D&D 5E Wand of Paralysis in 5e DMG
Thank you! But that doesn't quite acknowledge what seems to be a missing sentence. Do they get a save when hit? Is it casting and therefore concentration? There's no spell equivalent, so that's not obvious. The item seems very unbalancing, the way it takes a monster's turn at the very least with just a to hit, and gives auto crits at just the cost of one caster's turn. I mean, give it to the cleric who would just be doing sacred flames for a couple of d8s and now you've got your paladin critting smites.
slaughterj
Explorer
That item has numerous issues. It should have just been a hold person / hold monster spell with charges, so the target could use legendary saves on it, as well as the issues you noted.
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
No. Effects either rely on an attack roll hitting or a saving throw failing, not both.
No, it's not concentration.
The balancing factors are that the wand requires attunement and has limited charges, plus that it requires an attack roll rather than a saving throw which means you are more likely to fail to paralyze your target for even that single round if the target is a potent threat.
You have to keep perspective, because you are no longer talking about the power of the item itself when you look at scenarios that not only require the item but also a specific party composition.
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
The wand of binding already does that, and "so target can use legendary saves" is probably part of the exact reason why the wand of paralysis uses an attack roll instead - as that enables a different avenue of potential effect (and really, it's not too likely to paralyze anything that has legendary saves because they typically have high AC as well).
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
You can manipulate your own attack rolls much easier than you can manipulate enemy saves, so the idea that it's harder to hit than to have the target pass their save is somewhat flawed.
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
No more flawed than the idea that each individual game mechanic is balanced assuming a perfect confluence of synergystic elements.
Hyperbole much? Sheesh.
5E combat works off a straightforward principle: Attack rolls should be primarily about dealing damage, with perhaps minor status effects attached. Any major status effect should allow a saving throw or have a hit point threshold. The whole system is built around this. This is why it's relatively easy to get advantage on attacks but very, very hard to impose disadvantage on a save; it's why legendary monsters get Legendary Resistance but not Legendary Dodge.
Almost everything in the game obeys this principle. The wand of paralysis violates it, and that's a problem, especially where legendary creatures are concerned. With a whole party unloading its deadliest attacks with advantage and auto-crit, one round of paralysis is practically a death sentence.
Last edited:
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
It wasn't even that much hyperbole. You're being more hyperbolic about my hyperbole than my hyperbole actually was.
I think you are overstating a coincidence, as there isn't actually anything in the book that I've seen lay out this principle that you say is there. The spell creation section of the DMG, for example, doesn't say it's inappropriate to have a non-damage effect tied to an attack roll - and the game has more than one example of things which, according to your stated principle, should be attack rolls but are actually saving throws. Even the classic area damage spells fall into what you say attack rolls should primarily be about.
As for getting legendary resistance but not legendary dodge, that's not completely accurate - most monsters with legendary saves have high AC, and a high enough AC has a similar effect to legendary saves... especially when it comes to damaging effects because large hit point totals and damage resistances also come into play.
Similar Threads
