Wands and Staffs: Impliment or Spell Containers

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The one issue this does lead to is, if there is no rhyme or reason to magical items, then each one has to be created and balanced individually, especially if new items are introduced in later books.

Is that not a better idea than saying, "All wands are just spell containers" and then finding out just how silly that can become when sensible players start making Wands of Resurrection and eliminate death in your game world? Indulging a designers OCD and insisting that an item that LOOKS LIKE such and such can only do X. If you want an item to do Y it HAS TO look like something else. That is just bogglingly dull and crippling to creativity.

Definitely better to say, "An item that Resurrects characters will have certain logical effects, therefore it doesn't matter what the item that Resurrects looks like, what matters is how often it can ressurrect characters, who can be resurrected, whether there are other limitations and drawbacks to being resurrected with this item as opposed to a spell, or a ritual, or an item that simply resurrects in a different fashion." Each item created and balanced individually. Yes, it's a lot of work, but it's probably LESS likely to create balance issues because it's not being forced to adhere to some arbitrary template with all the restrictions and absence of needed restrictions that that can bring.

I guess I still don't understand your point on this one then. It's there, it has many of the same functions, randomly determined by a % roll. How is it that it "can't exist in its 1e form"?

Because it CANNOT be a wand without breaking the game rules which arbitrarily restrict what a wand can do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

They're going back to full Vancian wizards, so it makes sense - there're no actual game problems to talk about with 4E wizards.

There's the issue of controllers lacking defining role support outside their powers, but that's an issue for all controllers, not just wizards.