Which spells do you usually imagine linked to an orb, staff or wand? (Tome optional)

[fuindordm]

I think you could make a good case for associating orbs with abjuration as well as divination. Consider:

The orb is a perfect sphere, a symbol of wholeness and unity.
The orb is a crystal of exceptional harness and clarity.
The orb is analogous to the eye and the spirit.
The orb is a symbol of elemental Earth and all its powers.

From there I could easily justify a spell list consisting of:

All divination and communication spells
The Globe of Invulnerability spells
Shield (and its counterpart, the unerring magic missile)
Circles of protection
Stoneskin, Strength, and a few other earth/stone transmutations
Freezing Sphere
Imprisonment
Telekinetic Sphere
...and so on.

They're probably not going with way, but it would actually be really interesting to base schools off the symbolism of half a dozen implements rather than the "mechanism" of the magic.

Tomes definitely go hand in hand with Conjuration... I would think they are best suited to Conjuration and Transmutation, as these are forms of magic commonly associated with names and in particular True Names. Think of Ged spending endless hours with the Master Namer at Roke.

Staves and wands seem somewhat redundant, except for the power/precision divide. Traditionally both are associated with the classical element of Fire; staves in particular have a symbolic association with command and leadership. Since they are so iconic for wizards, I would associate them with evocation (especially fire, and short-range, potent effects), enchantment, and whatever abjuration spells the orb missed.

Wands get what's left over, but Illusion makes a heap of sense--they're associated with stage magic and charlatanry, precision and dexterity.

Orbs: divination/communication, some abjuration, some Earth spells
Tomes: summoning and transmutation, anything involving changing forms
Staves: evocation (especially powerful, short-range effects), enchantment
Wands: evocation (rays, long-range effects), illusion, some abjuration

This still leaves a ton of spells with no obvious category, but it would be a nice place to start.

 

[KarinsDad]

Nice points. Very valid.
But thank you for sticking with the original topic. Those other issues are being covered ad nauseum in the bigger-overview thread about Wizards. I was trying to avoid thread-cloning.

Actually, the overview thread about Wizards is way too long. Didn't even bother to read it.

However, these points are on topic. They are on topic of NOT wanting what WotC is spoon feeding people.

I cannot believe so many people are jumping on this particular bandwagon.


It's one thing to fix the problems that WotC perceive in DND. I'm all for that.

It's another thing to add a bunch of fluff that has absolutely nothing to do with how DND spell casters have ever cast spells, just because it's new or different or cool.

Personally, I think the concept of Wand or Staff to augment spells is fine.

I think the concept of doing it for specific types of spells sucks. Harry Potter influences DND.

In 5E, you'll need a broomstick in order to cast the Fly spell.

 

[Alek Baka]

Tomes:
In my mind tomes are the source of magic difficult to understand or attain, something perhaps forbidden or forgotten. They contain long and peculiar incantations difficult to remember by heart. I can easily imagine otherwordly things or creatures appearing, while a wizard is reading incantations from his tome. Thus, I would say:
Tomes: Summoning/Calling, Undead Animation, Creation, Shadow spells, Figments, Patterns, "Generic" Spells (Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, Permanency, Wish, etc.)

Wands:
The pointing wand could mean the unleashing of destructive energies upon one's foe, so I guess that:
Wands: Rays, Ranged AOE, Negative Energy, In general any sort of offensive and blasting effect that isn't centered on the caster including many offensive non evocation effects such as dispel magic, reduce person, dismissal.

Orbs :
A small globe in a caster's hand could be a replica of the world, or maybe a "fabricated" world or the depicted emotions that he has created in the minds and hearts of others. I would say:
Orbs: Scrying, Phantasm, Compulsion, Charm and all sorts of divination effects

Staves:
The staff of the wizard could be seen as an essential tool for him that he never lets from his side. He relies on it both physically and magically. It is the symbol of his perseverance through the travels and the duels. It is the means of turning the odds on his side. I think that:
Staves: Protective and transmutation spells for himself and the others around him, Bursts and auras and any other sort of effect that is centered on him, Teleportation effects, Personal polymorph effects, Most glamer effects

 

[erf_beto]

I think staff, orb and wand are going to be generic names for tools within each Magic Tradition/Order: different tools for different wizards but they would work the same way - as far as rules and mechanics are concerned. So wizards (vanilla flavor) wield staves, orbs and wands, but witches (the pumpkin flavor) have broomsticks, cauldrons and athames. Warmages might have spears or halberds instead of a staff, and some Fortuneteller might even prefer a tarot deck instead of the obvious crystall ball/orb. Not even Harry Potters use wands for everything, there's also potions! The're all wizards, no big deal. You don't need 326 different prestige classes to tell them apart, their methods and individual practices are enough. Of course, the PHB will concentrate on Gandalf-type wizards, so lets not go crazy yet. Emerald Frost, Hidden Flame... mostly fluff, I guess, no real differences here (they do sound a lot like Tome of Battle, dont they? yikes).

So it's more about what they represent than what they actually are. Any piece of crystal, gem, ring or amulet could be an orb, any precision instrument like daggers, rods or even a gauntlet could be a wand, and any big weapon or phallic symbol could be a staff.

That said, I think orbs will help caster with enchantment, illusion, divination, abjuration and any effect passive or subtle effect - like mind affecting magic. Wands can be suttle too, but I guess they're supposed to affect distant things with precision rather than force - if you need a (ranged) touch attack, you need a proper wand. A Staff is pure force, both for offense and defense: evocation and world shattering, reality ripping spells are enhanced by staves - and if the pointy hat guy is carring a staff, pump up your Reflex Defense, cause you're probably gonna need it!

I'm actually loving this. Too bad Tome is not on par with the others - I was already contemplating how Charlote from Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin would turn out in a D&D dungeon...

This is all too simplistic of course. We're talking about something that seems completely new and yet we are going back to earlier editions to support our theories. Until 4E comes out, not much we can do but wonder...

 

[Celebrim]

It's another thing to add a bunch of fluff that has absolutely nothing to do with how DND spell casters have ever cast spells, just because it's new or different or cool.

Here. Here.

I'd like to add that this is in no way necessary to fix any existing problem with D&D. In fact, it seems like a particularly risky decision, because it adds another modifer to what is in 3rd edition terms the DC of a saving throw. Historically, we know that modifiers to the DC of a saving throw can become extremely unbalancing. One question that obviously comes to mind is, "If what you were going for was balance, and defence bonuses were too much outpacing magical attack bonuses, why not just bump up the magical attack bonus rather than adding a new device for increasing it?"

There is a certain amount of elegance in having a wizard have a 'wand +3' that corresponds to the fighters 'sword +3', but I don't think that is the really driving force here. I think that the really driving force her is make for more interesting 'drops' in a computer setting. This is bling largely for bling's sake.

Some of the potential side effects of this bother me alot. For example, its not hard to imagine that a wizard will become something of a wand or staff specialist the way currently fighters have already been forced into being single weapon specialists (ei wizards will be strongly encouraged by the mechanic to concentrate thier spell lists on a single focus type for which they either have selected talents or else just have a sweet focus item.) I've always hated that side effect of weapon specialization, and I don't much like the idea of wizards now becoming spell specialists. This seems to me to be a case of limiting how you play a character unneccessarily - something Mearls says you are not supposed to do. Did anyone ever play a wizard and say, "I'd rather be more of a one trick pony, and better yet, lets be good at one trick that isn't particularly flavorful." Most people I know who play wizard's do so because they want flexibility. If you just want to blow things up good, you'd play a sorcerer or take a class that avoids the Vancian magic system altogether.

I'm also bothered by the implications of where they are taking the game. Between this and the 'all classes will get a combination of per day, per encounter, and at will abilities', it sorta implies a 'all classes are interchangable except for flavor' mentality. It seems like some of the things that I didn't like about the design of Iron Heroes (ei 'the only way to balance non-spell casters with spell casters is to make them all spell-casters'), only maybe even more so. That kind of abstraction seems ok for a Supers game, but I'm not sure I like it creeping into D&D.