Wands and Mage Hand - Your opinion...

[cheshire_grin]

Have it. DMG 218 command word activation: can be used for items which activation method is not suggested. since wands have spell trigger activation suggested - no command words...
so it was my fault, to introduce a wand with command word...

Look at irdeggman's second quote from the SRD above. Wands do have command words -- they just also are spell trigger items as well. As in, you must have the spell on your spell list and speak the command word.

 

[mvincent]

I thought (in the case of CLW wand) the wand has to touch the target - I always imagined a character activating the wand which will "glow" and when the target is touched with the wand the "glow fades" and the charge is used...

While it's subject to some interpretation, I agree with you here because the rules say:
"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."

However, it does not specifically say what would happen to the wand if it left your hand, and I would definitely not assume that it continues to be active. If the wand itself could hold the charge without being attached to a caster, throwing wands at people would become common practice.

 

[irdeggman]

While it's subject to some interpretation, I agree with you here because the rules say:
"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."

However, it does not specifically say what would happen to the wand if it left your hand, and I would definitely not assume that it continues to be active. If the wand itself could hold the charge without being attached to a caster, throwing wands at people would become common practice.

But it does say:

Wand Descriptions
All wands are simply storage devices for spells and thus have no special descriptions. Refer to the spell descriptions for all pertinent details.

So that means that all pertain spell details come from the spell description.

So CLW is a range touch spell that affects the creature touched - either the wand itself must touch the creature or the wielder via normal touch delivery. It is silent on if the wand itself or the wielder is the deliverer. Personnally I think either way works within the mechanic restrictions as long as the DM is consistent on how he handles it.

I also agree "throwing" is downright out. That would involve a whole new set of mechanics - attack rolls (what kind?), etc.

 

[Rvdvelden]

Straight from SRD (underline added):

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.

The wand is not the one using the spell. It's the user that uses the spell (borrowed from the wand), so the user has to make the touch, not the wand.

 

[mvincent]

the user has to make the touch, not the wand.

That is a possible interpretation, but not a truism. Since the rules say you must "point it in the general direction of the target", the implication is that the spell is coming from out of the tip of the wand. Descriptively, that makes the most sense.

 

[ceratitis]

While I don't think this would work it does give me the idea of giving a cleric a ludicrously long 10-15ft wand to heal allies from a distance. Hmm. Perhaps a chain and wand device would work too?

yoink

 

[Kmart Kommando]

I think my Duskblade is gonna start carrying a whip from now on.

 

[Rvdvelden]

That is a possible interpretation, but not a truism. Since the rules say you must "point it in the general direction of the target", the implication is that the spell is coming from out of the tip of the wand. Descriptively, that makes the most sense.

That's your interpretation. MY interpretation tells me that it's still the caster that uses the spell (as the description of the wands literally suggests) AND that the caster has to point the wand into the general direction of the target. In your case, you suggest that the text is contradictory, in my interpretation both sentences can coexist. I prefer to read the rules the latter way.

On another note:

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.

So no go on the 10ft wand (at least not if I was your DM ). The 'wand-chain' (similiar to the 'wand-chuk'???) is interesting though, as it raises the question: at which point are you no longer holding the wand in hand? One could argue that it's similar to a weapon: you wield it at the hilt, but use the blade to do the damage. If you can get your wand fixed to a chain, you could argue that the chain is the hilt and the wand is the blade. Hmm....

 

[ceratitis]

"typical want"... "most are made of..."
sounds to me like you can have an exeption here and there
besides if i was the DM i' make you win it off an enemy who used it against you which is usually fair.

 

[mvincent]

MY interpretation tells me that it's still the caster that uses the spell (as the description of the wands literally suggests) AND that the caster has to point the wand into the general direction of the target.

This may not coincide with the Double Wand Wielder and Wandstrike feats. Also, it would seem to require using two hands for touch attacks: one to point the wand, one to touch the target. This would apply to ranged touch attacks too, since your interpretation seems to indicate that those don't come from out of the tip of the wand either. I don't believe this is what the writer's intended.