Wands with swift action spells- swift or standard action to activate?

[MatthewJHanson]

Here's my question, would it be imbalancing to allow swift spells in wands to take only a swift action. I tend to say no, but that's just a first instinct.

 

[Lamoni]

But Feather Fall and Quickened spells existed when the wand text was written...

-Hyp.

Is it possible to put a quickened spell into a wand? I guess you can could quicken a 0 level spell... but can you put metamagic versions of a spell into a wand (like a wand of empowered magic missile)? Feather fall may have been overlooked, but more likely they just saw featherfall wands as not being important... and not making much sense since featherfall can be cast outside of your turn. Well, obviously you can have a wand of featherfall... but it isn't an immediate action to activate it.

I guess it doesn't matter much. We are all in agreement that it isn't possible to activate a wand with a swift action. I only say that I'd allow it as a house rule. Otherwise if you allowed wands to include metamagic, you could store an extended swift spell so it could last for 2 rounds.

 

[moritheil]

Well, obviously you can have a wand of featherfall... but it isn't an immediate action to activate it.

Actually, I think a close reading of the original post will reveal that this is what the poster is uncertain of. He doesn't know if it would be an immediate action to activate it or not.

For the record, I do think that the intent here is to disallow non-multiclassed rogues the benefit of those swift spells.

 

[FoxWander]

Actually, I think a close reading of the original post will reveal that this is what the poster is uncertain of. He doesn't know if it would be an immediate action to activate it or not.

Well that's almost what I'm wondering, but it's 'swift action' not 'immediate action'. Since you can do immediate actions anytime, even when it's not your turn (although, in that case, it counts as your swift action for that turn), allowing immediate action activation of wands seems pretty unbalanced. I'd allow a wand of feather fall to be a swift action though. It won't help you in a surprise fall situation, but that's what rings of feather fall are for.

I have found another vague implication that swift action wands might be ok by the rules. Check the portion of the definition which I've underlined here...

swift action

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting or the activation of magic items; many characters (especially those who don't cast spells) never have an opportunity to take a swift action.

Casting a quickened spell is a swift action (instead of a free action, as stated in the Quicken Spell feat description in the Player's Handbook). In addition, casting any spell with a casting time of 1 swift action (such as choose destiny) is a swift action.

Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

I've seen several swift action spells but NO swift action magic items... except the possiblity of said spells as wands. (such as, the four I mentioned in my original post) The definition mentions swift activation of magic items though. So, again, it's not much of a stretch to infer swift action spells would also be swift action wands. But, this falls back to "inferring" (read: making up) a rule based on non-specific implications in the rules.

For the record, I do think that the intent here is to disallow non-multiclassed rogues the benefit of those swift spells.

And I would tend to agree that that does seem to be the intent, but then, why specifically list four wands which use spells that have NO EFFECT unless they are cast as a swift action? Sure it could be a mistake on the designers part, but was the mistake to list those four wands ~or~ to NOT provide a rule about (hypothetical) swift action wands?

 

[moritheil]

And I would tend to agree that that does seem to be the intent, but then, why specifically list four wands which use spells that have NO EFFECT unless they are cast as a swift action? Sure it could be a mistake on the designers part, but was the mistake to list those four wands ~or~ to NOT provide a rule about (hypothetical) swift action wands?

You're definitely overthinking this one. WOTC publishes errors all the time. Many authors don't read the rules closely, or don't have as firm a grasp on them as they think. See: Greenbound Summoning, and the Powerful Build text.

Of course, I could be the biased one here, as I tend not to attribute to design what I can attribute to stupidity or incompetence . . .

 

[Hypersmurf]

You're definitely overthinking this one. WOTC publishes errors all the time. Many authors don't read the rules closely, or don't have as firm a grasp on them as they think. See: Greenbound Summoning, and the Powerful Build text.

The original author of the Greenbond Summoning feat has stated that the published feat is not what he originally submitted - it was written as a metamagic feat with a level adjustment, not a general feat like Augment Summoning.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

The original author of the Greenbond Summoning feat has stated that the published feat is not what he originally submitted - it was written as a metamagic feat with a level adjustment, not a general feat like Augment Summoning.

-Hyp.

I was in on the thread. I use it as a prime example of how WOTC publishes errors.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I was in on the thread. I use it as a prime example of how WOTC publishes errors.

It's not necessarily an error.

For example, the Invisible Blade was originally submitted as a 10 level prestige class with some ranged abilities. It was an editorial decision to make it a 5 level class with no ranged abilities instead. (This is the origin of the ranged attack feats in the Invisible Blade's requirements.)

The changes to Greenbond Summoning were quite possibly deliberate choice on the part of the publishers, after the feat had left the creative control of the author.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

It's not necessarily an error.

For example, the Invisible Blade was originally submitted as a 10 level prestige class with some ranged abilities. It was an editorial decision to make it a 5 level class with no ranged abilities instead. (This is the origin of the ranged attack feats in the Invisible Blade's requirements.)

The changes to Greenbond Summoning were quite possibly deliberate choice on the part of the publishers, after the feat had left the creative control of the author.

-Hyp.

Even if it wasn't an accidental error, I hold that it was an error in judgment, as it allowed (RAW) low-level druids to summon multiple allies that could cast Wall of Thorns. This basically made a mockery of the EL system at those low levels.

 

[FoxWander]

You're definitely overthinking this one. WOTC publishes errors all the time. Many authors don't read the rules closely, or don't have as firm a grasp on them as they think. See: Greenbound Summoning, and the Powerful Build text.

Of course, I could be the biased one here, as I tend not to attribute to design what I can attribute to stupidity or incompetence . . .

True I could be overthinking it. (and I probably am) But consider this, CAdv has 61 new spells 4th level and below (ie. could be made into wands), but only 13 are listed on the wands list. The four I mentioned are the only swift action ones in the lot, but that leaves plenty of other spells (with swift, standard and longer casting times) that would be viable wands. Why aren't they listed? Again, it could just be a big screw-up, along the lines of what you and Hyp are talking about. Maybe these four spells weren't originally swift spells, somewhere in the design process that got changed and the wand list never got fixed. But what's up with all the other good spells in there that aren't wands?

Of course, thinking this way lends weight to the "big screw-up" argument when, of course, I would like it to lean towards "swift action wands." But still, it'd be nice if the issue were clearer either way. If only we lived in a perfect world where every book was perfect before it was published!