another quote for you:

Wands: A wand is a short stick imbued with the power to cast a specific spell. A newly created wand has 50 charges, and each use of the wand depletes one of those charges.

Also, let's take a look at the SRD for a second.Note the bold portions.
...
It's a shame that the RAW tend to use "cast a spell" imprecisely. But there are clear differences between actually casting a spell, and using a scroll, wand, staff, Ring of Spell Storing, or other magic item.

I would qualify this as interpretation. True, the RAW is less than perfect. In this case, it's pretty clear cut that you cast a spell when using a wand, and that it can be counterspelled. Of course, if you don't like it, you can do whatever you wish IYC.

Andargor

 

[Sithobi1]

Um...There is a difference between basically telling the wand to cast the spell, and casting it yourself. That quote you had from the SRD about metamagic feats can actually be used to counter your argument. You can apply certain metamagic feats(sudden feats) to spells you cast, but you cannot apply them to spells from a wand. Why? because you are not the one casting the spell.
Let's put it another way. Would you allow an Archmage with the Mastery of Elements ability to modify the element of a spell from a wand?

 

[Tatsukun]

So what about other items that seem to cast spells?

Can I dispel a Cure Serious Wounds potion as someone drinks it? What about dispelling Boots of Teleportation as they are used? … or a circlet of blasting?

If you answer 'yes' to the wand, you really should be answering 'yes' to all of these.

Then again, the only effect such a ruling would have would be to make counterspelling more useful. Since I too have never seen anyone use it, ever, I would be willing to give it a try.

-Tatsu

 

[andargor]

Um...There is a difference between basically telling the wand to cast the spell, and casting it yourself. That quote you had from the SRD about metamagic feats can actually be used to counter your argument.

That would be extrapolation, since counterspelling does not specify that the target "casts the spell directly". It just says "cast a spell". Metamagic feats, however, make that distinction.

Let's put it another way. Would you allow an Archmage with the Mastery of Elements ability to modify the element of a spell from a wand?

No, since the only item that allows a character to apply her abilities to the spell being cast is a staff, and then only Save DCs.

So what about other items that seem to cast spells?

Can I dispel a Cure Serious Wounds potion as someone drinks it? What about dispelling Boots of Teleportation as they are used? … or a circlet of blasting?

If you answer 'yes' to the wand, you really should be answering 'yes' to all of these.

I've found another quote that relates to this:

Some individual items, notably those that simply store spells and nothing else, don't get full-blown descriptions. Reference the spell's description for details, modified by the form of the item (potion, scroll, wand, and so on). Assume that the spell is cast at the minimum level required to cast it.

Another strong indication that a character using such items is "casting a spell". So my answer is "yes" to your questions. As others have pointed out, how someone identifies the spell being cast is the problem. But that acheived, I see no problem in the actual counterspell.

I hope I'm not coming across as being obtuse. I'm just seeing a lot of evidence that points to activating magic items = casting a spell (in most cases). I find that interesting, frankly.

Andargor

 

[dcollins]

Now, I can't imagine that items like potions and wondrous items count as casting a spell, or are subject to counterspelling. In those cases they're command-word or use-activated, they're not even the activation types where the wielder needs any knowledge of the spell effect being created.

If you look under Spell Resistance in the DMG, wondrous item effects are definitely spell-like abilities (not spells):

For example, the fear effect from a rod of lordly might is subject to spell resistance because it is a spell-like effect.

I could at least imagine that spell completion/spell trigger items count as "spells", but not any other types of items.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

For those of you who are mentioning that you would allow someone to counterspell a wand, would you also allow someone who readied an attack to disrupt a spell to attack someone who used a wand instead of casting?

I ask because:

Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster ...

Readying to Counterspell: You may ready a counterspell against a spellcaster ...

Note that, strictly speaking, you could not counterspell a rogue using a wand through UMD, nor a low-level paladin or ranger using a wand.

Were I to rule on this, I would rule that you cannot counterspell a wand or other magic item because they do not use the "Cast a Spell" action, which is what counterspells are readied against:

• Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil
• Cast a spell (1 standard action casting time)
• Drink a potion or apply an oil
• Read a scroll

However, if I were to allow people to counterspell items, I would allow it only for scrolls (and other Spell Completion items) but not for wands or staves (or other spell trigger items).

Additionally, if you really, really wanted to counterspell a wand or a staff or a scroll with a Dispel Magic, the rules are already present to allow this:

If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If you succeed, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect.

Ready an action to supress the item with Dispel Magic. Your opponent pulls the wand, you cast Dispel, and, if you're successful, the wand becomes a really fancy stick for a few seconds. Your opponent has already spent a standard action to use the wand and the spell doesn't go off, so it's exactly equal to a counterspell except that it doesn't cost a charge from the wand.

 

[andargor]

Now, I can't imagine that items like potions and wondrous items count as casting a spell, or are subject to counterspelling. In those cases they're command-word or use-activated, they're not even the activation types where the wielder needs any knowledge of the spell effect being created.

Just for the sake of argument (and we like to argue, don't we?)...

It doesn't say anything in the counterspell description about the target's knowledge of the spell effect. This argument would be moot if they used the same language as in metamagic feats. As is, any "casting of a spell" counts, except of course spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities.

If you look under Spell Resistance in the DMG, wondrous item effects are definitely spell-like abilities (not spells):

Hmm, IMHO that's just the way it is written. "spell-like effect" may not necessarily mean "spell-like ability" in this phrase. But we've read stuff before interpreted several different ways, haven't we?

Andargor