What if Focuses like Wands, Staves, Holy Symbols, etc were statted like weapons?

[Blue]

So if focuses like wands got stats on a weapons table with something like:
Frost Wand: Light, Ranged, Focus, 1d8 cold, range 30/90
Fire Staff: 2-handed, Ranged, Focus, 1d10 fire, range 50/150

Would you feel that all combat cantrips should get scrapped?

I think this would make issues much worse. Because now all combat cantrips take a hand. Somatic (without material) spells need a hand even with a spell focus. Some full casters have weapons and shields. It would make an unholy mess of what is in your hands and handicap some character concepts.

Should damage scaling get scrapped in favour of multiple attacks for magical weapon attacks for certain classes (Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc)?

Let's see, this would slow down the game with more rolls, and give every caster the advantage that right now only the warlock has of adding their casting stat to multiple times.

Plus, both of these make cantrips even more like weapons, which is a distinct disadvantage in the "keeping magic magical" direction.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

That sounds awesome! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

Wait a second!

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Do we add spellcasting abiltiy modifier to damage roll?
It is an attack so I guess yes.

I assume it would. It could result in having to respectively change the Warlock's must have Agonizing Blast invocation and the Cleric's Potent Spellcasting traits.

 

[Lord Twig]

I think a simpler approach would require less fixing of things that are not broken to begin with. Just make a wand that needs to be attuned by a spellcaster and allows for unlimited casting of a cantrip. It would be just like the various staves that already exist in the game.

I would let it level by character level and would not add stat mod to damage. You could increase the rarity of the item by making it a +1 or better item (just like a weapon) that would add to attack and damage. Maybe it could do base damage (1 die) for anyone unattuned.

But absolutely nowhere should it be called an implement.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You might want to look into some of the stuff that Keith Baker has been talking about in his podcast and guide to Eberron. Making foci distinctive and affecting cantrips. Wandslingers are a logical progression that he has talked about as well.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

You might want to look into some of the stuff that Keith Baker has been talking about in his podcast and guide to Eberron. Making foci distinctive and affecting cantrips. Wandslingers are a logical progression that he has talked about as well.

In some ways it's sort of behind my idea that maybe wands should be like weapons, another is many video games out there where I guess those designers thought if fighter-types get all sorts of magic weapons as loot what do spellcasters get.

But I'm aware of how different in practice loot-based video games work from table-top and it's expectations.

Eberron Artificers I'd say had a lot of system mastery involved back in 3.5e, you'd make wands of Scorching Ray or Enervation (at appropriate levels) or whatever ranged touch spell that existed outside of the PHB to take advantage of the 3/4 BAB Artificers got, in addition to cure light wounds wands.

In 5e it's not built that way, and won't be till at least next week before we get the revised Artificer (blame the snow).

 

[NaturalZero]

One of the great parts of 4e that got tossed was the implement system. The idea that staves, wands, orbs, tomes, rods, foci, et all, could have properties in their own right and add properties to spells cast has sooooo much untapped design potential.

For me, I like magic items that do special things without messing with the core math. If I were to design DnD from the ground up, I'd toss most of the "+1" type items and focus on qualitative, not quantitative, items, so we'd end up with implements that:

- teleport the caster when you use a spell slot
- create a damaging AOE focused on the caster when you deal elemental damage.
- make the user immune to environmental damage like heat or cold while they hold it.
- heal allies when you expend a spell slot to cast
- deal ongoing damage when you roll damage while casting through the implement
- radiate blinding light when you cast
- create a horrible stench that poisons enemies when you cast
- create an area of stealth-killing magical fairy light when you cast
- create dim light in a radius when you cast
- absorbs incoming elemental attacks and allow you to add some of that damage to outgoing attacks
- pushes targets when you hit with a spell
- pulls target when you hit with a spell
- cause targets to explode when killed with a spell
- doles out temp hp when you expend a slot
- causes targets to begin petrifying when they're hit

... and so on. It would be cool if this types of design was more at the forefront of 5e magic use.

 

[DQDesign]

You might want to look into some of the stuff that Keith Baker has been talking about in his podcast and guide to Eberron. Making foci distinctive and affecting cantrips. Wandslingers are a logical progression that he has talked about as well.

this idea is briefly developed, from a 5E rules point of view, in the Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron currently on dmsguild.

 

[Horwath]

"caster weapon" can tap into your magic potential, becoming more powerfull with the caster.

the +1/+2/+3 can be for attack/DC bonuses of those attacks and/or all your spell attacks/DCs

deals 1dX damage die of damage.

if you can cast 3rd level spells, it deals 2dX damage dice,

if you can cast 5th level spells, it deals 3dX damage dice,

if you can cast 7th level spells, it deals 4dX damage dice,

if you can cast 9th level spells, it deals 5dX damage dice,


I.E.

staff of the supreme Elemental lord.
Legendary weapon.

It is +3 staff when used as melee weapon.

add +3 to attack and DCs for spells with acid, cold, fire, lightning or thunder damage.

You can make melee spell attack with the staff with +3 bonus to deal 1d12 acid, cold, fire, lightning or thunder damage. More if you have higher level spell.

You can make ranged spell attack with the staff with +3 bonus to deal 1d8 acid, cold, fire, lightning or thunder damage. Range 150ft More if you have higher level spell.

If you have extra attack feature you can make extra spell attacks with this weapon.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Plus, both of these make cantrips even more like weapons, which is a distinct disadvantage in the "keeping magic magical" direction.

I think this is the biggest issue for me.

One of the complaints about 4E was the fact that there appeared little differentiation in game mechanics between weapon combat and magic combat. Regardless of the method you used, they all attacked the same way, they all were defended the same way, they all did damage the same way, they all pushed/pulled people the same way, they all moved people the same way, they all healed people the same way. The only difference was the narration we were meant to imagine and attribute to what was happening. Very few times could you look at the purely mechanical aspect of any power power and glean from it "That's a weapon attack" or "That's a magic attack".

'1d8 damage and push the target 1 square' could mean anything.

With other editions of D&D (including 5E), they seemed to be a purposeful mechanical differentiation between attacks using weapons and attack using magic. Now granted, they aren't widely disparate from each other by any stretch... but they do run differently. And that does help lend itself I think to making it easier to distinguish one from the other and that separation allows for an easier visualization for their differences. When 5E weapon attacks have multiple attacks with multiple attack rolls plus add in a single higher bonus to damage based upon ability modifiers versus magic cantrips that are often defended via saving throws and whose damage has no flat bonuses and instead do additional dice of damage (depending the level of the caster)... that difference in game mechanics aids in the differentiation of narrative as well (however slightly it may help).

Now obviously that differentiation won't affect everybody-- people all visualize mechanics and fluff in different ways and thus this subtle different between 4E and 5E at-will combat with weapons/spells might have absolutely no impact on how they suspend their disbelief-- but I would suggest that having two different mechanical systems to represent two different narratives is probably easier for most people to grok than using a single mechanical system to represent two different narratives. Not for everyone, but only most. And thus in my mind merging both weapons and magical implements back into a single mechanical system would not necessarily help for a lot of other people.

But if it helps your specific table? Then go for it! It matters not what the rest of us think.