Wand Wizards

[KarinsDad]

Why do most people consider wand wizards to be the weakest of the lot?

A +2 or +3 bonus (+4 or +5 at higher levels), once per encounter essentially turns one miss into a hit per encounter. At paragon levels and higher, as more encounter and daily powers are flying around (and the bonus gets larger), this bonus is even more valuable.

Several issues:

1) It uses Dex. This adds to a few skills and initiative, but it does nothing for Fort Defense or Will Defense. The other two implement types help balance out the PC defensively.

2) Second, the bonus does not turn one miss into a hit per encounter. It does this 10% to 25% of the time (using your numbers) or one encounter in ten to one encounter in four. If a player wants his Wizard to hit more often, he's better off upping his starting Int to 19 or 20. Granted, he could take Wand Wizard and start out with a 20 Int, but that's only Dex 14 max anyway (unless there is a Dex/Int race somewhere). Like other bonuses in the game system (unless stated otherwise), the player has to inform the DM ahead of time that he will be using the ability to apply the bonus to a specific attack roll.

You have no control over when that +3 from action surge will have an effect. You might be wasting it on rolls that would have hit anyway, or rolls that had no chance of hitting. However you know when wand of accuracy will turn a near miss into a hit. Plus by paragon tier, you can have a dexterity much better than a +3.

You don't know this. Where did you get this? It's not in the rules or in the errata.

It might be a nice house rule to allow the player to see his attack roll first (strong), or to even know if Wand of Accuracy is going to result in a hit or not (even stronger), but there are no such rules.

 

[Ryujin]

Eladrins are DEX/INT.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

You don't know this. Where did you get this? It's not in the rules or in the errata.

It might be a nice house rule to allow the player to see his attack roll first (strong), or to even know if Wand of Accuracy is going to result in a hit or not (even stronger), but there are no such rules.

It's been debated many times before, but the short form is that the Wand is a Free Action. There are many examples of Free Actions that happen after the attack roll and even after you know whether you hit or not(the Elf reroll being the primary one).

The book doesn't say you CAN use it after your attack roll, but it doesn't say you can't either. And Free Actions can be taken at any time unless something says they can't. And if you compare the Wand of Accuracy to the other Wizard class features, it is EXTREMELY weak if you have to choose to use it before the attack roll. If you allow it to use it after the attack roll but before knowing the defense of the target, it is still weak, but not worthless. If you let it be used after you know the exact amount you miss by, the power is probably alright.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Look at it overall like this:

Wand Wizard- You get a +DEX to one attack roll/enc. Assuming you can take that after you know the defense of the target we'll (slightly generously) assume you get one extra hit per encounter. Before 5th level the best attack you can make is Acid Arrow at 2d8. Most attacks are 1d6 +INT, so figure optimistically you'll do an extra 4-5 points per encounter, and that is optimistic. In return you've scuppered both your Will and Fort defenses since both your good stats are on reflex. At higher levels it will of course be MORE beneficial, but you still have the same problem with defenses, and on top of that magic wands are inferior, so you may actually on the whole be worse off. Going first is nice, but if your party has decent teamwork it is not essential. You will probably have a slightly better AC than the orb wizard, but at best that only puts you even with the staff wizard.

Orb Wizard- You have potentially one of the most lethal capabilities in the game which with the right orb can completely permalock ANY monster, even Orcus. It is certainly arguable that being able to fail a monster on a save or extend an at-will effect can be as good as a to-hit bonus. On top of that you get to have a much better will defense and a much better selection of magic implements. At the cost of a feat you can easily make up any initiative difference as well if you want.

Staff Wizard- The +1 AC bonus makes up on AC for a lower dex and you get good Fort, which is often the defense of choice for the nastier types of effects. The staff con defense bonus is an immediate interrupt, you can usually use it to turn one hit on you into a miss per encounter. There are also some pretty darn good magic staves, and as a bonus it is a pretty usable weapon.

I would say at say 1st level the wand wizard MAY have a slight edge implement for implement on the orb wizard, but the staff wizard has the edge starting out overall. At higher levels orb wizard definitely gains the upper hand. Wand wizard probably WOULD equal staff wizard, if there were better wands available at higher levels, but there are not, so far. In any case none of them is radically different in power than the others, but the dex/int pairing really is rather a handicap for wand wizards at all levels.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's been debated many times before, but the short form is that the Wand is a Free Action. There are many examples of Free Actions that happen after the attack roll and even after you know whether you hit or not(the Elf reroll being the primary one).

The book doesn't say you CAN use it after your attack roll, but it doesn't say you can't either. And Free Actions can be taken at any time unless something says they can't. And if you compare the Wand of Accuracy to the other Wizard class features, it is EXTREMELY weak if you have to choose to use it before the attack roll. If you allow it to use it after the attack roll but before knowing the defense of the target, it is still weak, but not worthless. If you let it be used after you know the exact amount you miss by, the power is probably alright.

So, I could use my Standard Action in the middle of my Move Action and continue moving after I attack using the same original Move Action?

Cool.

The book doesn't say I CAN use a Standard Action within a Move Action, but it doesn't say I can't either.

Any number of Free Actions can be used on your turn (or on someone else's turn) as per the rule, but there is no general rule that Free Actions can interrupt other actions.

Any Order. You can take your actions in any order you wish, and you can skip any of them.

The rule is that they can be used in any order, not that one action can be part of another action. There are exceptions to the rule like Elven Accuracy.

Just because Elven Accuracy can have one action interrupt another action (like Opportunity Attacks and Interrupts can) doesn't mean that any action can interrupt any other action.

Note: There are additional rules as well such as the Attack rules that state to roll a D20 and add the modifiers. It does not discuss picking and chosing modifiers after rolling the D20.


I do not disagree that as written, Wand Accuracy is lame. But, I totally disagree that one can use it after finding out what the roll is or finding out whether the roll hits or not without a house rule.

 

[Stalker0]

I would argue that due to 4e's math, my players would know EXACTLY when when to turn their miss into a hit using the wand.

In 4e, if my players roll a 15, they are going to hit. If they roll in the 9-13 range, that's when things are up in the air. A wand wizard who rolls in that range and has a dex that can bump them out of it will usually hit.

 

[Mengu]

You don't know this. Where did you get this? It's not in the rules or in the errata.

26. Can I wait until the Dungeon Master has determined if I have hit or not to use my Wand of Accuracy class feature?

Yes, you can use this ability at any point during the resolution of the power.
​

So yes, for the most part, you know when the wand of accuracy bonus will turn a near miss into a hit. It's much like the Staff of Defense really. The DM asks, "Does a 22 hit your AC?" and you answer, "I use my staff of defense, and it misses." So the wand wizard can essentially do the same.

"Does a 22 vs Reflex hit?"
"No"
"Would a 25 vs Reflex hit?"
"Yes"
"Then I use my wand of accuracy."

I realize this is the most beneficial reading of the rule, but I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to call it a house rule, based on the FAQ entry. Worst case, the DM doesn't answer the second question, but after a few rounds of combat, it's not too difficult to figure out when you've gotten a near miss.

As for losing out on both Fortitude and Will defense for picking wand wizard? Hardly. It's easy enough to put a 14 into wisdom, and with the class bonus, you have shored up that defense as well as can be expected. The only defense you are giving up is fortitude. I'd be more worried about the lack of healing surges than giving up defense, but the healing surge issue can be fixed with one feat.

 

[KarinsDad]

"Does a 22 vs Reflex hit?"
"No"
"Would a 25 vs Reflex hit?"
"Yes"
"Then I use my wand of accuracy."

I realize this is the most beneficial reading of the rule, but I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to call it a house rule, based on the FAQ entry. Worst case, the DM doesn't answer the second question, but after a few rounds of combat, it's not too difficult to figure out when you've gotten a near miss.

Yeah, the FAQ is pretty funny. We don't use it because it sometimes takes left hand turns on the rules (e.g. two weapon feats when used with a staff add to the damage of Wizard spells). The errata does not seem to do that. One can mostly see exactly why they added certain rules to the errata. The errata seems to be used to clarify rules, the FAQ seems to sometimes be used to create new rules.

And I can see why a DM would allow the first question. Wand of Accuracy is really inferior without it.

As to the second question, I'm a bit on the fence. I really don't think that players should know the (near) exact defenses of opponents without failed and successful attacks. They should learn about their foes as they fight them.

In this case, the answer to the second question could be No instead of Yes and even though the player did not use Wand of Accuracy, the player knows more information about the defense of the foe. I'm ok with using the ability and finding out more info, but not using it and finding out more info?

But after checking out the math for Shield, I'm leaning towards cutting the players a break in these areas. I still don't think the rules support it. WotC now supports it, but that's not quite the same as the rules (which would allow moving before and after a standard action if that were the case).

 

[evilbob]

But, I totally disagree that one can use it after finding out what the roll is or finding out whether the roll hits or not without a house rule.

As Mengu said, and I don't really care to derail this thread by debating here, but it is pretty widely accepted that you can, in fact, use your wand ability after you've rolled. There's really nothing stopping you from doing it after the DM has said "hit" or "miss," either. (In fact, that's really the only way the ability can be useful, in my opinion.)

I'm sure there are other threads hashing this out, but that's a fairly widely used interpretation, and I, for one, agree.

 

[KarinsDad]

As Mengu said, and I don't really care to derail this thread by debating here, but it is pretty widely accepted that you can, in fact, use your wand ability after you've rolled. There's really nothing stopping you from doing it after the DM has said "hit" or "miss," either. (In fact, that's really the only way the ability can be useful, in my opinion.)

So from a strictly rules perspective and not from a ability utility perspective, you think that the rules allow each player to use his Standard Action in the middle of his Move Action, and move before and after he attacks using the same original Move Action?

Your rules interpretation is that actions which are not Opportunity Actions and not Interrupt Actions can be used mid-other actions.

Note: I agree that Wand of Accuracy is fairly weak without adding this, I just see that RAW disagrees.