Help: Evil DM sundered my wand :(

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Right. Good idea. So, take a move equivalent action to make a opposed Bluff check (with a +2 circumstance bonus, if you have at least 5 ranks in Knowledge (arcana), Spellcraft or Use Magic Device) against your opponent's Sense Motive check (with the same possible Circumstance bonuses). If you succeed, your enemies may think you're using a real wand for a round or two, until it's obvious you're not.

Could just carry around the wand/stick. Don't use it for anything. Someone might just fall for it? Especially if people like to sunder wands?

On the other hand, bluff could work out very nicely for a sorceror? Class skill based off casting stat. That MEA could be well spent there. Not going to interfere with most spellcasting, after all?

[Rambling]
Wonder if there's any way to get a stick that'd hurt the attacker?

Electrically charged stick?

A disguised Black Pudding fragment? - Might want some form of energy defenses for that?
[/Rambling]

 

[Caliban]

Could just carry around the wand/stick. Don't use it for anything. Someone might just fall for it? Especially if people like to sunder wands?

On the other hand, bluff could work out very nicely for a sorceror? Class skill based off casting stat. That MEA could be well spent there. Not going to interfere with most spellcasting, after all?

[Rambling]
Wonder if there's any way to get a stick that'd hurt the attacker?

Electrically charged stick?

A disguised Black Pudding fragment? - Might want some form of energy defenses for that?
[/Rambling]

My sorcerer will often point his crossbow at someone, make a bluff check, and then cast a spell instead. (Usually this is part of a readied action to disrupt a spellcaster while pointing the crossbow at someone else.)

Quite often they believe the spell originated from the crossbow.

 

[Bront]

Check the rules for a magic weapon, and apply them to wands using the spell level as the +. Should give you some extra hardness and HP, which I think works out quite well.

 

[Stormrunner]

Is it just me, or does AC 7 seem a bit low? Why is it significantly easier to hit the (Tiny or smaller) wand in the wizard's hand than to hit the wizard himself (a significantly larger target)? Essentially it's a called shot to the hand, which should be harder than just swinging at the torso.

...

OK, reading the 3.5 PHB Sunder rules, it appears the AC 7 would be for an immobile wand (e.g., lying on a table). A wand or other object held in the hand has an Ac of 10 + size modifier + wielder's Dex bonus. Personally, as a DM I would also allow the wielder's Dodge, Deflection, and Luck bonuses to apply to the object's AC as well.

 

[Mistwell]

I believe the AC 7 is for a wand NOT being held, personally.

SRD: "A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does."

Next question is size. It's SRD: "6 inches to 12 inches long and about 1/4 inch thick, and often weighs no more than 1 ounce." That's diminutive. SRD: "A diminutive creature is typically between 6 inches and 1 foot in height or length, and weighs between 1/8 pound and 1 pound". I know a wand is not a creature, but that's the best description we get for size categories, and it matches exactly the size range of wands. So, I would definitely go with diminuative (+4).

So, it's not an AC of 7. It's an AC of 10 +4 (diminuative) + HOLDERS dex. I would also add dodge bonuses of the wand's holder, as dodge bonuses are generally lumped in when the rules say "dex" in this kind of context.

That said, if you DM had a 20, your wand was still probably hit (unless your combined dex plus dodge bonus was 7 or more).. I just wanted to be clear that this AC 7 "wand's have no dex" is not applicable to a wand being carried by someone.

 

[zeroorez]

ok so the thread is old and undead and i have a question


does anything bad happen when a wand is broken does it explode releasing all it stored energy or something?
I thought there was a downside or consiquence for breaking magical items?

 

[shilsen]

ok so the thread is old and undead and i have a question


does anything bad happen when a wand is broken does it explode releasing all it stored energy or something?
I thought there was a downside or consiquence for breaking magical items?

Nope. Only if the specific item description says so.

 

[kreynolds]

does anything bad happen when a wand is broken does it explode releasing all it stored energy or something?
I thought there was a downside or consiquence for breaking magical items?

Staff of Power can do that, but not wands (at least none that I am aware of).

 

[Darklone]

+5 items not really chumpy ie 15 hardness, 55-60hp
now a +1 vorpal, holy, dragonbane weapon is chumpy 11 hardness, 15-20 hp

and you cant sunder armor.

I think you still use the 3.0 rules ... there are some wrong text passages left in the 3.5 DMG (page 222 IIRC). Check the errata and the section about Adventuring and striking objects, the hardness of a shield, weapon or armor increases by +2 per enhancement level and gains +10 hitpoints...

So that +1 vorpal, holy, bane weapon had 12 hardness...

That's why you should use mithral weapons with at least +3 enhancement... since a hardness of at least 20 makes your weapon immune to the adamant weapon effect (cancels hardness lesser than 20). Adamant weapons work too.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Sundering isn't smart for NPCs, it's dumb. Kill your opponent, take his stuff is smart. That's why PCs do it.