Wands and Charges


Combat & Magic


Staves used to have a set number of charges that, once used up, couldn’t be restored. I’m glad that this has been changed, but why can’t we do the same with the wands (I’m assuming the wands are unchanged because of the wizard’s arcane bond description and the lack of any new rules concerning them)?


Actually that would be going back to earlier editions, when both Staves and Wands were rechargeable (and a lot more trouble to make). There’s no real reason not to make them rechargeable though. There’s no real difference between picking up another wand and charging up the old one again as long as the prices are comparable. Want to make it cheaper? Reduce the number of charges as was done for Staves. More convenience on getting more charges, less when they run out too quickly.

You don’t even need a rule change really: want an wand that functions like a stave? Is there really any physical difference between a thick, heavy, wand and a small, thin, stave? I suspect that most GM’s will let you get away with making a stave that weighs less, the same way that you can put the same +3 enchantment on a stiletto or a claymore.


Just make that "staff" fit for a pixie, and there you go.

=)


I hate the way D&D does magic item creation anyway.

How all wands work in X way. Why can't I make a wand that acts as a focus item. For example.

Fire Wand: +2 Caster level when casting spells with the Fire descriptor.

Techincally this isnt possible because wands do X in D&D

Though I guess I could make a Misc. Magic item.

Short Thin Stick of Fire: +2 Caster level when casting spells with Fire descriptor.

Personally I think there should only be two classifications of magic items and two feats to learn them.

Craft Permanent Magical Item and Craft Temporary Magical Item.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'd rather not see wands follow the path of staves, the variety is a good thing.

I don't have an objection to wands being rechargeable in an ordinary crafting way though, given a minimum # of charges to be restored (so as not to abuse wands as cheap scroll replacements).

Dark Archive

Kalyth wrote:

I hate the way D&D does magic item creation anyway.

How all wands work in X way. Why can't I make a wand that acts as a focus item. For example.

Fire Wand: +2 Caster level when casting spells with the Fire descriptor.

Techincally this isnt possible because wands do X in D&D

Though I guess I could make a Misc. Magic item.

Short Thin Stick of Fire: +2 Caster level when casting spells with Fire descriptor.

Personally I think there should only be two classifications of magic items and two feats to learn them.

Craft Permanent Magical Item and Craft Temporary Magical Item.

Why not make it a Rod?


Jason Beardsley wrote:
Kalyth wrote:

I hate the way D&D does magic item creation anyway.

How all wands work in X way. Why can't I make a wand that acts as a focus item. For example.

Fire Wand: +2 Caster level when casting spells with the Fire descriptor.

Techincally this isnt possible because wands do X in D&D

Though I guess I could make a Misc. Magic item.

Short Thin Stick of Fire: +2 Caster level when casting spells with Fire descriptor.

Personally I think there should only be two classifications of magic items and two feats to learn them.

Craft Permanent Magical Item and Craft Temporary Magical Item.

Why not make it a Rod?

Cuz I want it to be thinner and a bit shorter and to look like a wand.

My point is not that I cant make it its that I cant make it in the form I choose. Why cant I make a ring with 50 charges of cure light wounds rather than a wand of cure light wounds. Why must all wands be charged spell completion items?

Dark Archive

Kalyth wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:

Why not make it a Rod?

Cuz I want it to be thinner and a bit shorter and to look like a wand.

My point is not that I cant make it its that I cant make it in the form I choose. Why cant I make a ring with 50 charges of cure light wounds rather than a wand of cure light wounds. Why must all wands be charged spell completion items?

I'd say it's up to the DM. Any game I DM, I allow players to create/find/buy custom items, such as the 'ring of cure light wounds'. At an increased cost of course. I don't see any rule saying that a certain item must be exactly as it says in the book, and I'm sure someone in the fantasy world must have had the idea to make a 'Cloak of Fire' that functions similarly to a 'Staff of Fire'.


My wizard PC's staff of fireball and disintegrate is the size of a wand; he keeps it in a sheath under his coat. Then he's got a +1 short sword hanging from his side in an obvious manner. A bit of misdirection never hurts when your hp are as low as his are.


I agree and always have unique items in my game. Likewise most other DMs I know have no problem with this. However in the DMG you will find that all wands function as spell trigger items and 50 charges when created and can trigger one spell of 4th level or lower. This is what wands do in D&D per the DMG. I dislike this and would much preffer a more creative official option.


I've also added 2 new feats to my homebrew campaign:
Brew Greater Potion (prereq. Brew Potion) - 4th-6th level spells
Brew Superior Potion (prereq. Brew Potion, Brew Greater Potion) - 7th-9th level spells.


Physical Description

A typical staff is 4 feet to 7 feet long and 2 inches to 3 inches thick, weighing about 5 pounds. Most staffs are wood, but a rare few are bone, metal, or even glass. (These are extremely exotic.) Staffs often have a gem or some device at their tip or are shod in metal at one or both ends. Staffs are often decorated with carvings or runes. A typical staff is like a walking stick, quarterstaff, or cudgel. It has AC 7, 10 hit points, hardness 5, and a break DC of 24.

So a 'typical' staff is 4-7 feet long... it doesn't say a staff must be typical. Obviously it's up to the DM but I would let my players make a staff in any shape they wanted. Maybe a 3' long metal staff with a sharp edge on one side and a handle for gripping.


Rod, Wand and, Staff are names for mechanics, they don't make a definition how an item looks like.

Any item that stores multiple spells = Wand
Any item that allows a caster to cast additional spells = Staff

Rods are in practice nothing but Wondrous Items that come in the form of a stick of any shape.


Neithan wrote:

Rod, Wand and, Staff are names for mechanics, they don't make a definition how an item looks like.

Any item that stores multiple spells = Wand
Any item that allows a caster to cast additional spells = Staff

Rods are in practice nothing but Wondrous Items that come in the form of a stick of any shape.

I aggree with this and that is how I run it. However, that is why im saying they should not be feats like "Craft Wand" but "Craft Charged Item" instead. It just frustrates me to no end.


IMO:

Ignore the "shape" of an item. Pay close attention to the mechanics of an item.

If you make a wand into the shape of a ring, is it any less a wand? Not if you follow all the wand restrictions. (nothing else in the hand, can only use one a round, takes standard action to activate, has X charges, etc..). The fact that you made yours into a ring and mine's a short slender stick should be relatively irrelevant.

It becomes relevant when people want to use the ability to alter the form of an item to gain some benefit they'd not otherwise have had.
I.e. they want a "wand/ring of cure light wounds" so they can wield their mace and shield and still use the "wand". In this case, they ought not be allowed to do so. Why? Because then you aren't just changing the form- you are altering a game mechanic.

If you want a staff in the shape and size of a wand (or rod, or pizie stick, or whatever) the same rules should apply.

There was a Dragon article awhile back that went through some different ideas for potions and scrolls to make them slightly less fragile- or just able to be used in odd environments. (drink a potion underwater?.. good luck..) Things such as holy wafers, small bits of clay to break, knotted string to untie and so on had the sole connection of being identical in every mechanical way to the original product except for the specific act needed to activate it.
(untying, eating, or breaking as opposed to quaffing the potion).

Now granted none of this is "core" but if you as a DM wanted to use it, or you as a player wanted to advocate it, just be sure the mechanics are as close as can be to the original so as to not be tryin gto eek out some otherwise-balanced mechanic and you will probably come out fairly well.

-S


Selgard wrote:

IMO:

Ignore the "shape" of an item. Pay close attention to the mechanics of an item.

If you make a wand into the shape of a ring, is it any less a wand? Not if you follow all the wand restrictions. (nothing else in the hand, can only use one a round, takes standard action to activate, has X charges, etc..). The fact that you made yours into a ring and mine's a short slender stick should be relatively irrelevant.

It becomes relevant when people want to use the ability to alter the form of an item to gain some benefit they'd not otherwise have had.
I.e. they want a "wand/ring of cure light wounds" so they can wield their mace and shield and still use the "wand". In this case, they ought not be allowed to do so. Why? Because then you aren't just changing the form- you are altering a game mechanic.

If you want a staff in the shape and size of a wand (or rod, or pizie stick, or whatever) the same rules should apply.

There was a Dragon article awhile back that went through some different ideas for potions and scrolls to make them slightly less fragile- or just able to be used in odd environments. (drink a potion underwater?.. good luck..) Things such as holy wafers, small bits of clay to break, knotted string to untie and so on had the sole connection of being identical in every mechanical way to the original product except for the specific act needed to activate it.
(untying, eating, or breaking as opposed to quaffing the potion).

Now granted none of this is "core" but if you as a DM wanted to use it, or you as a player wanted to advocate it, just be sure the mechanics are as close as can be to the original so as to not be tryin gto eek out some otherwise-balanced mechanic and you will probably come out fairly well.

-S

I do do this already and have for many years. Im just saying that I find it frustrating that the rules as written pigeon-hole Wands as X and Staves as X. Sure you can easily work around it as most people do. But that's my point if most people work around it or disregaurd it then shouldn't we take a second look at the rules as written?

Another example. I cant craft a magical ring unless I have the Craft Ring feat. But if I have the Craft Wonderous Item feat I can make magical bracelets, necklaces, Brooches, earrings, nose rings, nipple studs, lip plates, nose-bones, eyebrow peircings, etc....just no rings.

It just seems to me that there is no logic behind the process/feats for crafting magical items.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 3 / Combat & Magic / Wands and Charges All Messageboards
Recent threads in Combat & Magic