Breaking Wands

[Lix Lorn]

I've been helping a friend make an Artificier, and he's been spamming wands. This makes me want to make a character who uses wands, and has had me come up against a surprisingly unbroken wall.

Is there a way to make a wand with a spell of 5th level or higher?

[Volthawk]

There are scepters in Lost Empires of Faerun, which are basically super-wands, with the ability to have two spells usable (common charge pool), and a spell cap of 7th level instead of 4th.

[Dusk Eclipse]

No, wands only go up to 4th level spells, for higher level spells in "spamable" form you have to go with Staffs or under some interpretations of the rules you could theoretically create a wand of spell affected by Sanctum Spell. While outside of your sanctum it is treated as being one spell level lower than normal.

Edit: Also this probably should be on the 3.5 sub-forum.

[Lix Lorn]

Darnit. I'd heard about the Sanctum Spell thing, but I couldn't use it without feeling horrible. I guess I'll lookl up scepters, thanks.

Also whoops I didn't remember there was a subforum. Sorry, mods. >_<

[Cieyrin]

Alternatively, you could go with staves, which are naturally capless and also scale to your CL, ability scores and feats & abilities.

[Lix Lorn]

Yeah, but they aren't wands, and thus can't be used with the dual wielding feat, or the 'as many times as you can attack' epic feat.

[HunterOfJello]

If you create a character who abuses negative level metamagics, then you could possibly use higher level spells on wands.


Lesser Schema from Magic of Eberron are also worth taking a look at for 1/day castings. They work like Eternal Wands, but are the equivalent of a 1 charge/day scroll of up to 6th level spells. They're amazing for buffing, especially if you create one with Extend Magic on it. They're also great for spells that you'd like to keep around and use once per day when necessary. For instance, most people don't need multiple Teleport spells per day or multiple Leomund's Secure Shelter per day.

[Gigas Breaker]

Maybe you could convince your dm to allow those feats to apply to dorjes. There isn't a power level limit on those iirc.

[Rubik]

Psionic wands (called dorjes) don't have the 4th level limit for powers you can put on. Considering the spell-to-power erudite (which can cast spells as psionic powers) and the Expanded Knowledge feat, you can turn any spell from any list into a psionic power to add to a dorje.

You should be able to craft a dorje with the Craft Wand feat, since (aside from the cap) they're basically identical. Ask your DM.

[Lix Lorn]

Ooh. Yeah, I could do that...
Although if they let me use that kind of cheesy stuff, I could probably just ask for 5th+ level wands...

[Thiyr]

You could also see if a staff sized for an exceptionally small creature could be considered a wand for purposes of stuff. Even if it doesn't work for the feats, still useful for things like wand chambers/bracers.

Unless your DM doesn't want to let smaller fae have staves or some such...

Heck, why is that awakened cat wizard expected to use a staff? Why couldn't it have a yarnball with spells in it? *ponders the possibility*

[Aasimar]

I'd set the strength dc to break wands at around 16.

[Cieyrin]

I'd set the strength dc to break wands at around 16.

Didn't read the OP, huh? Also, considering they're 1/4" thick sticks, that DC seems over-much, considering how easy it is to break sticks that thin over your thigh. I'd say DC 5-8.

[Aasimar]

Well, I'm giving them a bit of a boost because they're 'magic'.

I did read the OP, I just figured this would be funnier.

[TuggyNE]

Didn't read the OP, huh? Also, considering they're 1/4" thick sticks, that DC seems over-much, considering how easy it is to break sticks that thin over your thigh. I'd say DC 5-8.

Surprisingly, the actual listed break DC is 16. Weird, no?

[Volthawk]

Surprisingly, the actual listed break DC is 16. Weird, no?

I guess the magic in the wand makes it stronger than a normal stick?

[ericgrau]

At 5 hp they also have double the normal hp for 1/4" thick wood, but the same hardness.

Given wand prices, 4th level wands are fine until level 13. The issue is at level 14 and up. How about a feat that allows the crafting of 5th level spells into wands, with a pre-req of caster level 12? That seems fair. Then an epic feat that allows 6th to unlimited. Or maybe 6th to 9th and a 2nd epic feat for 10th to unlimited if the DM thinks that's too much. But most epic feats are already crazy.

True an artificer could probably afford even more but limiting him to what a non-artificer could afford (but letting him keep the cost reductions) keeps the power level in check and I think most any DM would be ok with those feats.

[killem2]

I guess the magic in the wand makes it stronger than a normal stick?

Except if it is out of charges, then it is just a stick. :smallbiggrin: But not as weak as a stick. >_>

Love the rules.

[ericgrau]

"Wow Mr. elf your airship frame has 1/4 the weight of a regular airship and just as strong, how did you do it?"
"Well you see for the past 500 years I owned a wand shop and I gave everyone a small refund on spent wands if they turned them in when buying a new wand..."

[Volthawk]

Except if it is out of charges, then it is just a stick. :smallbiggrin: But not as weak as a stick. >_>

Love the rules.

I figure that although it doesn't have excess juice to use on casting, it's still a magic stick - whatever process gives it the capability to cast magic also reinforces it, and that innate magic remains when the charges are gone.

[ericgrau]

Maybe, but I was kidding. I assume it loses its extra strength leaving it at 2 hp instead of 5 hp. And even a 1/4" wooden rod might have a break DC of 10-14. To break one in 6 seconds isn't terribly hard but it isn't easy either. And there are always retries so after 12-18 seconds you might roll higher.

[killem2]

I never looked into it before this thread. I didn't realize there was a high break dc!

Well, high for a low str person, I think most barbarians could make easy work of it.

[Cieyrin]

Surprisingly, the actual listed break DC is 16. Weird, no?

...Magicly strong sticks, indeed. Bizarre, that is.

[Kelb_Panthera]

...Magicly strong sticks, indeed. Bizarre, that is.

Wrap your head around this then. A +1/masterwork quarterstaff can't be damaged by a non-magical weapon at all on one end, while the other isn't significantly stronger than a non-magical piece of wood.

Magically strong stick indeed. :smallcool:

[TuggyNE]

Wrap your head around this then. A +1/masterwork quarterstaff can't be damaged by a non-magical weapon at all on one end, while the other isn't significantly stronger than a non-magical piece of wood.

I don't believe that's actually a thing anymore; enhancement bonuses merely add to hardness and HP, rather than being immune to non-magical damage. Still, of course, the fact that the enhanced end is harder and tougher is surprising in itself.

[Urpriest]

One thing to think about is how necessary spells over fourth level are. While they're not quite as versatile as low-level psionic powers, low level spells, heavily (and or/epically) metamagiced are still pretty efficient tools of blasting.

[Temotei]

I did read the OP, I just figured this would be funnier.

I laughed. :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't believe that's actually a thing anymore; enhancement bonuses merely add to hardness and HP, rather than being immune to non-magical damage. Still, of course, the fact that the enhanced end is harder and tougher is surprising in itself.

I don't remember reading anything negating that rule.

Source please?

In any case, it only ever did apply to weapon damage. Energy attacks from spells and the environment, as well as transmutation effects, all bypass that protection quite handily; providing that they're aimed directly at the weapon.

[Urpriest]

I don't remember reading anything negating that rule.

Source please?

In any case, it only ever did apply to weapon damage. Energy attacks from spells and the environment, as well as transmutation effects, all bypass that protection quite handily; providing that they're aimed directly at the weapon.

It's right where you would expect it to be, in the rules for weapons:

Hardness and Hit Points

Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points.

As for your statement that you haven't read anything negating that rule, you don't need to negate rules from previous editions, they are negated by virtue of being from entirely different games.

[TuggyNE]

Off-topic about actual breaking:

I don't remember reading anything negating that rule.

Source please?

I believe it was a 3.0 rule, and was (effectively) deleted in the update, but I'm not entirely sure where to find proof of that. The update booklet is annoyingly vague on exactly what changes were made to the DMG.

However, in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#damagingMagicItems),
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. Coupled with the lack of any provision for immunity that I've found (and the mention in several places that magic weapons gain a scaling bonus to hardness and HP), this indicates that there is no immunity to non-magical weapons unless it's specifically mentioned.

If you can find a source for the immunity in 3.5, I'd be happy to correct myself. :smallwink:

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's the problem.


An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an ehancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck.

So unless this was errata'd away, there's an error of omission on the srd.

[Urpriest]

There's the problem.



So unless this was errata'd away, there's an error of omission on the srd.

I hadn't realized that that survived into 3.5, but it was indeed errataed away:

Hardness and Hit Points
Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 222
Problem: The first paragraph is not consistent with similar
information for shields on page 217.
Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header.
Change the next sentence to read as follows:
Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or
shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I stand corrected, then.

stupid wii, not openin' pdf's. *grumbles*

[TuggyNE]

I hadn't realized that that survived into 3.5, but it was indeed errataed away:

OK, good to know I was looking in the wrong place for the correction.

[Lix Lorn]

One thing to think about is how necessary spells over fourth level are. While they're not quite as versatile as low-level psionic powers, low level spells, heavily (and or/epically) metamagiced are still pretty efficient tools of blasting.
Well, what I wanted to do was actually Shadow Evocation. xD


I laughed. :smalltongue:
So did I.

So... would it break everything to make an Artificier PrC, five levels, that lets you make wands of 5th/6th level? (And then an Epic version with 7th/8th but I'm less worried about that because epic)
It would make up for this by not being as good at crafting non-wand items, and having slower/no infusion advancement.

I'm just wondering if this idea is even possible without breaking everything.

[Urpriest]

Well, what I wanted to do was actually Shadow Evocation. xD


So did I.

So... would it break everything to make an Artificier PrC, five levels, that lets you make wands of 5th/6th level? (And then an Epic version with 7th/8th but I'm less worried about that because epic)
It would make up for this by not being as good at crafting non-wand items, and having slower/no infusion advancement.

I'm just wondering if this idea is even possible without breaking everything.

It's conceivable...there's a PrC in FR somewhere that lets you make potions of higher level spells, I'd base it off of that.

Edit: Shadow Evocation is a versatile spell, but if this is an epic level character I'd imagine they could simply buy a wand of every single <4th level Evocation and have much the same effect.

[Crasical]

Yeah, but they aren't wands, and thus can't be used with the dual wielding feat, or the 'as many times as you can attack' epic feat.

Where are these from, if I might ask? And specifically, what does the dual wands feat do? There's a rod in the Complete mage that basically lets you load multiple wands into it and then fire them all at once as a full round action. It's terrible, but I've always liked the idea, and depending on how the feat works I might look at statting up an alternate (cheaper) version based on the feat...

[Cieyrin]

Where are these from, if I might ask? And specifically, what does the dual wands feat do? There's a rod in the Complete mage that basically lets you load multiple wands into it and then fire them all at once as a full round action. It's terrible, but I've always liked the idea, and depending on how the feat works I might look at statting up an alternate (cheaper) version based on the feat...

Double Wand Wielder is from Complete Arcane and lets you activate 2 wands as a full round action, costing your second wand an additional charge to use.

Wand Expertise is from the Epic Insights web series, the article being Epic Level Magic. It lets you use a wand in place of an attack, so you could full attack with a wand and even allows Rapid Shot to grant an extra attack, which may presumably work with other attack boosters like Haste and Raging Mongoose. The catch is the each activation after the same as the amount of times you used it that round, so the 4th activation costs 4 charges.

It should be noted that there's a Staff Expertise feat that does the same thing in the same article.

[Crasical]

Double Wand Wielder is from Complete Arcane and lets you activate 2 wands as a full round action, costing your second wand an additional charge to use.

.... Sooo, comparing that to the rod, which lets you activate 3 wands as a full round action, but it drains a charge for each wand you activate (So 2 wands drains 2 charges from both, and 3 wands uses 3 charges from each wand).... And the rod costs a pretty substantial amount of money....

The feat's pretty much the smarter buy, huh?

[Dusk Eclipse]

IIRC Double Wand Wielder has some hefty feat pre-requistes so depending on your build the rod might be worthwhile.

[Cieyrin]

IIRC Double Wand Wielder has some hefty feat pre-requistes so depending on your build the rod might be worthwhile.

Only requires Craft Wand and Two-Weapon Fighting, actually. 3 feats may be considered hefty but if you're wand-focused, you probably already had Craft Wand (as in the Artificer's case), so it's only 1 extra feat, really.