Magic Items

[OrlockDelesian]

Would it be possible by the guidlines we have, for a wand of chromatic orb to exist? I modeled it according to the wand of magic missiles, but c.o. has a 50gp component and it bugs me

[MadGrady]

Would it be possible by the guidlines we have, for a wand of chromatic orb to exist? I modeled it according to the wand of magic missiles, but c.o. has a 50gp component and it bugs me

Technically.....and by no means do I know if this is RAW or not.....the component is not consumed (since the spell doesn't say it is), which might mean you COULD make a wand, and the end of it is the gem.......

[OrlockDelesian]

Thats how I did it. 5 interwoven metal lines of varius colours and at the end the gem :P
Though by RAW componets are always consumed.

[MadGrady]

Thats how I did it. 5 interwoven metal lines of varius colours and at the end the gem :P
Though by RAW componets are always consumed.


When casting, components are only consumed if specified (as some spells specify, and some don't, this has been confirmed).

I forgot that item creation typically does state the components are consumed. Won't know for sure until actual rules are presented though.

I'd probably just tack on some xtra cost to mitigate OP factor.

Edit for quote for consuming: PHB page 203: "If a spell states that a material component is
consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell." so not all spells will require consuming the component

[Slipperychicken]

Would it be possible by the guidlines we have, for a wand of chromatic orb to exist? I modeled it according to the wand of magic missiles, but c.o. has a 50gp component and it bugs me

In 3.5, a wand would have additional costs equal to the component costs times the number of charges. If this wand has regenerating/infinite charges like the other one, I recall the rule was to include the component cost 100 times.


But of course, if the component isn't consumed, you'd only need to include it once. It's kind of annoying that they stopped making the distinction between material components and expensive foci.

[Alefiend]

This isn't supported by rules, but what's to stop you from making a wand that requires ammunition, in the form of the spell's material component? Keep a pouch full of gems, use one each time you activate the wand. Out of gems? Put the wand away.

[Easy_Lee]

This isn't supported by rules, but what's to stop you from making a wand that requires ammunition, in the form of the spell's material component? Keep a pouch full of gems, use one each time you activate the wand. Out of gems? Put the wand away.

As stated, components are not automatically consumed. This gem is one such component.

[Shadow]

Though by RAW componets are always consumed.

As others have stated, this is incorrect.
In 3e and earlier, this was true. In 5e it is not. The components are only consumed if the spell specifically states that they are, and there are actually fairly few spells where this is the case.
Look at Raise Dead for comparison.

[Kyutaru]

I'm suddenly reminded of a certain Batman movie where Mr Freeze fueled his "cold wand" with diamonds. Can never have enough diamonds...

Wands with an ammo count equal to their charges/components sounds like a swell idea.

[OrlockDelesian]

I'm suddenly reminded of a certain Batman movie where Mr Freeze fueled his "cold wand" with diamonds. Can never have enough diamonds...

Wands with an ammo count equal to their charges/components sounds like a swell idea.



NEVER MENTION THIS MOVIE AGAIN.
IT is like Hastur.
It might appear on your monitor and force you to see it.

[Geoff]

This isn't supported by rules, but what's to stop you from making a wand that requires ammunition, in the form of the spell's material component? Keep a pouch full of gems, use one each time you activate the wand. Out of gems? Put the wand away.

http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr234/Chashak/gandalf_multiclass.jpg