Are wands sub-obtimal?

[Yael]

I know that utility comes first, but the restriction to 4th-level spells isn't too restrictive? Scrolls are up to any level, I know that, and more level = more powerful spells, so are wands sub-obtimal due to their restriction to spells up to level 4th? Are wands good to keep up to level 20th? Is it good to specialize in dual-usage, even when you won't be able to cast up spells of a higher level from them (so, are these wasted feats on higher levels)?

Excuse my ignorance and please say no to bullying. :smallfrown:

[Vaz]

Wands are the best value for money for magic items containing spells. 50 charges of spells is quite a lot, even using one a battle, 4 a day is nearly 2 weeks worth, and you should be able to generate more than enough wealth that way to replace , and more.

Not to mention that you can get something stupid like 20+ negative levels placed on a target if you optimize a wand wielder completely (read, Artificer) although that burns charges like nobodies business (hence artificer for cheap crafting). Compare that to say Energy Drain. Or a Wand of Orb of Fire compared to Meteor Strike.

Obviously they are not up there with the big 5 spells, Shapechsnge, Gate, Timestop etc, but they are gamebreakers for a reason. Bit for 'lower optimization games' (where the use of such spells aren't a staple), wand optimizing leads to some pretty decent results.

[Zombimode]

Wands have a low caster level and save DCs, just like scrolls.
So, just likes scrolls, its useful to have wands of spells that don't rely on caster level or saves. Luckily the first three levels offer a wide selection of useful spells that fit those criteria. Grease, See Invisibility, Enlarge Person, Net, Fog Cloud, Fly, Entangle just from the top of my head without thinking to hard.

If the frequency of use is no concern, wands are more cost efficient.
Of course, buying a wand of a niche spell is less efficient than having a few scrolls of that spell in the backpack.

Bottom Line: Non CL-dependent no-save spells that you plan to use constantly (like Enlarge Person on one of the party's melee guys) you should have in a wand, while other utility spells that you don't plan to use that often but that are really handy if you need them (like See Invisibility maybe) you should keep as scrolls :smallsmile:

[bekeleven]

Can you think of any spells under 4th level, with CL 1-7 and saving throws 11-16, you would regularly want at level 20?

Absolutely. Lesser Restoration, Nerveskitter, Lesser Vigor, Resurgence, True Strike, Shivering Touch, plenty of daily buffs (Sense Weakness, Tyche's Touch, Primal X), Wings of Cover, Rhino's Rush/Lion's Charge, Celerity, solid fog... Blade storm, enervation, hunter's mercy, instant of power, swift haste... Oh, and Alter Fortune. these are spells that are useful all or most of the time, whose effects primarily don't depend on caster level or enemies making saves.

Basically, for every type of spell - BFC, Damage, Martial buffs, daily buffs, heals, defense... there's a low level spell that serves that function. And doesn't need high caster level or saves to do it.

If you can use the wand for these spells, you'll find it significantly easier and cheaper than scrolls.

[Beardbarian]

Wands are way cheaper than scrolls and a real slot saver tool.

Let's say, you want to protect yourself by all those low-level spells. You may find useful a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/globeOfInvulnerabilityLesser.htm), but at mid-levels this is a waste of slots. You prefere a wand of it just in case of little casters.

Up to 4th level spells? This is FANTASTIC because Break Enchantment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/breakEnchantment.htm) is a 4th level spell for Bards and Paladins and you don't have do waste a 5 level slot.

Oh, and a wand of Shatter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shatter.htm) is the best way to deal with traps.

If you think they are useless then you can't imagine how many slots, time, money and ROUNDS you can save.

[Yuki Akuma]

Wands of Lesser Vigor are the most cost-effective healing item in the game outside Healing Belts.

[eggynack]

Wands of Lesser Vigor are the most cost-effective healing item in the game outside Healing Belts.
Even against belts, it's really a matter of how long the game is going to run, and how much healing you expect to use in a day. At levels of damage that far exceed the belt's capacity, you're usually going to need another source of healing, and at very low levels of damage, that healing is wasted. It seems probable that the most efficient solution is belts backed up by wands, if possible.

[Miss Disaster]

I believe Wands of Nerveskitter have been proven to not work as you think they would. You cannot activate any magic items while flat-footed. Which defeats the purpose of the Nerveskitter spell.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I believe Wands of Nerveskitter have been proven to not work as you think they would. You cannot activate any magic items while flat-footed. Which defeats the purpose of the Nerveskitter spell.
Not to mention that you'd need to be holding the wand at the time.

[137beth]

In-combat wands I'll usually give to an Improved Familiar to save actions (since there is something more action-efficient a wizard can do).

However, out of combat wands are great for commonly-used spells. Lesser Vigor is the main one. But lesser restoration, break enchantment, sending, scry*, and levitate/fly are all good choices.
*less so for a wizard than a sorcerer, since you can often tell when you will need to prepare scry.

[Miss Disaster]

Another excellent use of wands for a Wiz/Sorc is for spellcasters who are optimized to heavily use the Extraordinary Concentration feat and the Swift Concentration skill trick for in-combat use.

Once concentration-only combat spells (like Telekinesis or Illusory Pit) are reallocated to the arcanist's Move or Swift action during a fight, their Standard action now becomes available to them again. And this is where wands and their spell-trigger activation provides action-economy synergy to the spellcaster. Regardless of whether the wand is being used for offensive, defensive, utility, or buffing purposes.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Wands that heal are great if your cleric channels negative energy. Bonus points because the rogue can use them, too!

[Forrestfire]

While the others have outlined why wands are good, do note that there are other magic items that do similar things. Lost Empires of Faerûn has Craft Scepter, letting you make special wands up to 7th level (that can hold two spells). The Craft Staff feat also lets you create custom staves if you feel like it, using the same pricing structure as a wand (although it has a minimum CL of 8).

[weckar]

Also, keep in mind that you just need to have it on your spell list. That's it. So at early levels, you can use wands to cast spells you otherwise could not without risk.
For the same reason, rangers and paladins love their wands.

[Urpriest]

There are two questions here: are wands themselves suboptimal, and are wand-based characters suboptimal?

In order for wands themselves to be sub-optimal, there would have to be no good uses for them. That's the situation with potions: they're just too expensive for what they do, and there are lots of better options, so that unless you're playing an Alchemist in Pathfinder you probably won't want to use them. As many have pointed out in this thread, though, that's not the situation with wands. There are lots of things that wands are good for.

My guess, though, is that that's not the question you (the OP) were asking. Rather, you wanted to know about "wands" not as magic items, but as a character concept, a character who primarily uses wands to attack their foes.

In answer to that question, it is possible to make a strong wand-focused character, but you have to specialize pretty hard to make it work. A primary caster like a wizard will never make a good wand-focused character, because their spells will almost always be a better (or at least equally good) choice, especially when attacking directly. A rogue or other character with UMD and bonus damage can make an ok wand-focused character, focusing on ray spells, but there are generally better ways to get sneak attack damage at range.

If you really want to make a character who is heavily focused in wands, who attacks primarily with wands, then you need to make an Artificer. With the ability to add metamagic to wands and infusions that modify wands in other ways, Artificer is essentially the only class that can heavily focus on wands and make a strong character out of it.

[bekeleven]

I believe Wands of Nerveskitter have been proven to not work as you think they would. You cannot activate any magic items while flat-footed. Which defeats the purpose of the Nerveskitter spell.

There's no special provision against activating magical items while flat-footed.


Flat-Footed

A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, not yet reacting normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.


Flat-Footed

At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed.

A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Rules Compendium provides rules for spell trigger items of spells that cast faster than standard actions.


Not to mention that you'd need to be holding the wand at the time.

A wand chamber fits into any weapon longer than 6 inches.

[Kennisiou]

Just a nitpick: Wands are not always the best way to cast spells from items. Custom wondrous items of certain spells castable infinite times per day can be a lot stronger for any spell you're likely to go through more than one wand of. As can resetting traps of certain spells.