Thoughts on wands being overpowered in 5E

[Satyrn]

I think that it's worth nothing that I'm less worried about the wand of lightning bolt than fireball. It's very rare you'll line up more than oh, 3 foes with a bolt? Fireball you can hit more than that, easily.

True. Fireball is king.

I did find lightning bolt safe(r) to use in close quarters, though, so it might prove easier to use more often than fireball.

 

[SkidAce]

Anyone miss the old ricocheting lightning bolts and expanding fireballs?

I kinda do, in a wistful way....

 

[Satyrn]

Third, you're not just comparing against other rare items, you're comparing against other rare items that require attunement. Like +2 to all spell attack rolls.

I found what I was actually comparing my wand to was the options my character had available. Specifically, when I was in combat and needed to kill my foes, what choices were available to me: As a 5th level druid, I had produce flame, poison spray, a dagger, wildshape into a giant spider, a couple spells or a wand of lightning bolts.

When it came to dealing damage, that wand was an overwhelmingly obvious choice. It was fun for one session, but it didn't look like it wasn't gonna be fun if it was every session.

I see the OP had a similar experience when his character had the wand of fireballs - and that his fellow player came to the same solution I did - just don't use it despite it being the best choice.

 

[Satyrn]

Anyone miss the old ricocheting lightning bolts and expanding fireballs?

I kinda do, in a wistful way....

I was gonna mention that! It would make the lightning bolt far more deadly in close quarters for friend and foe alike.

I can't say I miss the expanding fireball, though. That strikes me as requiring a lot of square counting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can't say I miss the expanding fireball, though. That strikes me as requiring a lot of square counting.

...counting squares wouldn't've cut it, you had to calculate volume, not just area...

 

[Blue]

I found what I was actually comparing my wand to was the options my character had available. Specifically, when I was in combat and needed to kill my foes, what choices were available to me: As a 5th level druid, I had produce flame, poison spray, a dagger, wildshape into a giant spider, a couple spells or a wand of lightning bolts.

When it came to dealing damage, that wand was an overwhelmingly obvious choice. It was fun for one session, but it didn't look like it wasn't gonna be fun if it was every session.

I see the OP had a similar experience when his character had the wand of fireballs - and that his fellow player came to the same solution I did - just don't use it despite it being the best choice.

You know, my +2 battleaxe does more damage then my improvised boot. I compared them as equal because they were the only options I had.

Since the question is are they too powerful compared to other rare items, compare them to other rare items. Apples to apples and all that.

 

[Satyrn]

You know, my +2 battleaxe does more damage then my improvised boot. I compared them as equal because they were the only options I had.

Since the question is are they too powerful compared to other rare items, compare them to other rare items. Apples to apples and all that.

Does your character really only carry that one weapon?

I was making a sincere comment about the impact the wand had on my game, and how that experience has since influenced how I will judge a magic item before introducing it to a game when I'm DMing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Does your character really only carry that one weapon?

As someone currently playing a level 3 fighter, who has just found a +1 longsword... yes. For most intents and purposes, if you have a magical weapon, it completely replaces all other weapons you might have carried. (Except for an emergency ranged weapon, which you really hope that you never need to use.)

By that comparison, if the wand of lightning bolts completely obviates the rest of your spell list, then that puts it on par with the magical weapon which obviates the rest of your arsenal. (Maybe you have an emergency spell that you keep in case something is immune to lightning.)

 

[Satyrn]

As someone currently playing a level 3 fighter, who has just found a +1 longsword... yes. For most intents and purposes, if you have a magical weapon, it completely replaces all other weapons you might have carried. (Except for an emergency ranged weapon, which you really hope that you never need to use.)

By that comparison, if the wand of lightning bolts completely obviates the rest of your spell list, then that puts it on par with the magical weapon which obviates the rest of your arsenal. (Maybe you have an emergency spell that you keep in case something is immune to lightning.)

Very well put.

Not to move the goalposts (I'm really not), the second half of my issue with the wand was the magnitude by which it eclipsed my other options. The wand was multiple dice of damage higher than my next strongest option, and could reliably target double the number of targets (nearly all of my other options could target only 1 creature).

So, you've helped me clarify that it becoming my best option wasn't the problem, wasn't the problem. Being overwhelmingly better was.

 

[Oofta]

I was gonna mention that! It would make the lightning bolt far more deadly in close quarters for friend and foe alike.

I can't say I miss the expanding fireball, though. That strikes me as requiring a lot of square counting.

I once took out a PC wizard by having my NPC cast a wall of force around them before challenging him to a duel because his go-to spell was lightning bolt. I think we calculated that the PC was hit 20 times or so.

I felt kind of guilty, especially since I think I stole the idea from some book and just thought it would be funny until I realized how much damage it did.

But yes, we had any number of goofy things happen with the bouncing bolt. I actually considered adding it back in as a house rule. Maybe for an old-school dungeon crawl campaign.