Wizards and wands 3.5

[Darcand]

Not cast a spell fifty times wands, but Harry Potteresque, you channel your magic through this item to cast spells, wands. Something sunder and disarm vulnerable. I'm thinking it would replace mundane spell components, but not the costly ones.

Would something of that sort be too out of line do you think?

[Eloel]

Somethink akin to

'Conjuration Wand - adds +1 CL to conjuration spells you cast through it - can't cast defensively'.

or

'Wand - you need one of these to cast a spell'

?

[AslanCross]

The Runestaffs from Magic Item Compendium allow you to expend one of your prepared spells/spell slots for one of the spells they have stored.

And I'm pretty sure wands and staffs are sunder/disarm-vulnerable. Pretty bad form for a DM to sunder his players' gear, though.

[Darcand]

Somethink akin to

'Conjuration Wand - adds +1 CL to conjuration spells you cast through it - can't cast defensively'.

or

'Wand - you need one of these to cast a spell'

?

Wand- you need one of these to cast a spell.

[Lioness]

I quite like the idea. I can't really see the value of it over a spell component pouch though, unless it did add something to the spells.

[AslanCross]

Wand- you need one of these to cast a spell.

Then there isn't much difference if it's meant to replace M-components. The material component pouch can be sundered just like a stick in one's hand can be.

Also, it doesn't hurt primary casters as much as it hurts classes that use UMD, so if you want to do this to balance casters, then I'm afraid it nerfs the wrong crowd.

EDIT: For the record, 4E does something like this. Wands/rods/staves/orbs are necessary when you cast certain spells, and the items themselves can give a boost to the roll.

But yeah, unless the wand adds something to the spell, it doesn't really do much apart from hurting Rogues and other UMD users.

[Biotroll]

We often used such wands (and some stafs too) as metamagick rods (extended and so on). Sometimes add some extra ability such as casting light 3/day or something like that and you have your own customized wand.

[SparkMandriller]

Would something of that sort be too out of line do you think?

So basically it's the same as before, except instead of carrying a little bag which somehow contains infinite amounts of glass rods/live spiders/wood models/whatever else, I'm just carrying a wand?

I can accept this, yeah. This is acceptable.

[KillianHawkeye]

EDIT: For the record, 4E does something like this. Wands/rods/staves/orbs are necessary when you cast certain spells, and the items themselves can give a boost to the roll.

You don't need an implement to cast spells in 4E. It's entirely optional, although it's assumed you'll be using one to gain the magical bonus on your attack rolls.

[Mongoose87]

Fluff wise, I always hated this sort of idea. The power comes from the wizard, not some twig.

[Fhaolan]

Fluff wise, I always hated this sort of idea. The power comes from the wizard, not some twig.

I think the concept is that the twig s a focus rather than a source of power. Basically a lens that can be lost, broken, whatever.

If that is the case, I would have it be a designated object instead of a wand. Something invested into, so it could be a medallion, a wand, a gemstone, something that took craft to make/refine. Possibly it has level limits, so a wizard needs to get better versions as his/her career progresses. Mastercraft versions might add a bonus of some kind. After a certain point, the focus is not required for sufficiently low-level spells to represent that the wizard is now experienced enough to do the trivial spells without aid.

As mentioned by several posters above, however, this is a purely flavour thing really. It doesn't add any real restrictions mechanically that the spell component pouch doesn't already. If the cost of one was truely prohibitive, you run smack-dab into WBL problems. At low level, you can't afford to be a wizard, at high levels it's insanely trivial to purchase a golf-bag full of foci.

[Starbuck_II]

Fluff wise, I always hated this sort of idea. The power comes from the wizard, not some twig.

Harry Potter has thought magic, non-wand magic, and wand magic.

Why is wand magic so often used even by masters like Dumbledore? Easier.

Harry could only barely master thought magic.

He could use non-wand magic.

So Really, there is no problem with idea of having all three.

[Eldan]

Such an item could make an interesting legacy-item like object: it gets more powerful as the wizard advances, for the price of money being sacrificed to it. Perhaps it starts as an item of prestidigitation 1/day, then gains more spell-like abilities, a caster-level bonus, spell-storing, metamagic...

[Saph]

Pathfinder has this. One of the options for a wizard is "Arcane Bond" - you form a special bond with an item, wand being one of the choices. The plus side is that it gives you a nice spontaneous casting ability. The downside is that if you aren't touching it, casting any spells at all is ridiculously difficult. I thought Harry Potter the first time I saw it. You can see the details here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/wizard.html#arcane-bond).

[JonestheSpy]

So basically it's the same as before, except instead of carrying a little bag which somehow contains infinite amounts of glass rods/live spiders/wood models/whatever else, I'm just carrying a wand?

I can accept this, yeah. This is acceptable.

Seriously. If a DM tried to impose any vaguely realisitc system for using spell components, well, let's just say every acrcane magic user out there would probably be really, really unhappy.

[Thurbane]

From what I've seen from the movies, Potteresque "wizards" would more more like sorcerers in 3.5. The get free Eschew Materials feat at first level, but all of their spells require a masterwork wand as an arcane focus.

[Yrcrazypa]

Seriously. If a DM tried to impose any vaguely realisitc system for using spell components, well, let's just say every acrcane magic user out there would probably be really, really unhappy.

Weren't spell components made as a balancing factor? You know, they get the power to bend reality to their will, I think having something like spell components being tracked is there to make sure they aren't completely unstoppable 100% of the time.

Same with needing to rest after a certain period of time, but we can't have the wizards not at full power at all times, I suppose. That just would not do.

[lsfreak]

Weren't spell components made as a balancing factor? You know, they get the power to bend reality to their will, I think having something like spell components being tracked is there to make sure they aren't completely unstoppable 100% of the time.


Not at all. The rules explicitly say that as long as a spellcaster has a spell component pouch, you completely ignore all material components that don't have a listed cost. Material components that lack a cost are 98% flavor, 2% mechanics (the *only* situations that material components actually come into play are ones where a spellcaster has been stripped of their possessions, and if there are spells that have material but lack somatic components, grappling).

[ericgrau]

Simplest way I could think of would be to take the staff rules and replace the staff with a wand. Anything that gives extra spells is worth almost any price. And staffs even let you use your own caster level and save DC, if higher.

At lower levels, you can try this: You may put multiple spells in a wand if so desired. Pay 3/4 for the 2nd most expensive spell, and 1/2 for all the rest. All the spells share the same 50 charges. If you want a spell to cost 2 charges, cut its cost in half (or 1/3 if 3 charges, etc.). Maybe you could tack on metamagic rods too, with no charge cost )only the 3/day limitation) but a 50% price increase for combining items. While it may seem that a dozen wands with each spell would be cheaper in the long run, the advantage to multiple spells on 1 wand is that you don't have to spend 2 move actions swapping wands. And adding in versatility costs half as much as a whole new wand, though sharing charges won't last as long as unshared.

You could still cast normally, but you'd need the wand for certain spells. Or to boost your own spells if the wand includes metamagic functions.

[taltamir]

Seriously. If a DM tried to impose any vaguely realisitc system for using spell components, well, let's just say every acrcane magic user out there would probably be really, really unhappy.

and take eschew materials...

OP: its nice fluff... you mention sundering. Not very realistic... the thing probably has higher AC than the wizard due to its size, wizards don't go into melee anyways, if it has a set cost and is a standard item, then at low levels it will have more AC and HP than the wizard, but be so expensive you couldn't afford one. At high levels having it sundered just means you need to draw one of the 15 spares you are carrying.

[Tyndmyr]

Weren't spell components made as a balancing factor? You know, they get the power to bend reality to their will, I think having something like spell components being tracked is there to make sure they aren't completely unstoppable 100% of the time.

Same with needing to rest after a certain period of time, but we can't have the wizards not at full power at all times, I suppose. That just would not do.

Almost all spell components that are cheap are also ridiculously common. Not really a balancing factor. I remember a grain of sand being one such component, for example. A single scoop will give me enough for a lifetime of casting.

Thus, it's pretty much impossible to control casters via spell components.

[taltamir]

spell components that are "cheap" are pure fluff... not only is there an infinite amount of them in every spell component pouch, a lot of them are impossible to find or keep (live spiders? a fragment of armor that was shattered with the spell shatter while being worn by a 15th level fighter? etc), all the components are either jokes (literally), puns, or a thematically "cute" gimmick.
its just pure condensed fluff.

[Tyndmyr]

The easiest way to handle them is for the DM to ignore all minor component usage entirely, provided the player doesn't try to do something like build a set of armor out of those pieces via mending and a spell component pouch.

After all, wizard's have a ridiculous amount of bookkeeping as it is. Adding more is not likely to add to anyone's fun.

[taltamir]

The easiest way to handle them is for the DM to ignore all minor component usage entirely, provided the player doesn't try to do something like build a set of armor out of those pieces via mending and a spell component pouch.
Har! Forget fabricate + wall of iron... you can now use a cantrip to break the economy :)


After all, wizard's have a ridiculous amount of bookkeeping as it is. Adding more is not likely to add to anyone's fun.

so so true... the bookkeeping PITA is one of the major let downs of playing a wizard.

[LibraryOgre]

I'd probably rule it as replacing all material components and focus less than the value of the wand. As a wizard advanced, he could enchant his wand more heavily, making it worth more in terms of what it replaced.