Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 2109044" data-attributes="member: 7808">I disagree.  I think the quote andargor posted above states rather clearly that using a wand is casting a spell.  And accordingly, the spell can be counterspelled like any other spell.  The fact that casting from a wand requires no components only means that it would be very hard to identify the spell being cast.  Off the top of my head, I would probably use the same rules for identifying a spell cast from a wand as I would if it was someone casting a Silent, Still, Eschewed spell (which, IIRC, requires a spellcraft check with a bunch of modifiers and possibly a spot check).Just for the sake of arguement, though, what type of action would you consider using a wand to be if it's not equivalent to casting a spell?  dcollins stated above that he considered a wand to be a spell-like effect.  Is that the general consensus among those who don't believe using a wand is the same as casting a spell?  I cannot think of any text that would make using a wand a spell-like effect.  More importantly, I think that would become problematic in conjuction with the metamagic spell-like ability feats.Nothin' but the truth.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>