Wands and Staffs: Impliment or Spell Containers

[Man in the Funny Hat]

In the most recent L&L article, Mike mentions that wands will only be able to hold certain spells, implying that they will be charged items to hold spells similar to 3e.

I would urge care in the choice of words here. He didn't say "they WILL do this". He said,

At the very least, items such as scrolls and wands will likely change in the following ways....
Wands would no longer accept just any spell. Instead, we would provide a specific list of spells that can be added to wands. The idea here is to keep things under control so that casting fly on everyone in the party is a real investment by a wizard.

In short, he hasn't set this in stone. It is their current thinking. He makes it quite clear further down that ALL the stuff about magic he was presenting was still subject to playtest; that just because they thought they had a good idea doesn't mean it was actually going to work out just as they thought. It's a complex topic because it touches on nearly EVERY other aspect of the game - WHAT does magic affect? HOW does it affect it? How does that change the ways in which the various spellcasting classes and their abilities are actually used in a game?

Personally I prefer the 4e style of wands and staffs as implements because that's what they are in just about every work of fantasy fiction from the Hobbit to Harry Potter. I'm curious to hear what other people think though.

I think, personally, I will likely be able to accept any number of different, even restrictive and unpreferred means of handling things. Keeping wands as spell containers for example... I've played D&D since the 1970' with that very notion. If they didn't change it I don't supposed I would chafe too much. However, I would certainly chide them for having missed SO MANY opportunities to make them vastly more interesting. Just read through the thread and you pick up dozens of ideas and fuel for a dozen more.

The issue as I see it is that D&D's handling of wands, staves, even potions and scrolls just doesn't fit fantasy FICTION (written, movie, or other) - EXCEPT that fiction which is directly based on D&D. It is a highly "artificial" rules construction to make a magic wand a simple reservoir for a bunch of just one type of spell - wand of magic missiles, wand of cure light wounds, wand of fireballs. Oh wizards do USE wands for those sorts of effects, but that is so rarely all that the wizard DOES do with a wand.

But a wand is so seldom JUST an implement either. It isn't just a little power amplifier that the wizard plugs into his hand to make the spells he casts more powerful. Again, they indeed DO SO, but that is virtually never ALL that it is for.

Where I think this leads is quite an "Old School" conceit - that magic is RARE, and special, and unpredicatable and above all interesting. It isn't just a trite, fixed formula or variable to make the game go to 11. If we want D&D to do more than model JUST D&D we need to have wands that are capable of doing a RANGE of things that we see spellcasters do with wands in books and movies. I would rather see them just port over wand rules from Harry Potter straight across than leave wands continue as mere spell containers - EVEN IF they restrict the spells that wands can actually contain (a move that is only about 30+ years overdue.)

We can't be asking, "what can a D&D wizard do with a scroll", we need to be asking, "what do we see wizards doing with scrolls in books and movies, how can D&D implement that, and how stupid would it be to just choose ONE THING from all those options and say scrolls will only ever do that." I believe there is a HUGE temptation to do that - to limit scrolls or wands or whatever, to doing just ONE thing. Doing even ONE OTHER thing will have to be a job given to something else - a staff, or a tome, or an innate class ability. Why? Because that makes it a rule that is easy to write and cannot be argued with. You only have to convince people to accept the limitations that brings with it.
"I want to see a staff that does this."
"Sorry, in D&D staves do something different - you need a magic shoe combined with the Widget Use skill to do what you're asking."
"Well, I'd rather have a wizard with a staff who can do it, but I guess I'll make a shoe-wearing Widget specialist then."

If you keep trying to put MAGIC items into mathematical little restrictive cubes in order to try to keep control of the chaos all you're going to do is force the chaos to find easier channels to squeeze out of. EMBRACE the wow factor of magic. Let wands do what we want wands to do - store a few spells, improve some of our casting ability, let us accomplish a few things we couldn't do without a wand, and grow with a character to become an item deservedly associated directly with that character.

"Grabthar pulls out 'Grabthar's Hammer' (+2 !) and charges the enemy."
"The enemy recognizes Grabthar's Hammer and half of them flee."
"Pooter the wizard pulls out his brand new Wand +3(!) and warns the remainder that it is +1 better than his old Wand +2."
"Pooter is mobbed by the enemy and takes umpty d-everything in damage because they could care less about your additional +1. Plus, you have a dumb name."

There are just gobs and gobs of really cool ideas you can do with magic and magic items and nearly every one of them would be worlds better than having ANYTHING in D&D be a mere spell container because it's one type of widget and not another, or a mere +x anything because it works easily with the math.

I'm not offering the One True Solution unless it's to assert that there ISN'T a One True Solution. Mearls says,

I'd love it if creative use of a spell focused more on improvisation rather than number crunching.
...
If we build good, clear descriptions into the spells that bring them to life and combine these descriptions with a robust set of DM tools for improvisation, spells become tools that characters can use in creative ways rather than strictly defined special abilities.

THAT, I think, is at least the PATH to the solution.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

There's a ton of good ideas here. I wouldn't be too surprised if we end up seeing the both option.

And while I referred to 4e implements, I'm actually not a fan of +X items either. I'd rather see some of the other ideas mentioned like making other spells available or enhancing certain kinds of spells.

 

[grimslade]

I keep mulling over scrolls and wands.
Wands I have a good wish list for. I would like to see wands more flavorful, Blackwarder referenced 1E/2E style wands, the names are evocative but are just multiple spells in a stick. I want a Wand of the Winter Warlock to help a Mage be an Ice Magister, and give some meta magic feat style control of known spells to turn it into a frost spell, plus a 'rare' frost themed spell, maybe a 'chilling aura' manifestation, plus a weakness for toy trains to melt your heart.

No +1 to spell hit. No arcane pez. An expression of magic.

Scrolls are tough. They break the spells known and the spell slots/day restrictions. Scrolls should be access to new spells known and Proof Against Poor Spell Selection. Hmmm, a dungeon full of medusae and basilisks, and I didn't memorize a single stone to flesh. Thanks, save on a page! The swap the scroll spell for the memorized spell kludge works to keep the spells/day restriction alive while enabling a bypass of the spells known restriction. Maybe utility only?

 

[Lanefan]

Other! Other! Other!

4e - wand as implement - bleah.
3e - wand that can only have defined spells put into it - bleah.

1e - wands that sometimes mimic spells and sometimes do things spells usually cannot - bingo!

In numerous threads and polls here regarding the most popular magic items one kept repeatedly coming up, yet by the rules as written neither 3e nor 4e can support it: the Wand of Wonder.

The current proposal cannot handle it either; and so it loses my vote.

Lan-"best thing about the Wand of Wonder is that any idiot, like me, can pick it up and blast away"-efan

 

[Remathilis]

Other! Other! Other!

4e - wand as implement - bleah.
3e - wand that can only have defined spells put into it - bleah.
1e - wands that sometimes mimic spells and sometimes do things spells usually cannot - bingo!

There is room for all three.

Any wand, staff, wand or orb magic item can create a magical effect. It could be as mundane as a wand of fireballs, or as mighty as a wand of wonder. Additionally, it grants a small bonus to caster roles for spells using that item. A Wand of Illumination might grant a +1 bonus AND cast light at will, and daylight or searing light per charge. A Wand of Fireballs is a +2 to caster checks AND blow a charge for a fireball. A Wand of Wonder has a random table of effects AND grants a +3 to caster checks.

I mean, staves of power/magi granted AC, attack bonus, even caster-level bumps to wielders AND had a slew of spells to pick from. Similarly, a flame tongue, frost brand, and luck blade all grant +'s to hit/damage along with kewl powers. Why can't wands?

 

[Connorsrpg]

I voted 'other'.

I certainly do not want to see the 3E style of charged items being required. I am also not in favour of 4E's having them add to the power curve of attacks.

I would like to see each type of implement have its space (like in 4E). Perhaps wands allow faster casting, orbs extend ranges, staffs expand areas, etc. Nothing too big.

After reading many posts above, I could also see 'themed' implements being combined with this. So a wand of fire not only allows faster casting of spells, but does something cool with fire spells. Something cool not being increased + to attack.

Anything thematic and specialised for me, but NOT spell containers. (At best a fire wand allowing a caster to cast 2 extra slots of fire spell they already know, I could live with).

 

[hafrogman]

In numerous threads and polls here regarding the most popular magic items one kept repeatedly coming up, yet by the rules as written neither 3e nor 4e can support it: the Wand of Wonder.

3e has the wand of wonder, they just call it a rod instead. *shrug* Now, maybe that's a separate question altogether. Wands, staves, rods. Magical sticks. Should there be any sort of logic or internal consistency with magical items? They could all just be wondrous items. From the beginning they were spun out into their own sub-tables, but there isn't any real need for them to be. Is there some reason why a wand of wonder couldn't be a staff of wonder, functions exactly the same but is bigger. Maybe it was a titan's wand originally. Why does it need to be a stick of any kind? Does the stick shape facilitate magic in some way? I want a rock of wonder.

The one issue this does lead to is, if there is no rhyme or reason to magical items, then each one has to be created and balanced individually, especially if new items are introduced in later books.

Can a new edition support items of either (but probably not both) kinds?

 

[Lanefan]

3e has the wand of wonder, they just call it a rod instead.

I know. My 3e chaos-Illusionist built one. It got her killed.

But a wand you can hide. Rods are a bit big for hiding...

I can't remember, but in 3e could anyone use a Rod of Wonder or was it restricted to casters only? I ask because in 1e anyone - even a dumb Fighter like me - could pick one up and use it. I owned two or three over my career.

Now, maybe that's a separate question altogether. Wands, staves, rods. Magical sticks.

Or bones, or crystal spindles, or ...

Should there be any sort of logic or internal consistency with magical items? They could all just be wondrous items. From the beginning they were spun out into their own sub-tables, but there isn't any real need for them to be. Is there some reason why a wand of wonder couldn't be a staff of wonder, functions exactly the same but is bigger. Maybe it was a titan's wand originally. Why does it need to be a stick of any kind? Does the stick shape facilitate magic in some way? I want a rock of wonder.

A series of very good questions. I've had the occasional Ring of Wonder show up in my games, for example; and have never felt the least bit limited as to what physical object might have what magical powers attached. (some of this influence came from a wonderful article in an early Dragon that had a table of fairly mundane items and a table of magical properties - roll once on each)

I was raising the point about the Wand of Wonder above more as a rules-as-written thing, to show how it simply can't exist in its 1e form in 3e or 4e and to note that this is sad.

The one issue this does lead to is, if there is no rhyme or reason to magical items, then each one has to be created and balanced individually, especially if new items are introduced in later books.

Not much balance required to allow for a Ring of Wonder or Boots of Lightning or a Beer Mug that gives Free Action when held, is there?

Lanefan

 

[hafrogman]

I can't remember, but in 3e could anyone use a Rod of Wonder or was it restricted to casters only? I ask because in 1e anyone - even a dumb Fighter like me - could pick one up and use it. I owned two or three over my career.

Yup, anyone can use a rod. I think if you went back and asked the 3.X designers why the wand of wonder became a rod, that would be why. It wouldn't be about making sure that you couldn't hide it in your pants (or at least not without getting a lot of attention). For good or bad, 3.X defined what a wand was, and in order to keep the iconic wand of wonder, they made it a rod simply to make it fit in their categories.

I was raising the point about the Wand of Wonder above more as a rules-as-written thing, to show how it simply can't exist in its 1e form in 3e or 4e and to note that this is sad.

I guess I still don't understand your point on this one then. It's there, it has many of the same functions, randomly determined by a % roll. How is it that it "can't exist in its 1e form"?

 

[Connorsrpg]

If the "+"s disappear and the worrying trend of stacking the magic items from each body part, then I couldn't imagine a reason to not have just 'wondrous items'. I imagine that is why they separated them and defined them.

Mind you I am not against each having their own little perks (as mentioned above), but for added themed powers (such as a 'fire' and 'wonder') I see no reason restricting them going forward...if the 1st 2 points are a part of 5E.