Wand of Wraithstrike Market Crashes

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I guess I just don't understand then. Why do people constantly argue that the FAQ and errata are not "official" when they are clearly written down in a WotC publication?

We don't argue that they aren't official.

We argue that they aren't Core, and sometimes contradict the Core.

They also contradict other parts of the RAW (which includes more than Core).

 

[IcyCool]

am I the only person then who thinks this is a really bad rule then. I'm not going to argue the balance of individual spells, except in the hypothetical. If a spell is balanced for being levels 1-x, and it is a swift action, quickened whatever, your paying the money and xp for a spell of that level, and you don't gain the benefit of swift or quicken you just got screwed. Its not a good rule its a bad rule.

If the spell isn't balanced as a wand it because of it being a swift action, then it isn't balanced as a spell either. That's not a problem with swift action and wands, that's a problem with an individual spell.

Perhaps the spell is unsuitable for use in a wand. For a wizard, wraithstrike is quite balanced. For a fighter, it is less so. So it should be harder for the fighter.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

even if a spell is balanced under the assumption the caster is a wizard it doesn't change my opinion here. I think its a bad rule to make someting useless on the off chance someone makes a fighter with a single level of wizard in order to abuse the wand rules. I'd much rather have the wand work as it should, and then just have the rule rely upon the DM having the courage to stand up to players who try to abuse rules. There will always be rules to abuse, sure rules should try to be written to reduce the abuse possibilities. Just dont do it in a way that makes the original concept useless. When you do, you didn't reduce the abuse you reduced options.

 

[Tellerve]

Perhaps the spell is unsuitable for use in a wand. For a wizard, wraithstrike is quite balanced. For a fighter, it is less so. So it should be harder for the fighter.

Wouldn't it already be "harder" for the fighter 'cause he couldn't use the wand in the first place?

 

[Glyfair]

Yip. I agree that the books (Mini-HB and SC) state that Swift Actions should be standard actions in scrolls, but that's contrary to the core, which is why I wished they'd stated it better so that there wouldn't be any debate left.

Except that swift actions aren't core (they weren't introduced until later). So, the "core rule" for swift actions on scrolls is a bit of a contradiction.

I have no problem with another non-core product clarifying issues that a core product has developed. Sure, some people won't have access (so it shouldn't be assumed).

 

[Tellerve]

even if a spell is balanced under the assumption the caster is a wizard it doesn't change my opinion here. I think its a bad rule to make someting useless on the off chance someone makes a fighter with a single level of wizard in order to abuse the wand rules. I'd much rather have the wand work as it should, and then just have the rule rely upon the DM having the courage to stand up to players who try to abuse rules. There will always be rules to abuse, sure rules should try to be written to reduce the abuse possibilities. Just dont do it in a way that makes the original concept useless. When you do, you didn't reduce the abuse you reduced options.

I agree with you Shard, making the swift action wands into standard action wands indicates to me that the designers are Meta-gaming themselves and trying to block holes in the mechanics that some players might exploit. So what if a rogue has a wand of wraithstrike and for 4500gp he wants to have a possible 50 rounds of wraithstriking ability.

Tellerve

edit: I guess the compromise for these actions would be to have them, as was said above by someone, extended so that they last 2rnds. At that point would you get 1.5 rnds of wraithstrike? The rnd you activate the wand you only have a Move Equiv left, then normally the current naysayers would I'm assuming let you get off one standard action next round with your wraithstrike. However, if it was extended, you'd push that back through that round into the next so that at first you'd get a full attack (if you chose) and then one attack the next round. Right?

 

[Pinotage]

No, swift actions aren't core. But the mechanics that governs the use of scrolls is. While I agree that rewriting the rules for swift actions and scrolls is fine, they've gone and rewritten it for all spells. And that contradicts the core, which is why I wish they'd written it for swift actions only.

Pinotage

Except that swift actions aren't core (they weren't introduced until later). So, the "core rule" for swift actions on scrolls is a bit of a contradiction.

I have no problem with another non-core product clarifying issues that a core product has developed. Sure, some people won't have access (so it shouldn't be assumed).

 

[KarinsDad]

even if a spell is balanced under the assumption the caster is a wizard it doesn't change my opinion here. I think its a bad rule to make someting useless on the off chance someone makes a fighter with a single level of wizard in order to abuse the wand rules. I'd much rather have the wand work as it should, and then just have the rule rely upon the DM having the courage to stand up to players who try to abuse rules. There will always be rules to abuse, sure rules should try to be written to reduce the abuse possibilities. Just dont do it in a way that makes the original concept useless. When you do, you didn't reduce the abuse you reduced options.

Swift actions shouldn't be allowed in charged items. It disrupts my sense of balance. Kind of like Quickened True Strike is unbalanced in an item, especially a multi-charge item like a wand.

"No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken."

It is not a function of the spell being placed into the wand, it is the function of wands. You must state a single word in order to activate the wand and that is (typically) a standard (triggering) action.

In the case of swift (or quickened) spells, the spell level is higher in order to get the spell cast faster. Note the word "cast". Activating an item is not casting. The result of the spell is the same, but it does not use the same "casting" or activation method.


To me, this is no different than the rules making the Quicken Spell feat "useless" for Sorcerers. It's a WotC ruling on how the game works and the counter argument for Swift spells in Wands (or Scrolls) does not have any balance reasons for it to be different.

Rules are typically only bad if they are unbalanced, too complex, or not useable in the game. This rule is none of these, hence, it is not bad. It just happens to not be what you expect in terms of consistency.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Swift actions shouldn't be allowed in charged items. It disrupts my sense of balance. Kind of like Quickened True Strike is unbalanced in an item, especially a multi-charge item like a wand.

"No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken."

It is not a function of the spell being placed into the wand, it is the function of wands. You must state a single word in order to activate the wand and that is (typically) a standard (triggering) action.

In the case of swift (or quickened) spells, the spell level is higher in order to get the spell cast faster. Note the word "cast". Activating an item is not casting. The result of the spell is the same, but it does not use the same "casting" or activation method.


To me, this is no different than the rules making the Quicken Spell feat "useless" for Sorcerers. It's a WotC ruling on how the game works and the counter argument for Swift spells in Wands (or Scrolls) does not have any balance reasons for it to be different.

Rules are typically only bad if they are unbalanced, too complex, or not useable in the game. This rule is none of these, hence, it is not bad. It just happens to not be what you expect in terms of consistency.

no this rule is also unbalanced, just not in the its too powerful unbalanced sense. Its unbalanced in the its a useless pile of crap sense. And that is just as bad. A quickened wand of true stike wouldn't be even remotely unalanced it would be a 5th level spell. So it would be a staff actually, but ignoring that it would cost as a wand (5x9)x750=33750. If someone wants to spend 33,000gp to get +20 to hit on one strike as a free aciton, I'm not to worried. Making someone pay 33,000 gp for a spell that's balanced as quickened, and not get the quickened benefit is turning something into an unbalanced pile of crap.

Its a flat out bad rule because it is unbalanced.

 

[KarinsDad]

no this rule is also unbalanced, just not in the its too powerful unbalanced sense. Its unbalanced in the its a useless pile of crap sense. And that is just as bad.

It's not useless. You can use a Wraithstrike item to do AoOs.

And, where is it written that all spells must have high utility in an item?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having rules that force certain types of spells to typically be cast by spell casters as opposed to activated by Rogues or other classes via magic items.

A quickened wand of true stike wouldn't be even remotely unalanced it would be a 5th level spell. So it would be a staff actually, but ignoring that it would cost as a wand (5x9)x750=33750. If someone wants to spend 33,000gp to get +20 to hit on one strike as a free aciton, I'm not to worried. Making someone pay 33,000 gp for a spell that's balanced as quickened, and not get the quickened benefit is turning something into an unbalanced pile of crap.

Quickened True Stike means a 95% chance of hitting and a 5% (to 30%) chance of doing a critical. When combined with touch spells, that can be pretty devastating. For example, combined with Ray of Enfeeblement (or Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement), that can be some serious Strength penalty that almost never misses, even against high Dex/Deflection opponents with high touch ACs.

And the price is only 33750 GP to buy the item. You can craft it for 16875 GP, or even craft a 25 charge staff for 8437.5 GP. It's not auto-hit, but pretty darn close to it.