Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FoxWander" data-source="post: 2674331" data-attributes="member: 1356">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 <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_swiftaction&alpha=" target="_blank">definition</a> which I've underlined here...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. 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?</blockquote>

Verification