Pathfinder Good spell to put in a wand [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

charcoalninja

2015-08-31, 11:46 AM

Faerie fire, grease, mirror image, invisibility, and cure light wounds are all staple wands that any party should have.

Since you are going for natural attacks, magic fang is a good holdover until you can spring for a decent amulet of mighty fists.

Although expensive, I also like keeping a wand of dispel magic-it won't level very well, but since you can always pass the check, you can spam it in a battle if your claw/claw/bite won't be very effective.

Trouble with wands is the save DCs are terrible so generally using spells that allow saves is a bad idea. I recommend defensive staples like blur or mirror image myself. They'll always be useful and if you're going into melee you'll need the defenses.

TheifofZ

2015-08-31, 09:22 PM

A general rule of thumb for crafted Spell Completion items that I've found works well goes like this
Scrolls are for specialty spells you'll need a couple of every level.
Wands are for low level defensive spells you'll need a few times a day.
Staves are for spells that are universally useful utility, or that come up several times a day and are higher level than can be put into a wand.
So: Cure light wounds goes in a wand, Comprehend language goes in a scroll, and Levitate goes in a staff.

So if you're looking for good wand spells, the rule of thumb is: Spells that don't allow saves and are effective across every level, not just early game.
Although to be honest, the fact that wands are limited in available spell levels and the number of uses before they run out make them pretty mediocre compared to scrolls (easy to generate, no level cap) and staves (regenerate uses, no level cap, multiple stored spells).
At least, in my opinion.

Kurald Galain

2015-09-01, 01:50 AM

Although to be honest, the fact that wands are limited in available spell levels and the number of uses before they run out make them pretty mediocre compared to scrolls (easy to generate, no level cap) and staves (regenerate uses, no level cap, multiple stored spells).

However, wands are much cheapter than either. A level-1 wand is 750 gp, or 15 gp per shot, whereas the cheapest staff is 7200 and a more reasonable price for most staves is 30,000 to 40,000.

You can easily afford a wand at level 1, but you'll likely won't be using a staff until level twelve or so.

For example, if you have a melee character, then a wand of Magic Missile may be a better backup option than a crossbow would be.
Decent self-buffs to put in a wand include Mage Armor, Longstrider, Divine Favor, Shield, Heightened Awareness, and Face of the Devourer. Fun utility spells that you may want to use more often than you have shots per day include Disguise Self, Enhance Water, Silent Image, and Unseen Servant.

TheifofZ

2015-09-01, 03:00 AM

However, wands are much cheapter than either. A level-1 wand is 750 gp, or 15 gp per shot, whereas the cheapest staff is 7200 and a more reasonable price for most staves is 30,000 to 40,000.

You can easily afford a wand at level 1, but you'll likely won't be using a staff until level twelve or so.

Wands are immediately cheaper than a staff of the same level and spells, but a scroll is immediately cheaper than the wand. A scroll costs 10 gold more than any given charge of a wand for a first level spell, but costs 30 times less than the overall wand, making it immediately cheaper than a wand of the same.

Meanwhile, because staves recharge as long as they have at least 1 charge on them, a staff of a 1st level spell that costs 7,200 becomes cheaper than the wand's cost per charge once the staff has been used 500 times, and the staff continues to be reusable. At 500 uses, each charge on the staff has cost 14.4 gold, and if you continue to let the staff recharge you can milk it for even more gold efficiency.
So either the Wand is much cheaper than the staff, but more expensive than the scroll up front. Or the Wand is cheaper than the scroll, but more expensive than the staff over time.
So in general, no. You're wrong. Pick the one you prefer wands to be better than, but you don't get both.

Also wands can't be used for spells above, i think, 3rd level or 4th level. Which is why the average cost of a staff is outrageously high compared to a wand: The cost of the spells required to make the higher level staves are much higher, too. And then there's the fact that a wand stores only a single spell; part of the cost of the staff is the versatility that they bring by storing 4 to 6 spells inside them. If we factor the fact that you would need, let's say, 5 wands to have the same versatility, (750*5= 3,750), you have to pay more than half the cost of the staff for 50 charges of each of the spells on the staff.
So... yeah. Wands are decent early game, but late game they're pretty comparatively crud. Cost wise and power wise.

Oneris

2015-09-01, 03:53 AM

Prestidigitation is so worth it on a Wand, and really cheap for essentially Least Wish.
Glitterdust against invisibles, not so good for blinding.
Resist Energy has a nice duration
Stone Call does light damage but hits an absolutely huge area and doesn't allow a save.
Touch of Idiocy does not allow a save. And it's a touch spell (obviously) so you can probably hold it to discharge later.
Climbing Beanstalk is a fun one. Use it to block doors and enemies and reach high places.

TheifofZ

2015-09-01, 04:08 AM

There's a ton of good spells of 2nd level and below that are all fun, powerful, or amusing.
Things like Obscuring Mist and Fog Cloud can help a rogue out tremendously, while Protection from Alignment, Bless, Blur, and Mirror Image are just generally useful to have.
Really, the best advice I can give is for the OP to sit down and read through the actual spell lists, and look for spells that have potent utility or defensive affects, or very high versatility. Once there's a solid list to choose from, pick the ones that best improve your strengths, or negate your weaknesses.
Also check in with your resident casters, see which spells they plan on using often and be careful not to overlap identical effects.
No reason to have two Bless effects, for instance.

noob

2015-09-01, 04:30 AM

I really like expeditious retreat for some reason but it becomes obsolete at high level when you have flight and phantom steed and other kind of movements.

Vhaidara

2015-09-01, 05:18 AM

noob

2015-09-01, 05:36 AM

A paladin lesser Restoration wand is very cool for dealing with stat loss(costs 3000)
The lowest level safe place creation spell I know is Mirror Hideaway which insist heavily on how much incredibly super safe you are from all spells and which have space for eight medium creatures and is level 2 and lasts 1 hour per caster level(you surely want one of level 8 for the standard night duration in this case it costs 12000)

Spore

2015-09-01, 05:52 AM

At 4 the rogue's HP deficiency starts to show. So a wand of "Shield" would be great. Protection from Evil is always decent and Enlarge/Reduce Person is very nifty. Jump lets you make insane jumps (the guard wants you arrested so you tip yourself with a wand so you run out and jump to a nearest roof).

Kurald Galain

2015-09-01, 06:38 AM

Meanwhile, because staves recharge as long as they have at least 1 charge on them, a staff of a 1st level spell that costs 7,200 becomes cheaper than the wand's cost per charge once the staff has been used 500 times, and the staff continues to be reusable. At 500 uses, each charge on the staff has cost 14.4 gold, and if you continue to let the staff recharge you can milk it for even more gold efficiency.
Using any given spell 500 times in a campaign is a ridiculously exaggerated figure.

For example, if you want to use a Shield spell every combat over ten levels of gameplay, we're looking at 100 spell shots total. And realistically speaking, you'll use substantially less than that. That means either spending 1,500 gp on wands, or 8,000 gp on a staff (and mind you, most other staffs cost easily three or four times that amount). Hmmm, which of the two would be cheaper?

Kurald Galain

2015-09-01, 07:05 AM

Touch of Idiocy does not allow a save. And it's a touch spell (obviously) so you can probably hold it to discharge later.

I'm curious what your experience is with this spell. I get the impression that if you're fighting a caster with e.g. 4th-level spells, he'll likely have an int/wis/cha of 20+, meaning that reducing it by 1d6 won't really affect his spellcasting any. Well, except by reducing save DC by 1d3, I suppose.

ericgrau

2015-09-01, 07:49 AM

Anything you can spam. So invisibility, augury or cure light wounds. If your class doesn't have access to certain spells, then whatever spell you'd like to be able to use frequently that isn't heavily dependent on save DC nor caster level. Often that means ranged touch attack spells, buffs, web, levitate or etc.

Extra Anchovies

2015-09-01, 01:37 PM

cure light wounds.

Be sure to pick up a wand of Infernal Healing as well. It's a guaranteed 10 HP per use, which is more than a wand of CLW can ever accomplish, but there are a few things that it can't heal damage from (silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, spells/effects with the good descriptor).

TheifofZ

2015-09-01, 03:28 PM

I already have access to 0 and 1st level spells via minor/major magic and the Bookish Rogue feat.

TheifofZ, you are ignoring the original post. Staves are completely worthless to me. I am not a spellcaster, I am a rogue pretending to be a wizard. I cannot recharge them. And before anyone says to have a party member do it, I also mentioned this is a Society (Organized Play) character. You aren't allowed to have other people do things like that unless there is a rest mid adventure.

Likewise, I can't really coordinate with local people, because my party will be 2-6 people from a pool of 30-40, most of whom I don't really know.

Invis and Glitterdust both seem like solid options.

First: that was more just a tangent than an actual 'you must get this instead'. Second: Staves use to automatically regenerate 1 charge every day, and could have more juice spent on them to boost it. Looks like they nerfed that, though. I apologize.

But seriously. Go read through the spell lists on your own and compile a bunch of useful options. I do agree with Invisibility and Glitterdust, but I'll also encourage Fog Cloud for what amounts to a Smoke Bomb in a stick. Blur would also be good, and Shield. And really, a buttload of others.

Using any given spell 500 times in a campaign is a ridiculously exaggerated figure.

For example, if you want to use a Shield spell every combat over ten levels of gameplay, we're looking at 100 spell shots total. And realistically speaking, you'll use substantially less than that. That means either spending 1,500 gp on wands, or 8,000 gp on a staff (and mind you, most other staffs cost easily three or four times that amount). Hmmm, which of the two would be cheaper?
You keep treating a staff the same as a wand. Staves hold up to 6 spells, meaning you need 5 wands twice (5*1,500= 7,500 gp) to match the same amount of available spells at 100 spells used. And the reason staves cost alot more than 8000 is because most staves use higher level spells. A wand of 4th level costs 21,000. Oh, hey look. That's also a lot more expensive. And it's a wand.
Your entire reasoning sounds like it's based on the incorrect concept that a staff has a single spell in it, and that all staves are full of 1st level spells.
If you are aware this is wrong, then you're lying to everyone involved. And that's also completely discounting the fact that most staves are also counted as an Enchanted Quarterstaff with several minor enchantments for combat on them to boot. Which raises the price for an item as per the enchanted weapon costs.
Either way, I'm sorry to have argued a tangent that was actually completely pointless to the thread, and I'll stop now.

Vhaidara

2015-09-01, 03:33 PM

First: that was more just a tangent than an actual 'you must get this instead'. Second: Staves use to automatically regenerate 1 charge every day, and could have more juice spent on them to boost it. Looks like they nerfed that, though. I apologize.

Not a problem, it's just one of those things where, while you were giving very helpful advice, my goal was specifically to find a wand I could use, since it is connected to my class feature

But seriously. Go read through the spell lists on your own and compile a bunch of useful options. I do agree with Invisibility and Glitterdust, but I'll also encourage Fog Cloud for what amounts to a Smoke Bomb in a stick. Blur would also be good, and Shield. And really, a buttload of others.

I get that there are a lot of useful spells. That's why I was asking for people's opinions on which ones are good calls (non-first level wands are pretty hefty investments)

Nibbens

2015-09-01, 03:45 PM

So, my Pathfinder Society Unchained Counterfeit Mage (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes/counterfeit-mage) is going to hit 4 soon, and I'll get Signature Wand, which lets me draw the wand as a free action and use it without UMD. Any recommendations?

I'm going to have about 5-6 thousand gold, because I'm a tengu natural attacker.

Since you rely on Melee attacks, a wand of Expeditious Retreat has oddly good use for melee types. (Just run into the fight, instead of away, lol)

You could also do with a wand of Burrow to get out of combat when you're injured and need to escape and no one can get to you because you're melee.

If you were ranged, I'd say fork out the 4K and buy a wand of scorching ray, but you're melee and I'm pretty sure you want to build on your natural abilities. (BTW, I remember seeing something somewhere that sneak attacks work on RTA spells as well. You might want to look into this, maybe)

Mirror Image for a really good defensive spell - especially since you're moving into melee.

What about Divine Favor? For ~2K you get +2 on all attack and damage rolls.

Kurald Galain

2015-09-01, 03:50 PM

You keep treating a staff the same as a wand.
No, I don't. You've completely missed the point that you can afford wands as early as level 1, and can't afford most staffs until level 12 or so. Why is this? Well, because wands cost 750 gold and staffs cost about 40,000 gold. It's not rocket science, really.

Nibbens

2015-09-01, 04:18 PM

No, I don't. You've completely missed the point that you can afford wands as early as level 1, and can't afford most staffs until level 12 or so. Why is this? Well, because wands cost 750 gold and staffs cost about 40,000 gold. It's not rocket science, really.

Err, not really. Sure, the minimum staff in the books is 7200 gold. But if you look at the The materials cost is subsumed in the cost of creation: 400 gp × the level of the highest-level spell × the level of the caster, plus 75% of the value of the next most costly ability (300 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster), plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities (200 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster). Staves are always fully charged (10 charges) when created.

Simply put, you can create a staff of a 1st level spell with a caster level of 1st (assuming that staffs are like all other magic items, that you can set the spell level and caster level), and even subdivide the charges

If desired, a spell can be placed into the staff at less than the normal cost, but then activating that particular spell drains additional charges from the staff. Divide the cost of the spell by the number of charges it consumes to determine its final price..

Our 400gp staff of a level 1 spell that consumes 2 charges per use costs 200gp to make. Consume 4 charges on cast, it costs 100. Consumes 10 charges - 40 gp.

Even if you can't set the caster level, let's multiply our staff by 4th level: 4X400X1=1600.
Let's subdivide the charges: 1600/10= 160gp

Ultimately, staffs are some of the cheapest magic items you can make.

Lastly, because staffs use the players ability to resist the spells cast from the staff in question, they level quite nicely with your character.

Using Staves: Staves use the wielder’s ability score and relevant feats to set the DC for saves against their spells. Unlike with other sorts of magic items, the wielder can use his caster level when activating the power of the staff if it’s higher than the caster level of the staff. This means that staves are far more potent in the hands of a powerful spellcaster. Because they use the wielder’s ability score to set the save DC for the spells, spells from a staff are often harder to resist than those from other magic items, which use the minimum ability score required to cast the spell. Not only are aspects of the spell dependent on caster level (range, duration, and so on) potentially higher, but spells from a staff are also harder to dispel and have a better chance of overcoming spell resistance.

ericgrau

2015-09-01, 10:12 PM

Re-usable items are a trap in D&D. You won't use them enough for them to ever be cheaper. By the time you do, it will be past time to upgrade. They almost always cost more both short term and long term. Typically you get them because a permanent magic item is the only way to do most things; but if you have a limited use option then do that. Staffs are great but you should wait until high level.

Using any given spell 500 times in a campaign is a ridiculously exaggerated figure.

For example, if you want to use a Shield spell every combat over ten levels of gameplay, we're looking at 100 spell shots total. And realistically speaking, you'll use substantially less than that. That means either spending 1,500 gp on wands, or 8,000 gp on a staff (and mind you, most other staffs cost easily three or four times that amount). Hmmm, which of the two would be cheaper?
Why would a rogue want to debuff himself with a wand of I-lose-my-turn-for-only-+4-AC? Grab a couple potions of protection from evil and/or reduce person in case you get a buff round and won't be wasting precious combat time.

If we're talking 1st level spells there's unseen servant. The advantage of a wand over a prepared spell is that you can have 1 servant if needed, or you can have 17 servants if needed. And again, don't worry about using it too many times. In D&D you're unlikely to use any item enough times. Challenges are far too brief. A situation where 17 servants provides a distinct advantage over 1 or 2 is maybe once a campaign, and then you'll still have a hard time burning the other 33 charges before the wand is obsolete. Heck even if you do it twice you may not burn the other 16 charges before you're too high level for the wand to be useful. Likewise a wand of mount is nice because you never know when you need an animal weighing hundreds of pounds with double digit hp. Or 20 of them.

Kurald Galain

2015-09-02, 01:38 AM

Why would a rogue want to debuff himself with a wand of I-lose-my-turn-for-only-+4-AC? Grab a couple potions of protection from evil and/or reduce person in case you get a buff round and won't be wasting precious combat time.

I'm not saying you should cast Shield every combat. I'm saying that even in the extreme case where you would cast it every combat, then a wand is still going to be cheaper than a staff. You know, because another user was suggesting that a 30,000 gp staff is somehow cheaper than a 750 gp wand.

Besides, while Reduce is a good buff for a rogue, Protection from Evil gives less of a defensive bonus than Shield does.

TheifofZ

2015-09-02, 05:08 AM

I'm not saying you should cast Shield every combat. I'm saying that even in the extreme case where you would cast it every combat, then a wand is still going to be cheaper than a staff. You know, because another user was suggesting that a 30,000 gp staff is somehow cheaper than a 750 gp wand.

Besides, while Reduce is a good buff for a rogue, Protection from Evil gives less of a defensive bonus than Shield does.

Ah. I see the problem. You are saying that the only wands that exist are the wands of level 1 Spells, but the only staves that exist are the ~5th level staves.
Because that is literally the only way that your argument makes sense. 'A wand available at level 1 is cheaper than a staff that becomes easily available at 8th level'.
You're correct. the 1st level wand is much cheaper than a staff of 4th level spells.
But a wand containing 4th level spells isn't, comparatively that much cheaper. And there -are- wands that exist with 4th level spells, and there -are- staves that exist containing 1st level spells.
You do know this, right? Because there's a huge flaw in your argument, and that is the fact that you're using high level staves as the average baseline cost, but low level wands.
That's like saying that a 1st level wizard is crap compared to a 10th level fighter. You are telling us that a drawing by a 5 year old will be cheaper to buy than a masterwork by Picasso.

And while, logically speaking, that's true, there's a certain large gap between the two that exists simply by the nature of the difference between the two. A 10th level fighter has 10 levels, a 1st level wizard has 1. Picasso spent decades mastering painting, the 5 year old understands that the sun is a yellow blob in the sky.
But I don't know why I'm trying to explain this to you because you are only going to pick and choose the parts of my statement you want to exist, rather than facing the whole truth.
Because you did the same thing this entire time, focusing on only two data points that support your argument, IE: level 1 wands vs level 10 staves, instead of looking at all data points because any other point besides the most extreme difference ruins your argument, and you can't have that.

Kurald Galain

2015-09-02, 05:36 AM

Ah. I see the problem. You are saying that

Please stop putting words in my mouth and quoting me out of context.

TheifofZ

2015-09-02, 05:54 AM

No, that is exactly what you have said.
You stated, quite literally, that a wand that costs 750 gold (That is the price of a first level wand) is cheaper than the 30,000 gold cost of a mid level staff, just now.
I did not change, edit, or modify your post in any way.
I addressed the core of your entire argument that you have kept to this entire time quite specifically, in fact. (That is: that a 1st level wand that costs 750 gold is cheaper than the staves that cost tens of thousands of gold, while ignoring any other point that could potentially prove you wrong)

Now I could play word games with you all night, and this could devolve into a petty argument, but I'm going to assume you're being ironic at this point and go to sleep.

And I say I'm going to assume you're being ironic because you keep using small lines of maybe a dozen words out of any given post I made to this argument.

ericgrau

2015-09-02, 06:30 AM

Kurald Galain

2015-09-02, 06:48 AM

Which is why you want potions, or scrolls if you can, because you won't get many buff rounds and the wand of shield will be a waste. It will be useful for maybe 3-4 levels and in that time you might get a buff round around once a level, give or take and then you'll have a ton of unused charges when it's time to sell the wand.

Exactly.

Use potions or scrolls for situational spells, like Obscuring Mist or Protection from Evil.
Use wands for pre-combat buffs like Mage Armor or Longstrider, until your level is high enough to cast them from spell slots; or for spells you expect to use every combat (which only applies to certain niche builds); or for CLW/InfHeal.
Use staffs when you get them as random loot, but at most levels they are way too expensive to buy or craft.

thompur

2015-09-02, 10:12 AM

For a Witch with a Familiar that can use wands: Ill Omen. :smallwink:

Psyren

2015-09-02, 12:27 PM

The wand and staff thing is fascinating, really, but it has absolutely no bearing on the OP, who has a class feature designed around using wands. So if you guys want to debate the merits of staves vs. wands, maybe this isn't the thread for that.

@OP: The advantages of wands are:

- lots of charges (i.e. buffs or attacks that can be spammed/used on others.)
- cheap cost per charge (by the time a wand needs replacing you can generally afford another one, or even several different ones, even at higher levels than before.)
- Spell Trigger activation method (doesn't provoke - useful for attack or escape.)

The disadvantages are:

- Usually low CL (minimum for the spell in question) that doesn't scale
- Low save DC (again, minimum for the spell in question) that doesn't scale

So your best bets for wands are instantaneous effects (like heals, attack spells, or emergency getaways), or minute/level buffs that can be shared around the group. In short, something that you have incentive to want to cast multiple times per day.

For your signature wand in particular, you want something that is worth casting in combat - i.e. that makes the standard action to do so worthwhile. Touch spells are good here, because you'd be trading your normal use of a standard or full-round action (i.e. attacking) for the standard action of casting the spell and your move action of doing... well, whatever you like. Another good option is Dimension Door, because you can draw your wand as a free action and escape nearly any bad situation without provoking. You can draw the wand as a free action and be gone before any enemies can react. Rays are also good, particularly if you are sneaky, because you can draw and fire during the surprise round and do a lot of sneak attack damage on top of the spell damage. Scorching Ray is good here because the damage is quite competitive with the level you get it at.

Dusk Eclipse

2015-09-02, 01:17 PM

Can you sneak attack with all the rays or does it works as in 3.5 and you only get 1 sneak attack?

Psyren

2015-09-02, 02:08 PM

Can you sneak attack with all the rays or does it works as in 3.5 and you only get 1 sneak attack?

Just one ray gets it. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qqm)

TheifofZ

2015-09-02, 05:49 PM

I can't recall; do touch spells (and, by extension, any weaponized spell,) cast by a rogue carry Sneak Attack bonus dice when the rogue would normally get sneak attack?
It requires an attack roll so it should be applicable, but I recall various sources in 3.5 allow rogue sneak attack to apply to spells, so I'm not 100% on it working without a special ability.
If that is the case, touch spells become a very strong choice, but if not, then the only advantages that a touch spell would grant would be targeting touch over normal AC.
While that is useful, there are other ways around AC so using buffs/utility becomes a stronger choice. But again, if touch spells carry sneak attack dice then the raw burst there could be fight-ending on the first turn, if the rolls are slightly above average.