Wands and Staffs: Impliment or Spell Containers

[Remathilis]

Both.

I want a staff of fiery doom; a +2 implement that can also cast fireball and scorching burst 3/day.

 

[hbarsquared]

Implement. Implement. Implement.

Besides scrolls, I do not want to see any other magic item used as solely a "spell container." I love the implement route, and would love to see the return of wands, staves, and orbs. (And hopefully tomes, too!)

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

There are many good ideas in this thread. Here's a list combined with some ideas of my own:

• Wands that allow sacrificing a spell slot to cast a particular spell.
• Wands that enhance particular types of spells.
• Wands that function like metamagic.
• Wands that function like an extra spell slot that can be used for a specific spell.
• Wands that need to bond with the magic user to provide a benefit.

It's rare so see so much general agreement on a subject, but it seems we all want wands to be special, and few of us prefer the 3.x version of wands. I think this is good food for thought for the designers.

 

[howandwhy99]

Other: Both & More.

I like options. Standard D&D options from the many versions should be sort of examples and perhaps even a default, but each campaign could be different, no?

So: Wands are charged and often rechargeable. So too are Staves. Both can hold multiple spells BTB and different spells may cost varying charge amounts. Other than physical qualities, the real difference between these two in AD&D was wands functioned at 6th level class experience and staves functioned at 8th.

Rods were capable of being used by more than one core class and are more like misc. magical items that resemble wands and rods. Their design is highly variable, going so far as the Rod of Seven Parts.

Rods with charges came with 50 - 0-9, Staves 25 - 0-5, Wands 100 - 0-19. I believe the amount was subtracted due to prior use from at least the first owner. Stuff like this should definitely apply to cost IMO.

Further description includes: "Any device of this nature which discharges some form of magic over a distance ... must generally have a command word spoken in order to cause the device to function." "Magical silence will most certainly prevent such devices from functioning."

Crafting was by NPC or by high level casters willing to spend a lot of time and money. Depending on the game version knowing and casting a spell may also be required, not to mention components that would be involved in the cost and construction.

3e Rods are usually about metamagic abilities, but they get pretty unusual too. Wands are single spell shooters with charges. Staves are similar, but get provide a few spells as options. Both of these are 50 charges, some Rods don't have charges though. Crafting is feat-based, can take weeks, cost XP as well as money.

4e implements I don't know as well, but I imagine they can be included as examples too.

 

[steeldragons]

I didn't read through the 3 pages of posts already, so apologies if all of this has been said before...seems fairly "basic" to me, so it probably all has.

But I'mma says it anyways!

I see no reason whatsoever that this is an "either/or" proposition. Why can't there be [and shouldn't the game allow for] both?

Have the wands or staves that are enchanted as "spell holders". A Wand of Magic Missiles or Staff of Wizardry, with set numbers of charges...AND, possibly, able to be "refilled" with whatever spells they provide are simple and useful enough treasure/items to be found.

Have other...I guess "personal" wands and staves that are simply used as implements/foci for the spellcasting. Maybe some are 'necessary" for various spells...or, if the player chooses, to make their caster dependent on their implement (a la Harry Potter).

Maybe some are "boosting vessels" that automatically bump the effects of the spell cast through them by a level or 3...but have/keep no spells of their own "inside" them.

Maybe some can store a certain number of spell slots (the caster puts in them) AND are a focus for any/all spells the caster uses...

Seems there's plenty of room in the game for any and all types. Certainly would make finding a wand or staff more interesting...to figure out what it does/can do.

This is a history lesson probably no one here needs, but...As for them just having some piddly low level spells, I'd say Basic and 1e took care of this rather handily. Wands/Staves/Rods were "made" by somebody, obviously. Presumably by mages of a certain level...staves of a higher level (I think, I want to say, 7th was the default for staves but that may be mistaken.)

So whatever was IN the staff or wand you found was automatically cast at the level of which the item was crafted. Might find a wand of fireballs that did 5th level damage...might find one that did 10th! Same with spell effects "contained" in staves. If you want to give your 3rd level party a wand with 100 charges of 1st level Magic Missiles, great. If you have a 3rd level party and want to give them staff with 10 charges of 7th level ice storms and/or 3 charges of 9th level cones of cold, have at it!

Of course, then, if you "refilled it" with one of your Cones of Cold and you were only 7th level, then it cast as a 7th level spell.

But again, I see no reason, to the question at hand, why the options must be "3e-like X" or "4e-like Y." They can be both, either, or more.

--SD

 

[Mattachine]

I like wands and staffs as in 1e: spell containers, generally with multiple spells, spell/casting enhancers, unusual magic effects, spell-focusing, spell slot swapping, melee combat, and more.

I don't like that a wand always does X, and a staff always does Y. Things don't need to be that systematic.

 

[Dausuul]

What I want is for wands to resemble what they have often been in fairy tales and fiction: A tool that makes a skilled wizard moderately more powerful, but can also be used by a non-wizard or apprentice wizard. In the latter case, it's as powerful as it would be in the hands of a trained wizard, but less controlled--there's a strong chance it'll blow up in your face, spray fireballs everywhere, or do something else that's not what you had in mind. So you normally want the party wizard to be the one using the wand of fire, but if the wizard goes down and things look desperate, the rogue can snatch it up, wave the wand, and hope it does more damage to the monsters than the party.

I'm open to various ways of implementing this. Here's one approach:

Wand of Fire. This wand holds 3 charges. Each charge can be used to cast any of burning hands, fireball, flame arrows, or wall of fire as a 4th-level spell. You cast as a 7th-level wizard or your own arcane caster level, whichever is higher. You can restore 1 charge by expending a prepared wizard spell of level 4 or higher.

If your arcane caster level is less than 7th, you can still use the wand, but must roll 1d20 plus your arcane caster level (or 1d20 if you are not an arcane caster) with each use. If the total is 7 or less, the wand misfires, with results as if you had miscast the spell.

(I'm assuming that they have rules for miscasting when you get hit, as described by Mearls in the recent L&L, and that low-level spells scale when cast in higher-level slots.) The wand thus serves as a moderate reserve of extra spell-power and a way to convert other spells into fiery doom as needed, but can also be used by a non-wizard in dire straits.

 

[hayek]

It's rare so see so much general agreement on a subject, but it seems we all want wands to be special, and few of us prefer the 3.x version of wands. I think this is good food for thought for the designers.

Yeah, seriously - this level of agreement on the boards is mind-blowing. Where's mudbunny when you need him? Someone needs to make sure the designers notice this thread and consider expanding their concepts for what wands can do...

 

[drothgery]

If +X weapons are sticking around with similar effects at a similar commonality to previous editions of D&D (which means that they are going to be effectively required at high levels, or the underlying math will be broken), then casters definitely should have something similar to 4e implements or you end up with the bizarre situation where a fighter depends more on his magical gear than the wizard does.

Edit: Which, of course, existed in all editions of D&D except 4e.

 

[the Jester]

I really like the idea that implements are different from weapons because they are personal to the caster. Breaking or stealing a caster's implement shouldn't be permanently debilitating, but I really like the idea that it is a serious problem that is much greater than breaking a fighter's sword.

They already have spellbooks.

Which reminds me- when was the last time your wizard's spellbooks got damaged or stolen? It almost never happens these days, at least not that I hear about or see posted.