Thoughts on wands being overpowered in 5E

[5ekyu]

FWIW my rule of thumb for items and gear is this...

Except for perhaps one item per character all magic/special gear will be either:
1 Expendable with small numbers of charges
2 1 tier below the PCs

This keeps the focus on the character abilities, not the gear. So the tier 2 chars might find non-expendables for level 1 and 2 powers/spells but not 3rd-5th with very few exceptions.

Most items then become supplemental not pivotal.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Yep. But if your character concept and image involves swinging a battleaxe around, then that +2 rapier is going to feel annoying. I don't think that anyone is contesting that its the mechanically best option. But it may well be less fun option, and it is forcing you to those between thematically fun and mechanically effective.

Likewise the wand issue. This thing might effectively double your higher-level spell slots. Your character is going to be able to use it to throw a lot of those spells around. Which is fine if you want to use a lot of fireballs.
However if your character concept is perhaps a plant-focused druid, and you wanted to explore using those kind of druidic spells a lot for example, the wand is going to be an issue. Wanting to play "Heartwood, Keeper of the Forest" is going to clash with playing the more mechanically effective "That Fireball-chucking looney, Heartwood."

If a PC finds a Vorpal Sword, it will become their overwhelmingly best option. It won't be close. Problem?

Putting aside the assumptions about how useful all those fireballs are (by necessity, the 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th fireball in s dungeon will be used, at best, in the 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th best situation to use the fireball...), having a great, iconic and powerful magic item is not a problem. Having it be the 'go to' of the PC is not a problem. Having it be their strongest option for several levels is not a problem. That just makes it iconic for that PC.

Embrace. The. Flame.

Exactly. If you want your PC to be an iconic fireball-throwing wand user then there is no issue, and more fun to you.
If you don't however . . .

 

[jgsugden]

...This keeps the focus on the character abilities, not the gear. ... Most items then become supplemental not pivotal.

Note that this goal that was great for prior editions is in conflict with the revised conception underlying 5E.

In prior editions we were bogged down by so many items that they were taken for granted. "Come on DM, I need to find a +4 sword to replace my +3... I'm falling behind..."

In this edition, magic items are rarer. If you look at the suggestions in the DMG for Treasure Hoards and then apply some math, you'll find that PCs will find roughly 6 magic items over their career (if they advance to 20) that are not consumable. Half of those will require attunement. If we ignore uncommon items, then you'll probably find 3 or 4 rare (or rarer items) and buy 1 or 2 more ... between levels 7 and 20. That is 4 to 6 of these iconic items per PC, rather than the laundry list of items a 20th level PC will have acquired by the highest levels.

So, in this edition, the significant items do not start coming to us until we're heroes ... and then you'll get an addition to your arsenal every few levels. These additions are intended to be items that change your PC in a fundamental way. They are your Mjolnir, Excalibur and Twinkle. They're not a "oh, yeah, I think I have a XXXXXXX maybe, let me check...." items... they're your "I'm well known for my Boomstick" items.

That is the design of the game. Items are rarer than in prior editions and are meant to mean something. Rather than fearing that the laundry list of the items is more important the PC abilities, they form an iconic element of the PC that sets them apart from their class peers.

 

[Satyrn]

If a PC finds a Vorpal Sword, it will become their overwhelmingly best option. It won't be close. Problem?

Putting aside the assumptions about how useful all those fireballs are (by necessity, the 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th fireball in s dungeon will be used, at best, in the 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th best situation to use the fireball...), having a great, iconic and powerful magic item is not a problem. Having it be the 'go to' of the PC is not a problem. Having it be their strongest option for several levels is not a problem. That just makes it iconic for that PC.

Embrace. The. Flame.

I don't know if the vorpal sword will be a problem. I've never seen one in play.

I do know - from experience - that the wand of lightning bolts was a problem for me. The OP says it was a problem for him, too, and another player at his table. It looks like you keep ignoring that we're talking about our actual play experience.

You say it's feature, not a bug. And in a way, you're right. The thing is, I found the feature didn't work as intended.

 

[5ekyu]

Note that this goal that was great for prior editions is in conflict with the revised conception underlying 5E.

In prior editions we were bogged down by so many items that they were taken for granted. "Come on DM, I need to find a +4 sword to replace my +3... I'm falling behind..."

In this edition, magic items are rarer. If you look at the suggestions in the DMG for Treasure Hoards and then apply some math, you'll find that PCs will find roughly 6 magic items over their career (if they advance to 20) that are not consumable. Half of those will require attunement. If we ignore uncommon items, then you'll probably find 3 or 4 rare (or rarer items) and buy 1 or 2 more ... between levels 7 and 20. That is 4 to 6 of these iconic items per PC, rather than the laundry list of items a 20th level PC will have acquired by the highest levels.

So, in this edition, the significant items do not start coming to us until we're heroes ... and then you'll get an addition to your arsenal every few levels. These additions are intended to be items that change your PC in a fundamental way. They are your Mjolnir, Excalibur and Twinkle. They're not a "oh, yeah, I think I have a XXXXXXX maybe, let me check...." items... they're your "I'm well known for my Boomstick" items.

That is the design of the game. Items are rarer than in prior editions and are meant to mean something. Rather than fearing that the laundry list of the items is more important the PC abilities, they form an iconic element of the PC that sets them apart from their class peers.

I dont think we agree on what the 5e conception of magic items is at all, even though we both agree more or less on the math.

I feel the 5e conception of magic items starts at it being designed and balanced for NO MAGIC ITEMS and leaving items yay or nay to vary by setting.

I feel the 5e conception of maybe a half dozen items per character is fine and that my **except for maybe one per character** choice to keep them a tier below is in perfect fitying with that.

You mojolnir exanple gets pretty old if it is one of 2-3 of those each character has, imo.

So, regardless of whether it fits with anyone else's view on what 5e magic items are meant to be, i have found the system to work pretty dang well with only one piece of gear that will or can "change your PC in a fundamental way" per character and a handful of other supplementals and not with pcs getting a piece of gear that "change your PC in a fundamental way" **"every few levels"**

I prefer the things that set the character apart from their peers to be their choices, not their gear. Its the story of the character, not the tool.

Or to paraphrase Odin... "Are you Thor, the god of hammers...hmmm?"

Obviously, for any given table, any given campaign, any given group... Different choices different preferences... All that jazz...

But when one speaks as the voice of the concept of the edition... Not quite the same.

 

[jgsugden]

I don't know if the vorpal sword will be a problem. I've never seen one in play.

I do know - from experience - that the wand of lightning bolts was a problem for me. The OP says it was a problem for him, too, and another player at his table. It looks like you keep ignoring that we're talking about our actual play experience.

You say it's feature, not a bug. And in a way, you're right. The thing is, I found the feature didn't work as intended.

What I am saying is it IS intended.

It isn't like it is a subtle thing, right? Starting a dungeon you're adding 6 or more fireballs to the arsenal. When a PC only has a few 3rd level spells, that is an obviously big thing.

And there are articles from the time of release of the edition talking about how fireball and lightning bolts are INTENTIONALLY amongst the strongest 3rd level spells.

They knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

They knew that if you get your hands on a wand of fireballs below level 9, it is (likely) going to be a big thing. You jump to the word 'problem' to describe what you see. What you see is a spellcaster throwing fireballs at enemies over and over in a rain of destruction. You see them rising to a starring role in combat damage at levels 5 to 8 as their fireballs are outclassing the damage contributions of the weapon wielders.

This is not a problem. This is a heroic part of the groups story. This is that character's time to shine. 10 years from now the player will fondly remember how he blades through the Hidden Shrine with his Wand of Fireballs and leveled the enemy right and left.

What about the other players? They're marginalized if one PC is shining!

Darn tooting.

Perfect balance between all PCs is BORING. That was the main criticism of 4E, right? That everything was so balanced that it all melted together and nothing felt distinct? 5E allows PCs to have a time to shine. The ranger with the Wand of Fireballs may be shining at levels 5 to 8, but the Warlock with the Staff of Power is going to outclass them at higher levels. Some PCs may have more times to shine, but I have yet to play in a 5E game where there was a long lived PC that really felt like they never did anything useful/fun.

As I understand it: You do not like how the feature works. You don't wand the wand wielder to be stronger than other PCs at levels 5 to 8. You want more parity between the PCs. (If not exactly how you feel, that seems to be in the ballpark). Fine.

However, that is not a failing of the item or system - that is a preference that works against the design of the system. They intended to have PCs (potentially) find these items early on (they put them on the tables they designed) - and they knew how powerful these items are (it is obvious) - and you can have a wonderful experience running the game exactly as designed with a wand of fireballs in the hands of a ranger, warlock, eldritch knight or eladrin.

D&D is an RPG. A role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. Finding a powerful and iconic item is a keystone of many great stories. You can choose to have a Wand of Fireballs in the hands of a 5th level party be a great story opportunity. Or, you can elect to diminish what makes it such an outstanding thing and try to balance the story so that it has less of an impact and everything is more balanced and neutral.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I dont think we agree on what the 5e conception of magic items is at all, even though we both agree more or less on the math.

I feel the 5e conception of magic items starts at it being designed and balanced for NO MAGIC ITEMS and leaving items yay or nay to vary by setting.

That's been the stated intent, all along, hasn't it? 5e nominally assumes no magic items, placing a magic item makes the character who gets it 'just better.'

That's an obvious tool for the DM to use to rehabilitate under-performing PC builds. If you use that tool to supercharge a PC that's already fine or even already a bit too good. Well, oops.

 

[Satyrn]

What I am saying is it IS intended.

Using the wand of lightning bolt lessened my fun. If that was intended, the guy who put it in the game is a jerk.

 

[jgsugden]

...I prefer the things that set the character apart from their peers to be their choices, not their gear. Its the story of the character, not the tool...

As noted, this is a pretty common goal from prior editions - but consider how few options there really are in 5E in character design. The core elements of a lot of fighters, paladins, etc... are very similar. I have seen multiple paladins in 5E that followed the same path:

1.) Human Variant - Polearm Feat
2.) Great Weapon Fighter
3.) Oath of Vengeance
4.) Feat - Great Weapon Master

They had different backgrounds. All started with a 16 strength. All started with a 14 to 16 charisma. Cookie cutter with a few differences in skills.

They had somewhat different personalities, but not all that different. They really felt very similar until... they found IT. That item that changed who they were. The flying paladin (boots) was different than the giant paladin (homebrew item that made you large when you crit) was different than the flaming paladin (homebrew flaming halberd).

Odin asked Thor if he was the God of Hammers to say he didn't need Mjolnir to be the God of Thunder... but go watch Infinity War.

What makes King Arthur... King Arthur. Where does his story really begin, and how does it end?

What makes Drizz't ... Drizz't. How much of what makes him distinct are those two weapons? It isn't insignificant.

Their tales are more than an item or two - but the items are a sizable part of their story.

However, we're repeating ourselves now. No point in continuing to do that...

 

[Bupp]

I've done that a lot also, I think I first got the idea from a Dragon magazine article.

Its worked really well. (I still have some of the "normal" type in the world).

That's where I got the idea, Dragon Magazine #111.