Use Magic Device

[Hypersmurf]

Except for the explicit statement that they do.

I know how to boot up a computer. That doesn't mean I have the password.

You don't know how to boot up a computer to which you don't have the password. You can't complete the sequence of actions required, because you lack the necessary knowledge.

-Hyp.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But then anyone with the spell on their list won't know how to activate it.

"Sure - I know how to activate this. I just say the word."
"What word?"
"Er... I don't know."
"So do you know how to activate it, or not?"
"... not."

-Hyp.

Two conditions:
1. You need to know how to activate a wand of that type
2. You need to know the command word

You can have 1 without 2, as above. You can guess command words all day and not activate the wand. But you know how to activate wands. You say the command word, and do that thing that fighters don't know how to do.
You can have 2 without 1, if for example you teach the command word to the fighter. No matter how many times he waves the wand around and says the command word, he's not going to activate the wand.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Two conditions:
1. You need to know how to activate a wand of that type
2. You need to know the command word

You can have 1 without 2, as above.

So if I find a wand, and cast Identify:

The spell determines all magic properties of a single magic item, including how to activate those functions (if appropriate), and how many charges are left (if any).

... the spell will tell me "It's a wand of Cure Light Wounds, CL 1, with 30 charges. To activate it, say the command word."

Or does determining how to activate it give you more information than knowing how to activate it?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

But then anyone with the spell on their list won't know how to activate it.

"Sure - I know how to activate this. I just say the word."
"What word?"
"Er... I don't know."
"So do you know how to activate it, or not?"
"... not."

-Hyp.

Knowing the general procedure to activate something does not necessarily mean that you know the specific procedure require for any particular example of that "something".

I'm sorry, your arguement seems very shaky to me.

 

[Caliban]

So if I find a wand, and cast Identify:

The spell determines all magic properties of a single magic item, including how to activate those functions (if appropriate), and how many charges are left (if any).

... the spell will tell me "It's a wand of Cure Light Wounds, CL 1, with 30 charges. To activate it, say the command word."

Or does determining how to activate it give you more information than knowing how to activate it?

-Hyp.

Determing the specifics on how to activate a particular item can certainly give you more information than knowing the general procedure for how to activate items of that type in general.

It's the difference between knowing how to use a computer in general, and reading the manual to learn how to use a function specific to the particular model you are working on.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Determing the specifics on how to activate a particular item can certainly give you more information than knowing the general procedure for how to activate items of that type in general.

Where are you getting "general procedure" from?

Both passages reference "how to activate".

I have a spell trigger item containing a spell on my list. I know how to activate it.

I cast Identify on a spell trigger item containing a spell on my list. I determine how to activate it.

I can now activate the second one, but not the first one?

If knowing how to activate a wand, and knowing the word to activate a wand, are two separate things, then Identify only tells you the first. If they're the same thing, then someone with the spell on his list knows the word.

-Hyp.

 

[frankthedm]

Compare command word activation, which describes how command words might be written, hidden, hinted at, etc, with spell trigger activation, which says 'You know how to use it if it's on your list'.

1. Those other items are made for the casters stupid friends and needed the clues to remind the dopes.
2. That line about wands, when taken in context, is there to make sure paladins don't get screwed out of being able to use a wand.

WANDS

A wand is a thin baton that contains a single spell of 4th level or lower. Each wand has 50 charges when created, and each charge expended allows the user to use the wand’s spell one time. A wand that runs out of charges is just a stick.

Physical Description: A typical wand is 6 inches to 12 inches long and about 1/4 inch thick, and often weighs no more than 1 ounce. Most wands are wood, but some are bone. A rare few are metal, glass, or even ceramic, but these are quite exotic. Occasionally, a wand has a gem or some device at its tip, and most are decorated with carvings or runes. A typical wand has AC 7, 5 hit points, hardness 5, and a break DC of 16.

Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.

Spell Trigger: 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. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity

I say activate blindly causes max mayhem. If something is in the blast radius, it is hijinx, if someone is in the blast radius, then carnage it is.

 

[Kapalen]

SOrry if this was already posted. In one of the complete books, I think, it says you can make a spellcraft check to determine things like waht spell a wand is holding. The dc would be ridiculous though.

 

[Caliban]

Where are you getting "general procedure" from?

I'm thinking for myself and making a reasonable interpretation of the text of the rules in order to illustrate a point. Dangerous, but I like to live on the edge.

Both passages reference "how to activate".

Is that a defined phrase in the game with only one possible meaning, or can it possibly have two similar but different meanings depending on the context it is used in?

I don't see it being defined anywhere in the rules, and I think it is being used in a slightly different context in each passage.

I have a spell trigger item containing a spell on my list. I know how to activate it.

I cast Identify on a spell trigger item containing a spell on my list. I determine how to activate it.

I can now activate the second one, but not the first one?

Quite possibly.

If knowing how to activate a wand, and knowing the word to activate a wand, are two separate things, then Identify only tells you the first.

I think that is an assumption on your part.

If they're the same thing, then someone with the spell on his list knows the word.

-Hyp.

Only if it is stipulated that the word is the same for all wands. I don't see that stipulation in the rules.

It is certainly possible that wands (with the same spell) will usually use the same word to activate (maybe even likely), and usually it's not worth bothering with to make a fuss about.

But I don't see where it's required.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Personally, I agree with Hyp and I think his argument is more solid than "shaky."

Note:

To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for non-humanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area.

Technically, no words even necessary! Although I admit in the section on spell completion it speaks of a necessary word. Just pointing out an oversight in the rules.

I could see the following compromise, though. Make two different types of wands. Your typical ones described by the DMG are spell-trigger meaning that if the spell is on your class list you can use the wand because it is "standard issue." Then, there are command word wands made by paranoid casters who don't want their wands to be useful should they get stolen. These cost a little more to make - but are pretty secure since the word could even be jibberish!

But for me, I'd rather go with the route that causes the DM the least amount of work and say that spell trigger wands are useable by all in which the spell is on their class list.

...

On a related issue, any ever think that actually being abe to cast the specific spell (or manifest the power) should be required? I've often thought it odd that those with limited spell lists (like sorcerers) or limited power lists (like all psionic characters) can use any wand as long as the spell is on their list. Its like saying, "no, I don't know fireball ... but I can use this here wand and ..."

Yes, I realize this limits them alot - just think it is odd.