Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3779481" data-attributes="member: 4937">QFT.Answering the OP, I've always associated wands with animating, transporting, and rendering objects invisible.  Why?  No other reason that's what a stage magician is usually doing (or appearing to do).  Also, stupid as it sounds, this is the way wands are used in Disney animation.In my own games, the principle use of wands is allowing the delivery of a touch attack without drawing an AoO or touching something which would be painful to touch.  (House rules borrowed in part from GURPS magic item mechanics.)The notion of a staff I've always associated with a power battery of some sort, where a wizard can store and/or draw on power.  In addition to weaponry, I strongly associate staves with the notion of 'channeling' power.  In addition to the usual D&D functions, frequently staves in my campaign will raise your effective caster level when using certain spells.Frankly, I don't see 'orbs' as being particularly wizardish except for the iconic crystal ball, and that metaphorically no more important than mirrors, polished stones, basins of water, censors.  It seems pretty contrived to me.As for tomes, I don't necessarily see a grimoire as being powerful except for the knowledge that it contains.  While I subscribe to Terry Pratchett's 'leakage' theory (powerful magic is 'radioactive' and tends make everything around it magical), I don't really get the idea of a book as a channeling device of any sort, much less for a particular category of spells.  I've lots of ways of making books powerful without having a 'tome +1'.  I actually like spell books, and its the one aspect of the Vancian system which would be hardest for me to abandon.</blockquote>

Verification