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



## FoxWander (Oct 21, 2005)

Now, at first this question would seem to be a no-brainer... wands have spell trigger activation which is a standard action that doesn't provoke AoO. But apparently there's more to it than that or else I wouldn't bother posting about it. 

Here's what brings the rule into question, the many X Strike spells in the Complete Adventurer. All of these spells would obviously be way cool for a rogue to have on occasion. In case you don't have the CAdv, the spells are Golem, Grave and Vine Strike. They all allow you to sneak attack normally immune creatures- Constructs, Undead and Plants. There is also Wraithstrike which makes all your melee attacks into touch attacks. They are all 1 swift action to cast, have a range of "personal" and have a duration of "1 round".

If you're a rogue/spellcaster, no problem... cast away and start sneak attacking whatever you want. But if you can't cast the spell normally, there's always UMD and wands of these spells, right? Answer: I don't know. The only way they're usable as spells is because they're a swift action to cast. Otherwise their 1 round duration makes them completely unusable. If they were a standard action to cast (or activate, as you would normally think with a wand) then the duration means the effect would end just before your action next round, thus preventing you from using the effect. And they're range is personal so you can't have your spellcasting buddy cast it on you before you do your sneak attack.

All of this would seem to be fine- they're spells only intended to be used by multiclass sneak attackers/spell casters. I'd mourn for the loss of cheesy goodness for my single class rogue and move on. Except for one thing- the CAdv specifically lists these spells as wands in the new magic items section! Now, if the ONLY way these spells can be used is as a SWIFT action effect cast ON YOURSELF, why are they listed as wands? It would seem there are two possible answers- 

1) That it's simply a mistake. They forgot these spells would be completely useless as wands and put all four of them in the Wands section in error. 
2) That spells that are a swift action to cast are, as wands, a swift action to activate.

There is a precedent for answer 2 actually, since spells with longer than 1 action casting times are also a longer action to activate as a wand. It's only a minor stretch to allow the reverse to be true.


			
				SRD on wands said:
			
		

> 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 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.




So, if the wands were NOT listed by mistake and swift action spells are intended to be swift action wands, these are my questions to you fine folks...

1) Do you think that's the way swift action spells as wands are intended to be activated?
2) If they are "swift action wands" what problems/potential abuses do you foresee because of this?
3) How would you rule on this in your game?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 21, 2005)

The answer is 1) - but it's really probably more like, "It's simply a mistake; someone didn't realize that a wand of a swift action spell is still a standard action to activate."

It's the same issue that appears with the artificer metamagic item example in the Eberron Campaign Setting, in which an artificer applies Quicken Spell to a wand.  As the rules are written, this doesn't really have any effect.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 21, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The answer is 1) - but it's really probably more like, "It's simply a mistake; someone didn't realize that a wand of a swift action spell is still a standard action to activate."




Put your Swift spells onto scrolls instead, and you're good to go.

-Hyp.


----------



## Pinotage (Oct 21, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Put your Swift spells onto scrolls instead, and you're good to go.
> 
> -Hyp.




For the record to add to Hypersmurf correct statement according to the core rules, the Miniatures handbook actually states that swift actions in scrolls are also standard action activation. However, there is some debate as to whether that is correct based on preceding text in the same paragraph which is incorrect according the core rules. According to Core Rules only, scrolls with swift actions have swift action activation times. According to a reading of the Miniatures Handbook, they don't. Ask your DM, or take a look at the text in the Miniatures handbook.

Pinotage


----------



## Lamoni (Oct 21, 2005)

My opinion is that since swift actions weren't invented until long after there was spellcasting and wands that the default activation was set to a standard action with no caveat for spells that have a shorter duration.

In my game I'd allow them to be activated with a swift action... and I think that if the PHB was written with swift spells in mind that it would be allowed according to the rules.  Right now the rules as written state that it cannot be done.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 21, 2005)

Lamoni said:
			
		

> My opinion is that since swift actions weren't invented until long after there was spellcasting and wands that the default activation was set to a standard action with no caveat for spells that have a shorter duration.




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

-Hyp.


----------



## Sigma (Oct 22, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> For the record to add to Hypersmurf correct statement according to the core rules, the Miniatures handbook actually states that swift actions in scrolls are also standard action activation. However, there is some debate as to whether that is correct based on preceding text in the same paragraph which is incorrect according the core rules. According to Core Rules only, scrolls with swift actions have swift action activation times. According to a reading of the Miniatures Handbook, they don't. Ask your DM, or take a look at the text in the Miniatures handbook.
> 
> Pinotage




Too bad it's still a move equivalent to pull that scroll of feather fall out of the backback though.

*splat*


----------



## FoxWander (Oct 22, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Put your Swift spells onto scrolls instead, and you're good to go.



Yeah, I figured that would be a "core rules" answer but somehow it just seems wrong that reading a scroll (or heck, reading _anything_!) could be done quick enough to be considered a _swift_ action, as the rules define it.

Since 'spell trigger' activation could best be described as just *thinking* at the wand to "do it's thing", I'd be ok with it being a swift action for spells that would be _cast_ as swift actions. But, until there's some errata on the subject or a Sage Advice ruling, it looks like ruling that way will have to be in house rules territory. Although at least it has some vague precedent with longer spells taking longer activation and the presence of four otherwise useless wands in the CAdv wands list. 

So, aside from the fact that this should probably be in the "house rules" forum now, can anyone see any problems with swift action wands? It would seem that if the spells are balanced that wands would be as well. But then I haven't seen these spells used yet. Does anyone that has think the spells themselves are a problem?


----------



## FEADIN (Oct 22, 2005)

I can see no problem with that, in the text for wands they say:"*usually* a standard action", it seems they let the possibility for something different to exist, in the core rules it was Feather Fall maybe.
Activating a spell trigger item is described as saying a word, with a wand and a sword in the other hand you can say a word and the magic of the swift spell comes immediatly to allow you to make other actions, with 1 action spells stored in a wand it's the magic which takes time to come out, not the word you say.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 22, 2005)

FEADIN said:
			
		

> I can see no problem with that, in the text for wands they say:"*usually* a standard action", it seems they let the possibility for something different to exist, in the core rules it was Feather Fall maybe.




They did let the possibility of something different exist, and they clarify it in the parentheses.

It's usually a standard action.  When is it not a standard action?  (If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 action).

-Hyp.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Oct 22, 2005)

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 (Oct 22, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 23, 2005)

Lamoni said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 23, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> 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...


			
				D&D glossary said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




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.



			
				moritheil said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 23, 2005)

FoxWander said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 23, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 23, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 23, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 23, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> 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.)
> 
> ...




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 (Oct 23, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> 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!


----------



## Silveras (Oct 23, 2005)

FoxWander said:
			
		

> 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!




It is entirely possible that the spells were originally NOT swift actions (and lasted a couple of rounds), but were made swift actions with short durations late in the development process. The entries in the wand list could be a spot the developers missed in making that change. 

The best thing to do is to go to the Wizards web site and report it as possible errata. And/or email the Sage and ask what the deal is. That way, there is a chance you will get an authoritative answer (of which we can then argue the validity). 

Seriously, whenever the question is "what did they have in mind", "they" (WotC and/or the Sage) are the ones to ask.


----------



## ForceUser (Oct 23, 2005)

Silveras said:
			
		

> The best thing to do is to go to the Wizards web site and report it as possible errata. And/or email the Sage and ask what the deal is. That way, there is a chance you will get an authoritative answer (of which we can then argue the validity).



I disagree. The best thing to do is have your DM make a ruling and move on. You can always incorporate errata later should you choose. I don't think it breaks the game to allow it, but I probably wouldn't allow it in my homebrew. I might allow it in Eberron or Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Silveras (Oct 23, 2005)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> I disagree. The best thing to do is have your DM make a ruling and move on. You can always incorporate errata later should you choose. I don't think it breaks the game to allow it, but I probably wouldn't allow it in my homebrew. I might allow it in Eberron or Forgotten Realms.




Making a decision and moving on is what you need to do to keep playing. Raising the issue with WotC customer service and/or the Sage is the best way to a) make them aware there is something in need of correction and b) get an idea of what the intention was, so that, if necessary, the DM can confirm or revise the initial ruling. 

If it is important enough to ask outside your own group, it is important enough to try one of the "official" channels, IMHO.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 23, 2005)

Silveras said:
			
		

> Making a decision and moving on is what you need to do to keep playing. Raising the issue with WotC customer service and/or the Sage is the best way to a) make them aware there is something in need of correction and b) get an idea of what the intention was, so that, if necessary, the DM can confirm or revise the initial ruling.




I've dropped Andy Collins a query email with the relevant quotes from the DMG, MiniHB, and CA to get his take on the subject.

It should be noted that even at a standard action to activate, a wand of Gravestrike is not _completely_ useless.  You would gain the benefit on any AoOs you made against undead for the rest of the round.

It's still _mostly_ useless, but not _completely_ useless 

-Hyp.


----------



## Silveras (Oct 24, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I've dropped Andy Collins a query email with the relevant quotes from the DMG, MiniHB, and CA to get his take on the subject.
> 
> It should be noted that even at a standard action to activate, a wand of Gravestrike is not _completely_ useless.  You would gain the benefit on any AoOs you made against undead for the rest of the round.
> 
> ...




Indeed. I am somewhat curious as to how close my hypothetical scenario comes to the truth.


----------



## Pinotage (Oct 26, 2005)

Keenly awaiting an answer on this one!

Pinotage


----------



## cmanos (Oct 26, 2005)

I'll have to look at the Feather Fall token and see how it works.  Its not a wand.  More likely it is a Wondrous Item, but I don't know exactly if it is use activated or what.  You may want to look at it for a basis of a magic item.  Seems kind of silly to have one of those spells in a wand that takes a standard action to use.  Maybe those are sold by the shady magic item dealers who prey on the uninformed.  "Yeah, really...it only takes a swift action to use!"


----------



## Pinotage (Oct 27, 2005)

cmanos said:
			
		

> I'll have to look at the Feather Fall token and see how it works.  Its not a wand.  More likely it is a Wondrous Item, but I don't know exactly if it is use activated or what.  You may want to look at it for a basis of a magic item.  Seems kind of silly to have one of those spells in a wand that takes a standard action to use.  Maybe those are sold by the shady magic item dealers who prey on the uninformed.  "Yeah, really...it only takes a swift action to use!"




There's a Safewing Emblem in Races of the Wild, which automatically activates when the wearer falls more than 5 ft. It states that it takes no action to activate.

Pinotage


----------



## FEADIN (Oct 27, 2005)

As the ring of feather fall...


----------



## Pinotage (Oct 27, 2005)

FEADIN said:
			
		

> As the ring of feather fall...




Except that it's a single use, wondrous item. Probably the important bit to mention.   

Pinotage


----------

