Wands and Staffs: Impliment or Spell Containers

[CleverNickName]

Right now, one of the most popular topics in this forum is how the wizard's power level quickly outpaces all other classes, and/or how the wizard's selection of spells makes some of the other classes obsolete. So if the first is true and wizards are too powerful, implements only make that problem worse. And if the second is true and wizards are too versatile, then spell containers only make that problem worse.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Neither, both, and More.

I hope the "math is flatter" means we don't NEED wands as implements, but when they exist they are extra special. So, a level 15 wizard with a +1 wand getting that +1 to hit (or to spell save DC) is special because most wizards don't have these rare and wonderful things. So, they can be implements, but we don't have to have implements for math reasons.

Give me spell slots, or special powers, or extra memorization, or something. I don't want to see "50 charges of [insert spell name] and then throw away." Let a wand (even a +0 wand) be something cool: give my wizard an extra casting of magic missile per day or encounter or whatever. Or let me use my wand to boost the level of my fireball from 3rd to 5th 1/day. Here's a wand that can substitute for the material component cost of one spell/day.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Im sorry, I might have missed the post. Did someone say they should be required? The posts I read simply said they should enhance.

Or are you inferring that the fact they enhance implies they are required?

They are required in the same way that a +2 sword is required. If it exists within the game system, monsters and NPCs adversaries are built with the expectation that you have access to such things.

I don't want that to be a core assumption, I don't want all spells having attack rolls and I sure as heck don't want to play Harry Potter wizards.

 

[sheadunne]

I use two types of wands in my PF games

Type I - 3/day cast a specific spell stored in the wand
Type 2 - Swap memorized spell of equal or higher level for spell in wand

I no longer use the 50/charged wands.

I use Rods as implements when needed.

 

[RobertLie]

Personally, I want something that acts more like the Master's Wand of X from 4e to be the base-line for wands. I know I HATED implements when 4e was first released, due to there being NO DIFFERENCE between an Orb, a Staff, a Wand, and a Rod it seemed until you get to specific magical enchantments.

It has X charges of a stored spell that can be cast normally (Low in number though rechargeable during down-time), but also gain a temporary charge by spending an equal or higher spell-slot. Further, if you are wielding said wand and cast a prepared spell from one of your spell-slots, you get a Boost to said spell. Said boost only kicks in if you cast from a prepared spell-slot, not from a Charge on the wand or even the temporary charge.

Staves on the other-hand do not hold charges. From the start, make them 2-handed implements (Though let players RP them as 1-handed but NEEDing the 2nd hand free). Leave a feat for Gandalf mode staff & sword usage. Benefits for this is specific Metamagic-style boosts to groupings of spells with said staff. The more narrower, the greater the boost, while if its for all spells the boost would be shallower. Groups like Illusions, Fire, Cold, Fear, etc.

Enhancing base casting is likely to still be there, just not as notable as 4e due to the hopeful fact that magical gear is divorced from levels. Thus its a small bonus, especially in comparison to what the actual implements would bring.

Hard part though, is how the other implements from 4e would exist, if they would at all.

 

[Gadget]

I think it is important to remember that the reason wands (and scrolls) were mentioned in the L&L article: these magic items have been responsible for helping promote the image of the 'broken' wizard. They allow the magic user to easily (or at least at small cost during down time) circumvent some of the limitations placed upon their spell casting.

Personally, I favour using the idea that Mike put forward for scrolls on wands: they allow the user to expend a spell slot of the appropriate level to cast a particular spell, thus giving the caster a bit more flexibility in not having to prepare a particular spell (or perhaps not even knowing it). Maybe they can enhance the level a particular prepared spell is cast at. This seems useful and flavourful without being too abusive. Scrolls could follow the long casting time or Ritual method: this would limit them to utility type spells, as combat spells would be less useful in this paradigm, but that is what wands are for . Maybe a scroll niche can be casting spells above the level you can normally cast. Sure, it might take a while for that sorcerer to cast from that scroll, but if he gets that Meteor Swarm off with you only being 7th level, you're really going to feel it. I can see a scenario where the magic user is trying to cast a higher-level-than-he-is-normally-able-to-cast banishment spell from a scroll while the party tries to keep the demon off of him. Scrolls could still be useful for transcribing combat spells to your spell book as well.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it is important to remember that the reason wands (and scrolls) were mentioned in the L&L article: these magic items have been responsible for helping promote the image of the 'broken' wizard. They allow the magic user to easily (or at least at small cost during down time) circumvent some of the limitations placed upon their spell casting.

Personally, I favour using the idea that Mike put forward for scroll on wands: they allow the user to expend a spell slot of the appropriate level to cast a particular spell, thus giving the caster a bit more flexibility in not having to prepare a particular spell (or perhaps not even knowing it). Maybe they can enhance the level a particular prepared spell is cast at. This seems useful and flavourful without being too abusive. Scrolls could follow the long casting time or Ritual method: this would limit them to utility type spells, as combat spells would be less useful in this paradigm, but that is what wands are for . Maybe a scroll niche can be casting spells above the level you can normally cast. Sure, it might take a while for that sorcerer to cast from that scroll, but if he gets that Meteor Swarm off with you only being 7th level, you're really going to feel it. I can see a scenario where the magic user is trying to cast a higher-level-than-he-is-normally-able-to-cast banishment spell from a scroll while the party tries to keep the demon off of him. Scrolls could still be useful for transcribing combat spells to your spell book as well.

My bet is that wands are going to be restricted to classic evocations or attack magics (with maybe an occasional utility spell like light). No one ever complained when a wand of illumination trampled the torchbearer's role, but we god mighty upset when wands of knock upset the rogues.

Keep them to those wands of fire, frost, lightning, magic missile, etc.

 

[Herschel]

What if wands and staffs weren't throw aways like 3e, but not like 4e either, instead held 'known spells' for Wizards and let them cast a larger variety of spells? Another option is to give wizards bonus spells per level to cast.

Because this goes against making the game balanced to where the casters don't dominate.

I hate scrolls-on-a-stick and really like the implement style being a meaningful choice they brought to the game in 4E. Your implement choice actually helps shape the kind of character you play. The staff-wielder is more likely to get close to the action, the nimble wand-wielder is accurate, the Orb Wielder wants to mess with your mind and the Rod wielder wants the world to burn, for example. So maybe something along teh lines of:

Staff - Defensive/durability boost
Wand - Accuracy boost
Orb - Saving throw nerf
Rod - Damage boost
Blade - Channel spell in melee

 

[Wulfgar76]

This is proving to be a very important thread.
It appears we've stumbled upon a bellwether issue for 5e.

The level of agreement right between fans of the various systems is pretty unprecedented.
This thread or at least this issue needs to be brought to the attention of someone at WotC.
Certainly there is someone here who can make this happen?

To reiterate:

While there is different opinions on the what form the rules should take, there is almost universal agreement that magical implements (wands, staffs, orbs, etc.) should NOT be reservoirs of stored spells. The general consensus is they should enhance, empower, or modify a wizard's existing spells in some way.

Please lets not let this thread die without it being brought to the attention to someone who matters. Perhaps WotC is already of aware of this, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The phrasing of the L&L article - talking about "reducing caster dominance" for instance - seems to imply that Mr. Mearls is working from older editions of the game, rather than working from 4e. If he were, he wouldn't be concerned about 'reducing' something that has already been largely eliminated.

Similarly, the issue of 'limiting' wands to storing only a sub-set of spells is an issue only if you are trying to improve AD&D or 3e.

If we were to look at these issues with a more linear sense of time, a more straightforward phrasing might be something like. "We are debating how much high-level caster dominance we want to restore."