# Can a dimension door that's cast from an item be used for Dimension Agility feats?

If I have all the feats from Dimensional Agility to Dimensional Savant (and can cast dimension door myself), what magic items can I also use to cast dimension door as a swift action because of the feat Dimensional Dervish?

Can a dimension door spell cast from a wand or dimension door, a dimension door spell in a ring of spell storing, a dimension door spell available due to a ring of wizardry IV, or a dimension door spell recalled by having used a pearl of power (4th-level spell) be activated as a swift action because of the feat Dimensional Dervish? Can I still use Dimensional Dervish even if I cast dimension door as a standard action?

# Dimensional Dervish and related feats require actually casting the spell dimension door

The Pathfinder Core Rulebook FAQ contains this exchange:

Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?

No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.

This means, for example, a creature that activates a wand of dimension door—despite Wands on Activation saying that a creature using a wand "cast[s] a spell from a wand"—will not realize the benefit of that creature's Dimensional Dervish feat. A creature that possesses the feat Dimensional Dervish takes a standard action (not a swift action) to activate a wand of dimension door just like almost everybody else.

Likewise, the feats Dimensional Agility and Dimensional Assault also specify actually casting the spell dimension door so their benefits won't be realized upon the creature activating a wand of dimension door either. And the feat Dimensional Savant is contingent upon the creature realizing the benefit of the feat Dimensional Dervish, so realizing the benefit of the feat Dimensional Savant also isn't possible if such an attempt is made to realize that feat's benefit via a wand of dimension door.

However, the ring of spell storing itself specifically "contains up to 5 levels of spells… that the wearer can cast." This might be enough for a GM to allow a dimension door spell stored in ring to count as the wearer casting it himself. At 50,000 gp per ring—each of which can hold but a lone dimension door spell and each of which requires a new dimension door spell to be cast into it after the present dimension door spell's been used—, it's unlikely a PC will find this a good workaround, but this GM would likely allow the ring's stored dimension door spell to count as the wearer actually casting the spell for the purposes of feats like Dimensional Dervish. Ask your GM.

Finally, a ring of wizardry IV merely doubles the wearer's number of 4th-level spell slots in which the wearer can prepare spells. Subsequently, the ring's wearer still must really cast those spells, so feats like Dimensional Dervish apply when casting a dimension door spell prepared in one of those ring-granted extra slots. And, like the ring of wizardry, a pearl of power "enables the possessor to [take a standard action to] recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast that day" and, subsequently—usually next turn or later—, cast that spell normally. Thus if the spell recalled using the pearl is dimension door, the caster can, after using the appropriate pearl of power, cast the spell and benefit from feats like Dimensional Dervish normally.

It's normally impossible to realize the benefit of the feat Dimensional Dervish with the spell dimension door if the dimension door spell's cast as a standard action. The feat's benefit says, "You can take a full-attack action, activating abundant step or casting dimension door as a swift action." Those conditions are necessary to realize the remainder of the feat's benefit, the game indicating those requirements with the phrase If you do….

Note: According to FAQ the feat Augment Summoning when used in conjunction with spell-like abilities is specifically an exception to the FAQ entry this answer quotes. Nobody's entirely sure why Augment Summoning gets special treatment, and the FAQ's ruling on that feat's interaction with spell-like abilities shouldn't be taken as precedent and applied generally.

• Makes sense, What about Pearls of Power, how many can a character carry and can dimension door be used o teleport the character 2 feet up in the air as well? – hopper Oct 21 '17 at 13:53
• @hopper Add pearls of power to the question, and I'll address those in the answer. ;-) However, if you've a specific and brand new question about the functionality of the spell dimension door, that should be posed as its own question. (If you do pose that question, please explain in that question why you'd want to use dimension door to transport yourself two feet into the air!) – Hey I Can Chan Oct 21 '17 at 14:00
• I find this answer is lacking in that it does not address the underlying rules at all. This stealth errata-nerf in the FAQ is a noxious practice and it deserves being called out where relevant. This “answer” they provide has absolutely no basis in the actual rules. – KRyan Oct 21 '17 at 15:26
• @KRyan Is your concern the wands thing? I agree that's obnoxious, and I tried to address that (saying, "despite Wands on Activation saying that a creature using a wand 'cast[s] a spell from a wand'"). What sort of stronger position do you recommend? (Also, I'll totally support an answer that just straight-up takes that stronger position instead.) – Hey I Can Chan Oct 21 '17 at 15:35
• I don't see anything in that FAQ that says Augment Summoning is special. The obvious reading is that SLAs can benefit from spell-affecting feats in general even though items can't. This is also the obvious reading of non-FAQ rules, because SLAs are defined to "work just like spells except [...]", and feats aren't listed in the exceptions. (I realize that other people disagree with me about obviousness, and that this has been debated before without consensus.) – topquark Oct 21 '17 at 16:04