Can a familiar use wands?

[Dwarfi]

Hello everyone,

again some questions came up that I usually dont think about which need clarification.

1) - One of my players has a raven familiar, which can speak. Now he argues that the raven should be able to hold and use wands while flying around.
I believe that it can hold a wand in its claws and fly around, but casting from it? I dont know, is talking all thats necessary to use a wand?

2) - Pin an opponent + potions?
 you pin an opponent, stop him from speaking and then search for a potion and drink it? I am not very used to the rules when it comes to pinning an opponent.

Thanks again.
best, Dwarfi

[Mogkiller]

1) I couldn' t find anything about wielding rules. But be it 3.5 or Pathfinder, Two-Weapon Fighting says that you can grab a weapon "in your off hand" (meaning you need a "hand" in the first place).

Now, your raven have claws. But by rules claws are natural weapons automatically wielded to your limbs (feet and/or hands). The raven have claws on its "feet" so he can't wield anything.

2) It depends the version:

• Pathfinder states here that a pinned down character can only free itself, use verbal and mental action but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. So in Pathfinder you can't use a potion (nor attack).
• 3.5 states here that the one who is graplling can choose to make the pinned one unable to speak (making it VERY dificult to drink a potion in my opinion).
  Actually, when you are pinned you are in the second stage of being grappled. And when you are grappled you can still use a magical item. But when you are pinned, you have less option than when grapping. The "pinned"'s paragraph only states that you are held immobile, so unless your opponent choose to make you unable to speak, you can totaly use a potion (Edit:if you have it in hand) without even making a grapple check.

Edit: I didn't read that you said "search for a potion" the first time. Then no: be it Pathfinder or 3.5, none of them enable a character grappling to search for an item other than a spell component, a light or the opponent's light weapon(s).

[phaedrusxy]

Having claws doesn't preclude you from using things in your hands. There are plenty of lizardman, dragon, and other races that both have claws and use tools. All the raven has to do is hold the wand and speak the command word, it doesn't have to do any special somatic manipulation.

[Mogkiller]

Exactly, it doesn't prevent you to use item with your hands. As I said before, claws are weapons naturally attached to limbs (hands and/or feet). You can use them or not to attack and still wield or hold any kind of item if the limb could in the first place.

Still, here we are talking about an avian which as claws on its limbs (feet) whereas you need limbs (hands) to wield a weapon.
Ohh, I see my mistake : a wand is not a weapon.

Well, back from the start. In pathfinder you can read here that "To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for non-humanoid creatures)".
In 3.5 you can read the same.

Now it is up to your interpretation: does feet with claws passes for a hand in the case of an avian? For me it doesn't because of the limbs (feet), but it's not an exact science.

[Kethrian]

Mog, you are missing the real part of the question.  Do familiars count as having a spell list which would allow them to use spell trigger items, such as wands?  Nothing in the Familiar section of the PHB says they do.  So, it would seem that unless the familiar has ranks in UMD (or the master does), it would not be able to activate a wand.

[kitep]

A human fighter can speak.  A human fighter has hands.  A human fighter cannot use wands.

[Mogkiller]

A human fighter can speak.  A human fighter has hands.  A human fighter cannot use wands.

A human fighter with Able learner (3.5) can.

But yes, I see your point. Can I also say that I find your comment rather offensive, or blunt at the very least?

So, it would seem that unless the familiar has ranks in UMD (or the master does), it would not be able to activate a wand.

You are right! I did forgot about that.
Anyway, it was interesting (for me at the very least) to learn that a wand as to be hold in a hand in order to be used.

[kitep]

Saw this on Dictum Mortuum's blogspot

Familiar Wand Users:

You can have your familiar use wands. This is very important, as you can have the same effect (since triggering a wand offers usually the same effect), but without expending your actions.

To use a wand a familiar must:

Hold it in hand (or something that passes for a hand, so claws, hoofs, etc must be ok).

Speak a single word. This is a problem, as most familiars can't speak. You can have a raven familiar however, which speaks a language. Moreover you can cast a tongues spell, or similar effect, to your familiar to make it able to speak.

Spell Knowledge. This is the biggest problem. Your familiar doesn't have a spell list to provide, so it can't really activate the wand. There are several ways to bypass it:

• Use Magic Device: Your familiar and you share ranks in skills. So if you have a decent amount of use magic device ranks, it will probably be able to trigger the spell.

• Spell-Linked Familiar (PHB II): This is a feat with little to no requirements. In effect your familiar gets to cast a small amount of spells ranging from level 0 to 2. Consult with your DM if this actually is sufficient for it to activate a normal wand. However, note, that this actually works for eternal wands.

• Imbue with spell ability and similar effects: Again as above, but cheaper, since this is only a spell. It may or may not give your familiar the ability to use normal wands, but it can use eternal ones without doubt.
[/unquote]

[Mogkiller]

Hold it in hand (or something that passes for a hand, so claws, hoofs, etc must be ok).

Hoofs? I want to see a horse holding a wand with its hoof!
For claws, as I said before: it is up to our interpretation.

[kitep]

But yes, I see your point. Can I also say that I find your comment rather offensive, or blunt at the very least?

Sorry about that.  I was going for clear and concise, and didn't mean to be offensive.  I actually think it's a perfectly good question, especially given how many times I've seen "ravens can use wands" on these and other boards.  Again, my apologies.

[Mogkiller]

That's ok, apologies accepted!
And yes, both questions are interesting!

[phaedrusxy]

Ravens and other birds use their "feet" to hold things and manipulate them. Their "feet" are basically used as both their feet and hands. Go watch a youtube video of a bird of prey catching and killing something. Can you grasp and hold something with your foot like that? Of course not! "Feet" aren't capable of that. The bird of prey's claws are much more sophisticated than a human's foot. Therefore, they're analogous to both hands and feet.

All the bird has to do is hold the wand, nothing special. So I don't see why it can't do that. If it were trying to use them for somatic components for actual spellcasting, then I might buy it. (But there are feats for even that)

Of course, the master has to have UMD ranks. That goes without saying.

[Keldar]

Ravens and Crows are tool users capable of solving multi step problems and learning by example and even crafting simple tools.   A familiar is at least as smart as a middle schooler.  As long as the familiar has ranks in UMD (inherited from the master), it should be possible... presuming the wand is small and light enough for them to manipulate.  9 inches of ash with a pheonix core is probably too big.  Something from the local pixie shop perhaps.

[Mogkiller]

@Keldar, Phaedrusxy
I am aware about that. I don't have any problem with a bird, or an avian to used its feet to grab any kind of object, especially when it's flying.

However we are in a RPG. The world is designed to follow rules, not logic or science. That's why when I see "feet" on a "monster" that only has access to one limb to walk, I don't accept it as being able to grab a thing with it. See ? The difference here is that RAW you need hands or something that can make up for it whereas avian has feet.
But hey, that's up to interpretation! Every DM is the final arbiter of its realm.
Also, I would be pretty more incline to see a raven using a wand than a horse using its hoofs. We are not in MLP:The RPG.

[Kethrian]

"Hand" really just means manipulator, which is why the rules say "or equivalent".  That's what birds use their talons for, in addition to standing and clawing.  Using a mouth as a manipulator is something that someone could argue, though it would be rendered useless for speaking command words.  A wizard polymorphed into a gibbering mouther could possibly use one orifice to wield the wand and another (or several) to speak the command word for it, for instance.

As for a horse, hooves are not manipulators, so it would have to use its mouth to hold the wand, so even if it did have a way to activate the wand, it could not both hold it and speak at the same time.

[Mogkiller]

"Hand" really just means manipulator, which is why the rules say "or equivalent".  That's what birds use their talons for, in addition to standing and clawing.  Using a mouth as a manipulator is something that someone could argue, though it would be rendered useless for speaking command words.

See ? It's up to Interpretation. But seriously, I understand your point and I am quite sure you would be right if asked to someone from Paizo.

As for a horse, hooves are not manipulators, so it would have to use its mouth to hold the wand, so even if it did have a way to activate the wand, it could not both hold it and speak at the same time.

And here we are: why is it possible for a horse to use a wand with its mouth but not for a human? Are you racist!? (that's is a joke, please don't hit me).
Also, can't a raven and a horse be ventriloquist? Where did you read in the rules that sound comes from an open mouth?
I also present you the example of Zoro (from One Piece) who can Mouth-Wield while talking!

[Kethrian]

When Roronoa Zoro tries talking with a sword in his mouth, his speech is garbled and though generally comprehensible, it is far from perfect.  This imperfection will ruin any attempt to use a wand held in that mouth.

According to the rules, it has to be one creature that both wields the wand and speaks the command words to activate it, so ventriloquism will never work.  I can just imagine all the shenanigans players, and especially board members here, could come up with if they could just throw their voice to activate enemy magic items at very inopportune times.

[Mogkiller]

The creature must hold, as "wield" is used for weapon.
I don't see why ventriloquism wouldn't work.
I also don't see how ventriloquism would lead to less shenanigans than being able to use wand with your mouth! Do you imagine all the possibilities!?

The followings sentence have been recorded by mecanical owls from the last words of poor adventurers who didn't expect the said creature to cast a death ray of deadly desintegration.

Hey look at that robot! He is holding a  hundred wands with his multiple whips integrated as natural weapon

Look at this little cute blob with wands inside! Isn't he cute with all of the magical items in its body that he can totaly manipulate!?

Mommy, why are the sharks wielding bastard swords attached to severed arms that they hold in their mouth?

Wow, I never thought about holding several Fine wands that are by rules 2 sizes under Fine so take so little space that I can totaly grab them without any difficulty.
I should totaly do that right after we kill this little Kobold followed by his viper pet.

I mean: the only way I saw in 3.5 to gag (other than spell) is when you have pinned someone and choosed to gag him (and even there, it's not written as such).
In Pathfinder I saw no way to physically gag a charater (here again, without spell).
So ventriloquism is useless (for this usage, and the usages described here only) in Pathfinder and useful in only one situation in 3.5.

You can also do Perform(comedy) to be able to use ventriloquism in 3.5. It must also be possible in Pathfinder but I have no proof of that.
In both version, there's a spell for that.
Both methods doesn't say that you have to move your mouth in order to speak. That's left to interpretation as well. 
The only thing I see is that the spell says "speak" while pinned (in 3.5) says that "you can prevent a pinned opponent from speaking".

[ketaro]

Oh, Mog's examples about Ventriloquism is not in regards to Animal A holding a Wand in it's mouth and having Wizard B use Ventriloquism talents to make it sound like the Animal A just spoke the command for the Wand.

No, he's talking about the animal using Ventriloquism explicitly for the ability to talk perfectly normally while it's mouth is full. Like when a ventriloquist talks thru a doll while drinking a glass of water. Except in this example, they're talking thru themselves while drinking a glass full of wands.

So long as it is the Animal holding the wand and the Animal that is speaking the command word, AND the Animal that was the magical ability or UMD to activate the wand, WHERE the wand is physically wielded kind of means nothing.

[Power]

I'm a bit surprised this provokes a discussion. According to both Pathfinder and 3.5, "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 claw would certainly be "whatever passes for a hand" for a raven, and the somatic usage component is simply pointing it in the general direction of the target or area, which a raven can certainly do with its claws. No problems there. As a spell trigger item, speaking a command word is also necessary, and ravens are capable of speech. So the first precondition - whether a raven is physically capable of using a wand - is definitively answered.

The second precondition - being able to cast the spell in question - varies between 3.5 and Pathfinder. In 3.5, you need to have the spell on your class list to use a spell trigger item. It also provides an example of a 3rd level Paladin (who cannot yet cast anything) being able to use a wand if the spell is on his class list. A raven does not qualify unless it somehow has class levels. In Pathfinder, the same applies, but having the spell as a spell-like ability also qualifies for spell-trigger items, so "imbue with spell-like ability" would make it work.

Now, since a raven cannot cast the spell in question, it will need to use the Use Magic Device skill to activate a wand instead. The DC for using a wand is DC 20, and the raven can use the spellcaster's skill ranks instead of its own. You can also buff or equip the raven with things like Heroism, Eagle's Splendor, and a Circlet of Persuasion. In Pathfinder you could also give it the Figment archetype or the Evolved Familiar feat and hand it the 1-point Skilled evolution for a +8 bonus to UMD.

So the short end of it is "Yes, familiars can use wands. As long as they can hold it in a hand (or whatever passes for a hand for non-humanoids), point it, speak the command word, and succeed at a DC 20 UMD check." By the way, if your familiar can't speak, it can still activate a wand through a DC 25 "activate blindly" check.