About Wands

[Kerilstrasz]

1.
While crafting a wand, can you put ANY spell in it, as long as you have it prepared and have the materials, gold & time necessary ??

2.
When you activate a wand, WHO casts the spell? The wielder or the wand? Or is there something else?
This is important, please provide book & page with your answer.

My idea is so... ridiculous, that there is a chance i found a funny bug :p

[PhantomSoul]

Definitely best to ask your DM (assuming it isn't you)!

[Amnestic]

1.
While crafting a wand, can you put ANY spell in it, as long as you have it prepared and have the materials, gold & time necessary ??

Rules differ depending on if you're using DMG or Xanathar's.

DMG requires:
The formula for the item
Be a spellcaster
Be able to cast any spells the item can cast
A minimum character level depending on rarity
Potentially special materials
Time
The gold cost.

Xanathar requires:
The formula
An exotic material for the item acquired "as part of an adventure".
Either an appropriate tool proficiency or the Arcana skill.
Time
The gold cost

So under Xanathar's rules, you wouldn't need to actually be able to cast Magic Missiles to make a Wand of Magic Missiles.

[Sigreid]

1.
While crafting a wand, can you put ANY spell in it, as long as you have it prepared and have the materials, gold & time necessary ??

2.
When you activate a wand, WHO casts the spell? The wielder or the wand? Or is there something else?
This is important, please provide book & page with your answer.

My idea is so... ridiculous, that there is a chance i found a funny bug :p

1 is a DM thing.
2, spells on a wand or staff have a save DC for the spell cast associated with the wand.

[OvisCaedo]

I don't think crafting custom wands is a thing 5e rules offer any guidance or support for. Even crafting magic items that already exist is deliberately set up to be impossible without very explicit DM buy-in; you'll never find the formula or whatever rare materials the DM decides are needed unless the DM specifically says you do to make that specific item.

Being able to craft a wand of whatever you want (up to... fourth level, was it?) as a standard assumption was a 3.5 thing.

And for most spell-casting items, the person using the item is still considered the caster of the spell. Wands usually have a fixed DC, some staves use the caster's spell DC.

[Anonymouswizard]

Being able to craft a wand of whatever you want (up to... fourth level, was it?) as a standard assumption was a 3.5 thing.

3rd level for potions, 5th for wands, 9th for scrolls, I can't remember for staves. Theoretically balanced by having to pay XP, but that's it's own mess.

It was also, IIRC, assumed to be the default way to get specific magic items, instead of the magic mart or GM generosity.

[Unoriginal]

1.
While crafting a wand, can you put ANY spell in it, as long as you have it prepared and have the materials, gold & time necessary ??

No matter which rules you use, you need the specific formula to craft a specific wand.

You can't craft a Wand of Fireball if you only know the Wand of Magic Missile formula.

[Kerilstrasz]

Damn.. i don't want to share the idea just yet, cause if what i'm thinking is legit by todays rules,
the outcome could be so overpowered that maybe they change it if it gets out.
(well.. not overpowered per se... just abusable to a point of "story breaking" if not careful)

Let me specify a few things.
There is a spell, lower than 3rd lvl, that grands you a "buff" of some shorts.
The spell specifies that if you cast it again while the previous effect is still in place,
it does nothing.
So.. if a wand casts the spell while you activate it, wouldn't that mean i get another "layer" / "cast"
of said "buff", since i do not do the cast?
And perhaps, if one has multiple wands, can add more "layers" of that "buff".

I do not see why i couldn't make a wand with the specific spell, using any version of the rules.
The only question is...
When you activate a wand, who casts the spell? You or the Wand?

[PhantomSoul]

Damn.. i don't want to share the idea just yet, cause if what i'm thinking is legit by todays rules,
the outcome could be so overpowered that maybe they change it if it gets out.
(well.. not overpowered per se... just abusable to a point of "story breaking" if not careful)

Let me specify a few things.
There is a spell, lower than 3rd lvl, that grands you a "buff" of some shorts.
The spell specifies that if you cast it again while the previous effect is still in place,
it does nothing.
So.. if a wand casts the spell while you activate it, wouldn't that mean i get another "layer" / "cast"
of said "buff", since i do not do the cast?
And perhaps, if one has multiple wands, can add more "layers" of that "buff".

I do not see why i couldn't make a wand with the specific spell, using any version of the rules.
The only question is...
When you activate a wand, who casts the spell? You or the Wand?

You're still casting the spell, e.g. see the Wand of Binding for a token example on DMG 209. (But even if it were unclear, I'd expect a DM to adjudicate reasonably!)

[NecessaryWeevil]

Damn.. i don't want to share the idea just yet, cause if what i'm thinking is legit by todays rules,
the outcome could be so overpowered that maybe they change it if it gets out.
(well.. not overpowered per se... just abusable to a point of "story breaking" if not careful)

Let me specify a few things.
There is a spell, lower than 3rd lvl, that grands you a "buff" of some shorts.
The spell specifies that if you cast it again while the previous effect is still in place,
it does nothing.
So.. if a wand casts the spell while you activate it, wouldn't that mean i get another "layer" / "cast"
of said "buff", since i do not do the cast?
And perhaps, if one has multiple wands, can add more "layers" of that "buff".

I do not see why i couldn't make a wand with the specific spell, using any version of the rules.
The only question is...
When you activate a wand, who casts the spell? You or the Wand?

Regardless of who's casting the spell, "The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine." - PHB, 205.

[PhantomSoul]

Regardless of who's casting the spell, "The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine." - PHB, 205.

I was thinking of recasting spells partway through the duration taking for granted the non-stackability, but that doesn't match what was written... NecessaryWeevil's got the bigger issue nailed!

[Kerilstrasz]

Regardless of who's casting the spell, "The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine." - PHB, 205.

Hmmm...
even if the effect doesn't target me?

Ok.. let me open my cards..
Wand of Find Familiar.

It targets a space, to conjure a creature that "obeys" me.
If i cast the spell again, i just change the creature form.
But if the wand casts the spell, then i get another familiar?
If i then use a different wand of Find Familiar, i get a third one?

Obviously, controling a familiar requires some short of action,
according to what you want to do, so you can only control 1 of them at a time in combat.
But you could have like 100 eagles spread out in the city, and at any time pick and look
through one of them. Like a CCTV network.
Many other uses too..
Or just make a guitar playing bard, followed by a litter of 20 little dogs and name him "Master of Puppies" !!!

[JackPhoenix]

Hmmm...
even if the effect doesn't target me?

Ok.. let me open my cards..
Wand of Find Familiar.

It targets a space, to conjure a creature that "obeys" me.
If i cast the spell again, i just change the creature form.
But if the wand casts the spell, then i get another familiar?
If i then use a different wand of Find Familiar, i get a third one?

Obviously, controling a familiar requires some short of action,
according to what you want to do, so you can only control 1 of them at a time in combat.
But you could have like 100 eagles spread out in the city, and at any time pick and look
through one of them. Like a CCTV network.
Many other uses too..
Or just make a guitar playing bard, followed by a litter of 20 little dogs and name him "Master of Puppies" !!!

It doesn't matter what it targets, if the spell specifically says what happens if you cast it again.
1. There's no wand of Find Familiar, but that's not much of a problem, there are other ways to get the spell, however...
2. You're still the one casting the spell from a magic item. It doesn't matter if the item in question is scroll, Spellwrought Tattoo, Ring of Spell Storing, Spell Gem or a homebrew wand.
3. Even if you had 1000 familiars, ability to look through their eyes is limited to 100' distance, hardly enough to oversee a city.
4. If you want a pack of dogs, just buy them.

[Kerilstrasz]

It doesn't matter what it targets, if the spell specifically says what happens if you cast it again.
1. There's no wand of Find Familiar, but that's not much of a problem, there are other ways to get the spell, however...
2. You're still the one casting the spell from a magic item. It doesn't matter if the item in question is scroll, Spellwrought Tattoo, Ring of Spell Storing, Spell Gem or a homebrew wand.
3. Even if you had 1000 familiars, ability to look through their eyes is limited to 100' distance, hardly enough to oversee a city.
4. If you want a pack of dogs, just buy them.

That was the initial question. Thanks :)
Can you provide the book(s) & page(s) with the relevant rule(s) ??

[stoutstien]

That was the initial question. Thanks :)
Can you provide the book(s) & page(s) with the relevant rule(s) ??

So the relevant rules are in the DMG under activate magic item and on the individual item(s) description. Basically there isn't a single rule that is is used. Most items that directly cast a spell use a " as an active n YOU ....expend X charges... YOU cast the lowest level version of the spells."

We also have some that practically mimic spells but don't reference spell casting so they still originate from you just with slightly different results. See wand of fear, pipes of haunting, or wand of paralysis.

[JackPhoenix]

That was the initial question. Thanks :)
Can you provide the book(s) & page(s) with the relevant rule(s) ??

DMG, Treasure chapter. AFB, can't tell exact page. It talks about items that cast spells.

Note that IF it was the wand casting the spell, not the user, the familiar wouldn't serve the user, making the plan rather useless, as the wand can't exactly order the familiar around or see through its eyes.

[Anonymouswizard]

Hmmm.. this does raise the question of if a familiar could activate a wand of Find Familiar. If so, what would happen if you shared your senses with your familiar while it was sharing it's senses with it's familiar?

In a serious game I wouldn't allow it. In a silly game I'd slap a time limit of a few hours on it (then the familiars mostly start doing their own thing) and have it burn the wand. If they try to pull the trick again they'll run into a problem, like the familiars unionising or something.

[stoutstien]

Hmmm.. this does raise the question of if a familiar could activate a wand of Find Familiar. If so, what would happen if you shared your senses with your familiar while it was sharing it's senses with it's familiar?

In a serious game I wouldn't allow it. In a silly game I'd slap a time limit of a few hours on it (then the familiars mostly start doing their own thing) and have it burn the wand. If they try to pull the trick again they'll run into a problem, like the familiars unionising or something.

Just include a command word then non chain familiars couldn't activate the item.

[Willie the Duck]

Damn.. i don't want to share the idea just yet, cause if what i'm thinking is legit by todays rules,
the outcome could be so overpowered that maybe they change it if it gets out.
(well.. not overpowered per se... just abusable to a point of "story breaking" if not careful)

Rest assured, WotC has heard claims of the game being broken beyond repair because of one rules confluence or another many times in the past (and almost never felt the need to patch it away). In this case, they could easily just say, 'there is no wand of find familiar in the game rules. If you make homebrew content and that content is disruptive in your games, modify it.'

Regardless, Flock of Familiars is an actual spell (from the Lost Laboratory of Kwalish module, IIRC). 2nd level spell (upcast-able) which gives you slot level+1 familiars for an hour (requires concentration). People have been finding fun uses for it ever since. However, having massively multiple familiars isn't all that much more useful than having one familiar -- which is to say it is massively overpowered if and only if* the DM is incredibly lax in putting any roadblocks in the way of the familiars doing useful things (no one takes note of the ravens watching the guard post, there are no closed doors between the PCs and what they need scouted, etc.). Having a concentration-free supersized group of that would be interesting, and maybe something which would obviate a specific challenge, but I have to assume normal adventuring variety would throw up more situations than not where it wouldn't overly change what the PCs have to do to succeed.
*or, as mentioned, if you happen to have lots of magic items and the familiars can trigger them for you (now that I can't believe they haven't errata'd, excepting I suppose they figure DMs that let you have enough magic items to make it a real problem are asking for any trouble it causes).