|
Hello all,
Do you ever watch a movie, read a fantasy novel, or play rpg video game and think, man...wands in Pathfinder don't really feel like this at all. I have come up with what I feel fixes this, but I'm not sure if this is at all balanced. So please feel free comment.
Now, understand that I don't think there is anything currently wrong balance wise with the wands mechanic, I just don't like how they feel. I find too often wands in the hands of a rogue or bard, not in the hands of wizard or sorcerer (where they SHOULD be). I want to change that.
First a brief summary of the current wand rules:
Contain 1 spell up to 4th level
Contain any number of charges up to 50
Casting of each spell consumes 1 charge
Cost of creation is 375 gp x spell level x caster level
Once charges are spent, the wand is a pretty stick (useless)
Here's what I propose: PART 1
They work more like "mini" staves
Contain 1 spell up to 4th level (as normal)
Contains only 5 charges that can be recharged like a staff
Casting of the spell consumes 1 charge (as normal)
Cost is the same
Once charges are spent, the user may pay a spell caster to recharge it for a small fee (I'm thinking 10 gp x spell level x number of charges being recharged)
I'm also proposing something else a friend of mine has come up with. We have been playing around with the mechanic for a several months now and I think we've got it down to a science.
Here's what I propose: PART 2
Wands and Staff's can be enhanced (sort of like a weapon)
Except the enhancement bonus applies to the casters Spell Save DC's for all spells cast through the wand/staff
- For example, a +2 wand (cost +8,000 gp) adds +2 to the save DC's for all of the mages spells.
This means that by high levels, a mage COULD have up to +5 to all of his spell DC's...which I am fine with personally. I've always felt spell DC's were a little low by high levels anyways.
By the numbers using actual examples
20th level wizard's spell vs a CR 20 Balor
A Balor's saves are Fort +29, Ref +17, Will +25
A wizard (assuming an Int of 22) casting a 9th level spell with a +5 staff would have a DC of 10 + 9 for spell lv + 6 for abilty score + 5 enhancement bonus.
Total DC of 30
This means that the Balor could make his saves on:
Fort save could make it on a roll of 2
Reflex needs a roll of 13
Will needs only a roll of 5
Is that SO bad? I don't think so, but what do you guys think of these two changes?
A 20th level wizard (assuming an Int of 22)
A 20th level wizard is more likely to have a Int of at least 28 (17+ at 1st level due to random +2 racial bonuses flying around and the ability to dump most other stats; +5 for level; +6 for a headband he can easily craft for 18K gp). He can potentially have an Int of up to 36 (20 at 1st level +5 for level +6 headband +5 inherent from book). And don't forget those Spell Focus feats, either. Overall, I'd expect a 20th level wizard to have save DCs for 9th level spells of at least 28, and at most 34. Allowing him to enhance a wand as cheaply as you advocate gives save DCs of up to 39.
That said, there's no reason a "staff" has to be the size of a baseball bat. I allow a "staff" to be the size of a wand, and a "wand" to appear as an amulet or crystal or whatever. Appearance is just fluff -- you can change it without altering the underlying mechanics. So for the type of "wand" you're looking for, just use the staff rules.
Kyrt, following your suggestion, we'd need to get rid of the Spell Focus feats -- no one will spend 2 feats on something they can get for a mere 8K gold. And we'd need to specify that the wand's enhancement bonus applies only to spells of the subtype selected in part (2).
|
|
Thanks for the wording clarification lol. Yes they only apply to the selected subtype.
I do like the idea of only applying an enhancement bonus to spells of certain subtype. What about just enhancing a school of magic instead? There are a few spells out there that don't fall under any subtype (i do believe, could be wrong though).
So, following the weapon enhancement guide, a +1 for 2,000 gp, +2 for 8,000 gp, a +3 for 18,000 gp, +4 for 32,000 gp, and +5 for 50,000 gp. Choose a school of magic (not universal) and you gain an enhancement bonus to all spells of that school of magic, including any spells on the wand/staff.
What about that.
So, following the weapon enhancement guide, a +1 for 2,000 gp, +2 for 8,000 gp... Choose a school of magic (not universal) and you gain an enhancement bonus to all spells of that school of magic, including any spells on the wand/staff. What about that.
Look for magic items that duplicate feats. Look at the cost of those items. Compare that with an item that gives you the effects of 2 feats (Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus), which you price at 8,000 gp.
Also, can I have a greatsword of power attacking that gives me +15 damage on all power attacks, if I spend 50K on it?
I strongly recommend taking a look at The Genius Guide to Rune Staves and Wyrd Wands I think it might present some of what you are looking for. It is a different take on wands and staves to represent a more general use then just minor spell disposable batteries.
DON'T make it +DC. Save DC's are high enough anyway.
You could make +caster level though. But they'd have to be focused on certain types of magic.
We use wands as charged items, but don't use 50 charges. Instead we have a d12 for a newly created wand, that they get to roll whenever they use the wand. If they roll a 1, the spell is cast at +1 caster level and the dice size is reduced one step to a d10. The next time, it works the same way, all the way down to 1d4. When you roll 1 on that, the wand casts the last spell at +1 cl and is burnt out. It's more organic and feels more magical.
But wands as spellcasting focuses we've never used.
You might take a look at "Rune Staves and Wyrd Wands" from Super Genius Games. It's a .pdf booklet about enhancing staves and wands with bonuses and other powers.
How about this:
Ditch RAW wands and give their function to staves as kyrt-ryder suggested, and then allow wands to grant on the spot meta-magic feats to the caster. Some wands could contain a single meta-magic feat or a whole slew of them and the caster chooses what feats in the wand to apply at the time of casting.
|
|
How about this:
Ditch RAW wands and give their function to staves as kyrt-ryder suggested, and then allow wands to grant on the spot meta-magic feats to the caster. Some wands could contain a single meta-magic feat or a whole slew of them and the caster chooses what feats in the wand to apply at the time of casting.
Rods already do that very thing.
|
I've actually thought alot about this.
I wrote an 8-page document formatted in the standard item category layout (well, the standard 3.5 layout, anyway). I wrote it years ago, back in 2007. I went with enhancement bonuses adding to attack and damage, with special properties adding extra damage dice or DC to spells with specific descriptors; other special properties added general duration or range, or expanded the dice cap (I was never happy with the wording, and Intensify Spell was a worthless EPIC LEVEL feat back then). There were something like two dozen different properties in all, a fully fleshed out new item category.
Ultimately, I rejected the idea and filed it away. Not because it's bad, not even because it's necessarily unbalanced (actually think I worked out the prices pretty well), but because, let's face it, Spellcasters do not need the help, especially at high levels, which is when these items would really start to make a difference.
(To be completely honest, the announcement of 4th edition and subsequent impending death of Dragon Magazine also played a role. I am continually thrilled that Paizo/Pathfinder is doing so well.)
I've come back to it several times, and the end result is the same: This idea, implemented the way I did it, or the way you're planning on doing it, a: does not help low level spellcasters, who are the ones that need help, and b: does significantly boost high level spellcasters, who are already too powerful.
Properly balanced, the extra boost of power mages get will have to come from somewhere significant in their gear, so they don't actually pull ahead any more than they already have. But, again, high level spellcasters don't need these to be awesome - once a mage has reached the level at which he could afford a really amazing +6 or +7 staff, he's already dominating the game.
It's not a bad idea; it just doesn't add anything useful to the game.
I blame metamagic rods (which were a really clever idea, by the way); a wand/staff that adds +1 to all spell DCs (or "just" to the DCs of all the offensive spells the character has learned/prepared, which is almost the same thing) has to be compared to a "Rod of Heighten Spell" or a "Rod of Persistent Spell" (APG version).
The price has to work out so that the Rods are universally cheaper, because the wand/staff is on all the time and applies to everything and has multiple simultaneous effects that are also applying to everything at the same time. Since the Rods are cheaper and more flexible, they end up wining out; they make better treasure rewards in modules, they can be bought earlier, they create a choice instead being another generic bonus.
Most important of all, Metamagic Rods fit with how wands and staves (and spellcasters) currently work. The Pathfinder spellcaster doesn't have a single staff that stores all of his power and enhances all of his magic; he's got an everfull quiver or handy haversack out of which he's constantly producing one crazy boomstick after another.
And that's okay.
If Wands and Staves weren't already in the game, if Metamagic Rods didn't exist, there'd be a place (more like a gaping hole) for this idea of ours. But Wands and Staves are already in the game, and they've worked in the same basic way for decades.
Besides, I've been working on another idea, one quite like the idea you and I both independently had, that actually fits and makes a difference. See the following post.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway.
Here's my new idea for Wands and Staves. I've taken to referring to them as “Arcane Implements”, or as a concession to Clerics and Druids, “Caster Implements”.
(Tables do not work on this forum; I think I've got the layout close, please work with me)
Simple Weapons
Ranged Weapons Cost.....Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Weight Type Special
Staff (two_handed)50 gp...1d6...... 1d8........20/x3..Short....4 lbs.....B...5 range increments
Wand(one_handed)35gp...1d4...... 1d6........20/x3..Short....2 lbs.....B...5 range increments
Staff: A typical staff appears as a simple piece of wood, about 5 feet in length, that has been crafted with several rare alchemical and magical components. A staff's special construction allows it to hurl telekinetic bolts that deal Bludgeoning damage; this is a supernatural ability. These function as a normal ranged attack. Staves may be enhanced as ranged weapons. A character must have a caster level of at least one in order to use a staff in this manner.
After firing a telekinetic bolt, a staff needs 1 minute to recharge using ambient magical energy; a character with a caster level of one or higher may spend a move action to “reload” his staff instantly.
It can also be used as a quarterstaff.
A Staff may be chosen as a Wizards Bonded Item.
Wand: A typical wand appears as a narrow piece of wood, 4-8 inches in length, that has been crafted with several rare alchemical and magical components. A wand's special construction allows it to hurl telekinetic bolts that deal Bludgeoning damage; this is a supernatural ability. These function as a normal ranged attack. Wands may be enhanced as a ranged weapon. A character must have a caster level of at least one in order to use a wand in this manner.
After firing a telekinetic bolt, a wand needs 1 minute to recharge using ambient magical energy; a character with a caster level of one or higher may spend a move action to “reload” his wand instantly.
A Wand may be chosen as a Wizards Bonded Item.
Proficiency: Any character with a caster level of at least one should be considered proficient with wands and staves; Druids can use wands and staves without penalty.
Special materials: For simplicity, assume that, due to their unique construction, Wands and Staves crafted out of special materials do not grant any special properties to the bolts of telekinetic force they launch. For instance, an adamantine wand is very difficult to break (and thus still a good idea), but is of little use against a Golem.
Existing Staves: All existing magical staves (staves that store spells, not magically enhanced quarterstaves) should also be considered staves (as above), of at least masterwork quality. This adds 350 gold to the item's base price, which should be trivial.
If a character already has a staff in his possession when these rules are introduced, and that staff has an enhancement bonus, he should be allowed to decide if it applies to the Quarterstaff or the ranged Staff portion.
Existing Wands: Spell wands previously acquired by adventures, or found in future encounters, might also be considered weapon wands (as above). Use the spell stored in the wand as a guide; a Wand of Mage Armor, for instance, is unlikely to also be a ranged weapon, as it is not something a spellcaster would keep in his hand all day. If the wand in question is also a ranged weapon, increase the base price by 35 gold. A found spell wand should always be considered of normal quality.
The weapon portion of a wand continues to function as a weapon even when all charges have been depleted from the spell portion of the wand.
Guidelines: Wands and Staves, as presented, should be considered Ranged Weapons in virtually all respects. They are not ranged touch attacks; they function as normal ranged weapons. As a result, most existing mechanics should work without any additional ruling.
For instance, weapon feats and class abilities continue to work just fine, even Rapid Reload (just add “wands and staves” to the list along with 'crossbows” and “guns”). The Gravity Bow spell does not apply to Wands and Staves, but a Gravity Wand spell would, and is perfectly balanced. An Arcane Archer using a Wand or Staff does not create any balance issues, and fits wonderfully in most Pathfinder settings. And so on.
Design Notes: The damage for the Staff is identical to the Light Crossbow; it also has the same reload time and weapon proficiency. The Wand is a one-handed version of the same thing. Wands and Staves do technically get free ammunition, but the much reduced range increment accounts for that nicely. Besides, bolts are dirt cheap even at first level, so the crossbow remains a generally superior weapon; Wands and Staves just fit better as the default caster sidearm.
I'm not 100% happy with the wording of the reload action. "After firing a telekinetic bolt, a wand needs 1 minute to recharge using ambient magical energy; a character with a caster level of one or higher may spend a move action to “reload” his wand instantly." Ugh.
On the one hand, I want to point out that wands and staves are carried around "loaded" by default, and sneak in an explanation as to where and how these things get their power from. On the other hand, "spend a move action to reload his wand instantly"? Ugh. Does not sound right.
***
Optional Rules
There are several variants that players and GMs are likely to be interested in; I've done my best to try and accommodate these.
Other Types of Physical Damage: There's no mechanical balance issue with letting a given wand or staff deal Piercing or Slashing damage. Personally, I believe any of the three types should be available as options, but which type should be fixed at creation. All three are perfectly fine and I would have no problem at all with a piercing or slashing wand/staff in my campaign; Bludgeoning just fit best thematically.
Special materials: It feels off somehow. Doesn't look unbalanced, really; it's mostly a concession to the Bow Ranger who's looking at the wizard with the Adamantine stick, looking at his own ammo cost, and grumbling.
If the GM (and other party members) are okay with it, go right ahead.
Energy Damage: I'm honestly not sure if there's anything wrong with Energy Wands and Staves. Not Acid, Sonic, and Force - those are right out - but allowing Fire, Frost, and Lightning wands and staves is a reasonable idea. It would have to be worded correctly (the fire doesn't stick around long enough to ignite anything, for instance), but I don't see any balance issues.
The potential exists, of course; an Arcane Trickster with Rapid Reload launching full-round sneak attacks with a +1 Flaming Burst wand of fire, for instance, could be really nasty. On the other hand, it could flop; energy resistances tend to be higher than DR. I went with physical damage because I'm not sure whether energy would be unbalanced or just neat. I really don't know.
Ask your DM – ask him nicely – and if he says no, sorry. It's my own idea, and I don't know if I'd say yes to energy wands either. It fits thematically, and it doesn't look broken, but it doesn't feel quite right, either.
Ranged Touch Attacks: This makes Wands and Staves significantly better than crossbows, and as good as or better than the limited uses per day special ability most spellcasters get at level one.
That said, if it's only a Ranged Touch attack out to the first range increment, it's not a huge power boost – it puts them on roughly equal footing with Guns (less damage and limited to non-warrior classes, but no feat requirement and no ridiculous ammo cost).
Personally, I think that just making wands Ranged Touch all the time would be broken, but adding a feat that allowed a character to choose whether or not any given Wand/Staff attack was Ranged Touch or just Ranged, out to the first range increment only, would probably be okay.
Like the Energy weapon idea above, I'm not sure if there's a balance issue buried deep in the rules minutiae; a Feat for Wands/Staves hitting Touch AC out to the first Range Increment looks alright, and I'd be okay with someone trying it out in my campaign; just keep an open mind, and if it breaks something, be willing to let it go.
EDIT 1: cleaned up wording of "telekinetic bolts" and "enhance", based on Kirth Gerse's suggestions; also corrected a few spelling errors, and removed a note that was no longer necessary.
There's no mechanical balance issue with letting a given wand or staff deal Piercing or Slashing damage. Personally, I believe any of the three types should be available as options, but which type should be fixed at creation. All three are perfectly fine and I would have no problem at all with a piercing or slashing wand/staff in my campaign; Bludgeoning just fit best thematically.
You need to fix your description. "Bolts of force" implies force damage, which overcomes all DR and affects incorporeal creatures as if they were corporeal. That's not bludgeoning, despite the little "B" in the type column, because text trumps tables according to the RAW.
|
|
You need to fix your description. "Bolts of force" implies force damage, which overcomes all DR and affects incorporeal creatures as if they were corporeal. That's not bludgeoning, despite the little "B" in the type column, because text trumps tables according to the RAW.
haha! I just finished an edit commenting on that very thing. Any suggestions on how to clean up the wording?
Like I said (edited) above, I don't like the phrase "bolts of telekinetic force", but I don't know how else to put it.
Like I said (edited) above, I don't like the phrase "bolts of telekinetic force", but I don't know how else to put it.
Avoid the word "force" entirely. You might say they produce "telekinetic bolts that deal bludgeoning damage, and are subject to damage reduction as are other bludgeoning weapons," or something like that. Also specify clearly that these are ranged attacks, "not ranged touch attacks" and that range increments and range modifiers apply as for other projectile weapons.
P.S. You can't "enchant" an item in 3.X, because enchantment spells are all mind-affecting. You can "enhance" an item, however. (I lobbied for "imbue" to be the official term in PF, but was rejected.)
Regarding ranged touch attacks--would that really be overpowered, if you don't add anything to the base damage? (Or do you add something, and I just missed it?)
Regarding ranged touch attacks--would that really be overpowered, if you don't add anything to the base damage?
Not at all, if you don't mind all other ranged weapons instantly becoming obsolete... Bobchuck's wands are CHEAP. There's no reason a fighter with Quick Draw couldn't buy like six or eight of them and fire iteratively, dropping each wand in turn as a free action to make room for the next. Then he could pick them up after the smoke clears.
|
I've had thoughts along similar lines (wands and rods and staves as magical weapons), although nothing fully developed.
My thinking was leaning towards having a 'trigger wand' type Cantrip (and possibly Orison) instead of requiring a caster level as such - casting the Cantrip channels magical energy through the wand (or rod, or staff), but the design of the wand (etc.) specifies exactly what type of damage and other such details.
Wands would be light weapons, rods one-handed, and staves two-handed; increased size would increase damage (along the same lines as the 'mundane' weapons), probably something like wand 1d6, rod 1d8, and staff 1d10 damage. Specific wand (etc.) designs could do different damage types, or have different critical ranges or multipliers (like the mundane weapons).
I'd keep them 'normal' ranged attacks, as opposed to ranged touch attacks, 'cos touch attacks just offer too much of an advantage, and the idea isn't to make the fighter types (or armour) obsolete (nor to make actual ranged touch spells pointless or less unique either).
With the Cantrip triggering idea you could also then introduce higher level spells which got a bit more 'oomph' out of the same wand (etc.) if you wanted.
My thinking was leaning towards having a 'trigger wand' type Cantrip (and possibly Orison)
This strategy would also neatly prevent a guy with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Quick Draw from firing 8 shots a round, but without introducing a "screw you" rule specifically to do it. And since cantrips are at-will, you seamlessly subsume the "recharge as a move action" that Bobchuck had going on. Very nice.
|
|
I really like the cantrip idea, and it is a much cleaner solution overall.
I do have couple minor "one guy likes his version of the idea better than the other guys" nit-picks.
firstly, I think your staff damage is too high; a simple Ranged weapon that does 1d10 is a heavy crossbow, and has a standard action reload time. Making the staff do 1d10 but be usable every round is... well, honestly, it's probably okay, but it doesn't feel quite right.
I am curious, thought: what's the difference between a Rod and a Wand?
Your answer is probably "a wand is a light weapon, and a Rod is a one-handed weapon", but they are both ranged weapons, and there is no such thing as a "light" one-handed ranged weapon.
I figured "rods" to be 1d6, cost of +50 gold, and addable to any melee weapon. So you've got a Magic Rod, or a Magic Dagger, or the Master Sword (think Link), or what-have-you, all folded neatly into a single weapon entry.
But that's just me. I really do like your cantrip idea, it's a much more elegant solution. Hopefully you'll respond to this post with some additional examples of higher-level spells, and we can fold everything together.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your answer is probably "a wand is a light weapon, and a Rod is a one-handed weapon", but they are both ranged weapons, and there is no such thing as a "light" one-handed ranged weapon.
Well, the crossbows all list their 'type' equivalents for one-handed and TWF purposes, but yeah, I see what you're saying.
Having thought about this a bit more, for mundane weapons the main 'cost' of using a mechanically better weapon is a Feat tax (Martial Weapon Proficiency, Exotic Weapon Proficiency), so how about...
Cantrip:
Trigger Wand
School: universal, see text
Level: 0
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V,F
Range: touch, see text
Target: one wand, see text
Duration: instantaneous, see text
Lets you channel arcane power into a wand to produce a result based on the wand's design (see specific wand descriptions for details).
Feats:
Trigger Rod
Prerequisites: the ability to cast the Trigger Wand cantrip
Benefit: you've mastered the ability to channel arcane energy into a Wand to the extent that you can use the Trigger Wand cantrip to trigger Rods as well. When triggering a Wand (not a Rod) you increase the Wand's critical multiplier from x2 to x3, due to the extra energy you can channel.
Trigger Staff
Prerequisites: Trigger Rod
Benefit: your mastery of channeling arcane energy into Wands and Rods has increased to the point where you can use the Trigger Wand cantrip to trigger Staves as well. When triggering a Rod (not a Staff) you increase the Rod's critical multiplier from x2 to x3, when triggering a Wand (not a Rod or a Staff) you increase the Wand's threat range and critical multiplier to 19-20/x3 total.
Equipment:
Wands
A Wand, when triggered, fires a magical blast of some type which inflicts 1d6 damage, with a critical range of 20/x2. Wand blasts have a range of Close (25 feet + 5 feet per 2 Caster Levels) and no range increments. They require a normal ranged attack roll to hit. A Wand can't be used in melee.
Rods
A Rod, when triggered, fires a magical blast of some type which inflicts 1d8 damage, with a critical range of 20/x2. Rod blasts have a range of Medium (100 feet + 10 feet per Caster Levels) and no range increments. They require a normal ranged attack roll to hit. Depending on design, a Rod can function as a club or light mace in melee.
Staves
A Staff, when triggered, fires a magical blast of some type which inflicts 1d10 damage, with a critical range of 20/x2. Staff blasts have a range of Long (400 feet + 40 feet per Caster Levels) and no range increments. They require a normal ranged attack roll to hit. A Staff can function as a quarterstaff in melee.
Varieties:
Blasting Wands, Rods, and Staves are not magical items, as they possess no inherant magic of their own - they are foci, allowing a skilled user to channel arcane energy to a variety of effects. As such they can't be triggered by the Use Magic Device skill. Although the Trigger Wand cantrip is of the Universal school, each Wand, Rod, or Staff channels and converts that energy to a different school, depending on the item's design and effect.
Wand of Crystal Shards (piercing and slashing damage, Conjuration [creation] school).
Wand of Slumber (non-lethal damage, Enchantment school)
Wand of Shock Blast (electricity damage, Evocation [electricity] school)
Wand of Fire Blast (fire damage, Evocation [fire] school)
Wand of Frost Blast (cold damage, Evocation [cold] school)
Wand of Shadow Bolts (non-lethal damage, Illusion [shadow] school)
Wand of Pummeling (bludgeoning damage, Transmutation school)
Shield Wands:
Wands, Rods, and Staves of Shielding also exist. When triggered they have no ranged effect, instead creating a fountain-like surge of translucent energy from their tips, forming a convex magical shield which moves with the Wand, Rod, or Staff. The effect last for 1 minute per Caster Level, or until the Wand, Rod, or Staff is released from the triggering character's grasp. A Wand of Shielding provides a +1 Shield bonus to AC. A Rod of Shielding provides a +2 Shield bonus to AC. A Staff of Shielding must be used in two hands to be triggered and maintained, and provides a +4 bonus to AC, or cover as per a Tower Shield. A Rod or Staff of Shielding triggered and used as a shield can't be used as a melee weapon at the same time. Wands, Rods, and Staves of Shielding produce an Abjuration effect.
Creation and Costs:
Blasting (and Shielding) Wands, Rods, and Staves are created using the Craft [alchemy] skill, often in combination with the mundane Craft skills used to create the Wand, Rod, or Staff's physical form (such as Craft [woodworking], or Craft [weaponsmith]). A Wand costs 50gp, a Rod 100gp, and a Staff 250gp. Masterwork versions can be made, as per the usual rules for Masterwork weapons.
Well... that's about all I've got for now. The costs are pretty arbitrary on my part - very much 'ballpark' figures. Not sure on higher-level spells yet, but I'm thinking perhaps allowing area attacks or increased damage dice, stuff like that. What do you think?
|
|
Looks good, except for Range and Cost. I'm also a little worried about the damage, but that's minor.
The range is rather high; remember, as ranged Weapons, they have multiple increments. If they don't have multiple increments, how is the person reading these rules going to know that? Regardless, Long range for 250 gold and a 0th level spell slot is rather much.
The cost is way too high for Rods and Staves; pricing a basic version as Light / Heavy crossbow seems much more appropriate. Remember that Wizards get a "free" masterwork version if they pick it as their bonded item, but have to pay for the regular portion normally. Finding new masterwork/enchanted versions of these in Adventure Paths isn't going to happen, so they have to make their first pick count.
The effect isn't a Touch attack, so even the 1d10 die isn't a gain compared to the Limited use per Day 1st-level abilities. I'm still worried about how it stacks up to the Light and Heavy Crossbows, though, especially given the huge range Staves have.
|
|
The range is rather high; remember, as ranged Weapons, they have multiple increments. If they don't have multiple increments, how is the person reading these rules going to know that? Regardless, Long range for 250 gold and a 0th level spell slot is rather much.
If you check what I wrote again, you'll see that in each case I stated that these 'arcane weapons' have 'no range increments'. I went with the standard spell ranges, not normal mundane ranged weapon ranges, specifically to make them different from crossbows and the like. Simulating a crossbow exactly seems a little... pointless... to me. So a Staff triggered by a guy with a Caster Level of 20 has a range of 1,200ft - exactly the same as a Heavy Crossbow fired by a level 1 anybody... Hardly OTT. The lack of range increments makes Rods and Staves a little more accurate close up than 'mundane' ranged weapons, but they still lag behind in maximum range (and the character is suffering a Feat tax to use them at all).
The cost is way too high for Rods and Staves; pricing a basic version as Light / Heavy crossbow seems much more appropriate.
For prices I was thinking: a) alchemical / pseudo-magical stuff is normally priced a bit higher than 'mundane' equivalents (due to rarity if nothing else), and b) trying to hit something reasonable based on the prices of the crossbows these are generally closest to (which range from 35gp for a light crossbow to 400gp for a heavy repeating crossbow). That said, I'm not married to the prices by any means - I guess it'd be based on how rare or unusual these things would be in any individual campaign.
Remember that Wizards get a "free" masterwork version if they pick it as their bonded item, but have to pay for the regular portion normally. Finding new masterwork/enchanted versions of these in Adventure Paths isn't going to happen, so they have to make their first pick count.
Not sure why it wouldn't happen in an Adventure Path? If a DM is happy to use these house rules, then why wouldn't he/she/it be happy to include such weapons in adventures as well? Anyway, there's always Rich Parents or Heiroom Weapon traits if you want something expensive... ;)
The effect isn't a Touch attack, so even the 1d10 die isn't a gain compared to the Limited use per Day 1st-level abilities.
Not sure what you mean here - do you mean level 1 spells, or things like Specialist Wizard 'blasts' and such? In either case, my goal was specifically to not step on the toes of those things - designing something which becomes a no-brainer for everyone to take and use generally means you've made it too powerful. The blasts these things can put out are better (damage-wise) than an Acid Spash or Ray of Frost, but aren't ranged touch attacks, so as to not make those two cantrips pointless. Anything limited use - be it class ability or spell, should be better than anything with unlimited uses, otherwise why would anyone ever use it? Even if a Wizard's packing one of the Staves he shouldn't be considering it his 'big gun' - that's what he's got actual spells for - but rather a flavour / image based option which means he doesn't need to be carrying a crossbow around to have any effect in combat after he's out of spells and use-per-day blasts.
I'm still worried about how it stacks up to the Light and Heavy Crossbows, though, especially given the huge range Staves have.
As noted above, they have (a lot) less range than a crossbow... better accuracy at those ranges they can reach, but then again, if a character's dropped two Feats at low level to be able to use one of the Staves then he should be getting something nice as a return on his investment, IMHO.