Wands and technicalities

[Greyfeld]

Ok, so I'm having a debate (gradually spiraling into a full-blown argument) with somebody about wands and the technical wording on their usage. The discussion revolves around Familiars and whether or not a character should be able to activate a wand that holds a Touch-range spell, and pass the spell onto his Familiar, who can then cast the spell using the Deliver Touch Spells ability.

My point is that, as a Spell Trigger Item, you are not casting the spell yourself, thus cannot pass the spell onto your Familiar. His stance is the opposite, hinging on liberal interpretations of the SRD.

The debate spans quite a few posts, but I'll sum up his argument with his most recent post:

...in the SRD, they absolutely refer to activating a spell-containing item as "casting a spell," and in the descriptions of spell sharing and hold the charge, they refer to "casting a spell" again, so strictly speaking the abilities should apply. Secondly, nowhere in those descriptions does it make it clear that using an item and casting a spell are separate. Yes, they use different terminology, but they do the same in the SRD, and in the SRD both usages are interchangeable. There are different rules as to how "casting a spell" works with each different type of item, but it's still casting a spell and therefore still subject to any parts of spellcasting not explicitly mentioned in the usage descriptions (unlike attacks of opportunity, casting time, XP cost, etc, which are explicitly handled).

But it isn't just semantics. Consider the balance of the thing: a wand of shocking grasp and a wand of magic missile cost the same and are just as difficult to create, but if you interpret activating items as not "casting a spell," the wand of shocking grasp would have less functionality than the spell, wheras the magic missile wand would not. As always, it is the DM's right to make the call, but in this case I think it would fall on the DM to make it clear to players that wands work that way, especially before a character buys or makes one, that way the player knows how the thing they're spending resources on will work. If, on the other hand, you wanted wands to work just like spells, you probably needn't mention it, since if anything it makes them more useful.

So, any thoughts from the DMs and rules lawyers out there?

 

[Greenfield]

Casting a spell provokes attacks of opportunity. Using a wand doesn't.

So no, they aren't the same.

 

[Jimlock]

Deliver Touch Spells (Su)
If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the "toucher." The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master could. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates.

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.

CASTING the spell yourself is totally different from "USING a wand's spell"

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.

One does NOT cast the spell stored in a wand, he simply ACTIVATES the magical item with the spell trigger ACTIVATION method. No matter how "similar" Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, a wand user does not CAST the spell, he activates a wand.

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 standard 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.

And since your friend is probably using this single highlighted part to support his argument, tell him that "casting
the spell from a wand" is clearly another (perhaps false) way of saying "using/activating the spell from a wand"

As far as I am concerned, the Spell Trigger description is very explicit, and leaves no room for debate.
IMO there is no RAI here, RAW is clear.

 

[Dandu]

I concur with the above posters.

 

[xigbar]

Think of it as the difference of holding a bullet in your hand, and poking someone with it, and holding a loaded gun.

 

[Greyfeld]

CASTING the spell yourself is totally different from "USING a wand's spell"



One does NOT cast the spell stored in a wand, he simply ACTIVATES the magical item with the spell trigger ACTIVATION method. No matter how "similar" Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, a wand user does not CAST the spell, he activates a wand.



And since your friend is probably using this single highlighted part to support his argument, tell him that "casting
the spell from a wand" is clearly another (perhaps false) way of saying "using/activating the spell from a wand"

As far as I am concerned, the Spell Trigger description is very explicit, and leaves no room for debate.
IMO there is no RAI here, RAW is clear.

I completely agree with you. I even linked the WotC definitions of Spell Trigger Item, Spell Completion Item, and Casting a Spell while expressing my side of the argument, and he dismissed them with the following statement:

First off, those are from the PHB, which isn't theoretically up-to date, whereas the SRD is.

Then proceeded to highlight that "casting a spell from a wand" quote from the SRD.

I guess this means I just have to drop the subject and let him believe he's right.

 

[Jimlock]

First off, those are from the PHB, which isn't theoretically up-to date, whereas the SRD is.

??????

There is nothing to answer to that.



I think you are waisting your time.

By the way, all my quotes above are from the SRD.

If he wants even "fresher" news, try the Rules Compendium which says the same thing.

 

[Dandu]

The PHB does not include errata, that is true.

The PHB errata, on the other hand, does and it does not change how wands work to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Vegepygmy]

My point is that, as a Spell Trigger Item, you are not casting the spell yourself, thus cannot pass the spell onto your Familiar. His stance is the opposite, hinging on liberal interpretations of the SRD.

You're right, he's wrong, and good luck winning the argument.