Wand of Wraithstrike Market Crashes

[FireLance]

Hmm. Suffers from the same poor wording that the Miniatures Handbook does. What about spells with a 1 round casting time? It would've been much better if they'd not provided a blanket statement but rather a specific statement regarding swift spells.

Well, it was under the header of "Swift and Immediate Actions" and the sub-header of "Magic Items", but yes, a dedicated rules lawyer can take the statement out of context and argue that spell completion and spell trigger items of spells with a casting time of longer than one standard action can be activated with a standard action.

Hopefully, the DM he tries it on will be experienced and confident enough to tell him no. I do not recommend whacking the rules laywer over the head with the Spell Compendium. It's quite a thick book and might cause some injury.

 

[Shadowdweller]

...and...
That's already covered in the SRD. Spells that take more than a standard action to cast normally only take a standard action for spell completion/trigger items. (Yes, it's true. We had to stop and look it up for a game recently.)

Can't speak for the SRD, but I'd definitely try reading that again. Seeing as how DMG quite clearly states the exact opposite.

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 a spell from a wand.)

 

[dkers]

Reading a scroll should be a start/stop/start again full-round complete scroll action action.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Can't speak for the SRD, but I'd definitely try reading that again. Seeing as how DMG quite clearly states the exact opposite.

Yeah, I see that you're right - it also has the same wording for staves as well. When the issue that came up in our game, however, it involved scrolls, which the DMG does not specify at all how long it takes (standard action or otherwise) in the corresponding section.

However, in the general section on "Using Magic Items" (DMG page 213) it states "Activating a spell completion item is a standard action and provokes an attack of opportunity exactly as casting a spell." Nothing anywhere about taking longer to cast if the normal spell takes longer.

But then again, there is also a sentence before any of the "type" specifics in that section which says "However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, whether it's a scroll, wand, or a pair of boots, unless the item description specifically states otherwise."

Now that I've pondered that obtuse bit of wording, I concede spell casting time = item activation time. Have to follow up with the DM on that.

This is probably what the line in the Spell Compendium is trying to address, but it should read "Activating a spell completion item, activating a spell trigger item, or drinking a potion is AT LEAST a standard action even if the spell from which the scroll, potion, or item is made can be cast as a swift action."

 

[Fieari]

With regards to quick activation of scrolls, ever watch anime? There are a number of series in which the magic system seems to be tied to the unraveling of sealed scrolls. Not reading it, but just unraveling it. I could conceivably see that as the method of rapid scroll activation in D&D.

But since it's no longer applicable anyway, nevermind.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

guess what? swift actions arnt in the dm or players guild as well. Does that mean that they dont exist? NO! they were introduced in suplement books, so now a new suplement book that has had time to ponder the ramifications of how these new types of actions work with the core rules can change how the suplement material works. If you want to Pull that jazz, you might as well take out ALL spells that are swift and imediat actions then, becuse they go agenst the rules for free actions. Its not in the core books so its not vailid... what nonsense...

how silly tha argument is....

lets say rule set A is created. Then ruleset B creates new rules that rule set A never antisipated. How can you say that Rule set C that fixes how Ruleset A interacts with ruleset B is not vailid.

Seeing as how SC basicly erratas so many spells, its only logical to assume that WTC has now errated how these types of actions interact with the players handbook and dm guide



Its clear to me by reading the section on umd and SC, that a spell from a umd check or whatnot is at least a standard action, but can take longer if the spell has a longer duration.

 

[RigaMortus2]

1. Official: Absolutely. Appears in a WotC publication.
2. RAW: Absolutely. It's written down outside of someone's house rules.
3. Core: Nope. Not in the MM, PHB, or DMG.

The differences are important, sometimes.

I guess I just don't understand then. Why do people constantly argue that the FAQ and errata are not "official" when they are clearly written down in a WotC publication?

 

[Cam Banks]

I guess I just don't understand then. Why do people constantly argue that the FAQ and errata are not "official" when they are clearly written down in a WotC publication?

Because people like to argue?

As soon as RAW gets mentioned in a thread I know there's going to be at least one person to hunker down over a thesaurus and dwell upon the semantics of what's said in a rules entry for something being discussed.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Legildur]

Because people like to argue?

As soon as RAW gets mentioned in a thread I know there's going to be at least one person to hunker down over a thesaurus and dwell upon the semantics of what's said in a rules entry for something being discussed.

Cheers,
Cam

Sounds a little patronising to me - particularly in a Rules Forum

 

[Cam Banks]

Sounds a little patronising to me - particularly in a Rules Forum

My bad. I worry that the woods get lost for the trees, that's all. Much of the weight of the rules seems to consist of equal parts legibility and comprehension, and it's when we argue about these two that arguments get very heated. I don't really blame D&D, though, I blame competitive Magic tournaments, where the exact RAW became incredibly important. This same philosophy carries over to casual gaming sometimes and obscures rules discussion.

I'll work on not being so cranky about this in future.

Cheers,
Cam