| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If so, a wand of invisibility is going to cost more like 1,000 gp and be something you find/buy/get closer to 10th level than to 4th. And it would invert the relationship between staves and wands, insomuch as wands would be a lot more expensive than staves. Not saying it's impossible, but it's a big shift (one way to reduce that shift could be to have wands be something like a one-spell version of the current staves and remove charges from both, though then they are very similar to each other unless staves also change). Personally, I'm curious about how we can best use the really heavily thematic types of magic items with heavy genre buy-in (staves, wands, scrolls, potions, to name some) in ways that make some of them more interesting than just various numbers of uses of spells in a can. Staves and potions have moved away from that; scrolls seem like the best item type to continue being a spell in a can since it's like a pre-written spell, so that does leave room for wands to be something else.I think as long as wands remain a multi-use consumable, it's definitionally and tautologically going to have charges, or at least a synonym for charges (I mean, they are basically similar to scrolls in bulk, like in PF1). Staves could lose their charges in their current incarnation and still function just fine, though.an item with charges (which seem common, Wands and Staves seem to all fall into this category)Wands and staves, and only wands and staves, fall into this category. Staves are almost certainly the most complex item type in the game right now.This is good to know, and if it were only Staves I'd be less concerned. Wands are super common and gonna continue to be so, though, and by far the most logistically difficult item to keep track of in PF1. Adding Resonance costs just makes that worse.
I mean, lower number of charges would help (and seems likely based on stuff you said in another thread)...but I still remain very concerned about the specific Resonance/Charges interaction.
Perhaps just don't make wands consumable?
Here's how I would handle it:
-Spend 1 RP to attune a wand.
-Spend 1 RP to cast the spell from the wand. (And any required actions for the spell.)
From your earlier response to my post, I assume that these items exist, they just aren't "wands". I guess what I am suggesting is that those items SHOULD be wands, and "wands" as they are(or "charged items"), just should not exist.
This is all coming purely from a ease of use stand point. I don't want to have to track Resonance AND charges simultaneously. I feel like doing so defeats the point of having Resonance in the first place.
First I know that is a long quote, but I feel the whole context is appropriate.
On page 3 of the Trinkets and Teasures Blog yester day, Mark Seifter made this quote.
I may be reading into it too much, but to me this sounds like he is saying that maybe the design team is not necessarily sure how best to differentiate the "spell in a can" items, especially with the new ideas of resonance and trying to avoid the ""just buy the cheap healing" philosophy of PF1.
I wanted to see what ideas other people had on creating this differentiation and see if maybe we could give the design team some ideas.
I know we haven't seen the current system in practice yet, but we are starting to get some ideas from the blogs and podcasts.
My thoughts:
Potions, leave them as is/PF1 style, it is a way to get spells to even the non-spellcasting especially since this has a lot of the "heal in a pinch" factor to it. I think it is also very appropriate to the genre as is too.
Scrolls, also leave as is, the ability for magically trained, even if not themselves not spell casters to be able to read someone else's magically enhanced script of a spell and cast it seems appropriate to me. They are cheap one use, investment based things, that while I see scrolls as usually being more for transferring the knowledge to others and most of the "I cast a spell by reading a thing" being more for book type objects it is a shrunken version of a book and things like rituals could be in books.
Staves, this is where things get a bit different for me. I think I actually like the direction that the blog seems to be taking things. Staves a magically empowered, but still have to channel your own magic. They can gift bonuses by channeling through them (such as the healing boost) and have a few spells inherent to them that you can use it to cast by channeling your own power through it. To me this seems like a very thematic way to make a staff feel like an extension of the caster and not just like the source of a spell, you aren't useless without it, but it is a huge boon.
Wands, okay the really tricky one. So we don't want heaps of free casting like PF1, and we don't want them to feel the same as any of the other three options. I believe the resolution to this is 1 of two things, and maybe you can have wands of either kind or create something else like foci (your crystal ball or magic skull or whatever you carry around)
1. Make each wand hold a single spell and you can either resonance cast that spell or use a spell slot to cast it, basically like a stave, except exclusively 1 spell and no other bonuses. To me this type of wand fulfills the purpose of PF1 style wands without giving the mass casting of them.
2. Give bonuses, (this is the version I would think foci could be if you did both) for instance like the plus 1 to healing spells or making the 1d4 of your damaging 0 level spell to a 1d6, or being able to change up to 1 dice of a spells damage to the specific element of that wand, or increasing the range of the spell by a up to 10% or allowing you to focus a cone spell into a line spell. To me while this may be much more out of line with the old version of wands I feel it is much more genre appropriate to wands. Whenever I see wands in a fantasy environment they always seem to be more of objects to channel someone's magic, not necessarily items of magic themselves.
I do believe that for the sake of a game system there is need for "wands" of type 1 to help with various situations, most specifically healing. In my experience (though limited compared to a lot of you long-timers) if it isn't healing you are only not using a scroll to save gold in the long run and the new resonance system and gold value system I am getting from the blog implies that may not be a good excuse anymore.
I know this is really long, but I hope it starts some good conversation and I hope it gets some people thinking.
In the mean time, how much longer till we get to actually test this thing again? ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was my post on this topic over in the trinkets thread, I think it relevant here as well on a more focused thread. This solution would remove charges from the game but keep some wands at a similar cost level.
RE: Charges and Resonance
I don't think tracking both resonance and charges is worth it. Let potions, scrolls, and trinkets be the only consumables. I'd say drop all spells from low level staves and make them spell boosting items that cost 1 RP to invest. High level staves have spells as appropriate but without charges/only RP limited.
Split wands into lesser and greater wands:
Make lesser wands be 1 RP per use items for cantrips only. Higher level wands cast heightened cantrips. Good for non-casters to pick up some magic tricks or for mages to get extra cantrips but not really a risk of being over powered or over priced for the role.
Greater Wands cast 1st-3rd leveled spells 1 RP in one spell out, price them accordingly.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer to see wands become more of a 'metamagic rod' focus item than spells-in-a-can. If you attuned yourself that day (for your initial RP cost), they allow modifications to your spell casting. 'Bigger' influences might need an on-the-spot RP cost, while other minor ones might not. The wand can be spell specific, or school specific, or metamagic feat specific; they might allow you to apply one of your metamagic feats known without adding an action perhaps, or provide a metamagic feat you spend a Resonance on to add to your spell. Yes, it steps on the 'rod' section of items, but as I can't stand the idea of consumables (actual consumables) still needing to spend RP on top of their limited-then-done uses, I don't mind it.
(Bonus benefit - Harry Potter fans will love it, and a homebrew could take the idea and run with it to suit that setting.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer to see wands become more of a 'metamagic rod' focus item than spells-in-a-can. If you attuned yourself that day (for your initial RP cost), they allow modifications to your spell casting. 'Bigger' influences might need an on-the-spot RP cost, while other minor ones might not. The wand can be spell specific, or school specific, or metamagic feat specific; they might allow you to apply one of your metamagic feats known without adding an action perhaps, or provide a metamagic feat you spend a Resonance on to add to your spell. Yes, it steps on the 'rod' section of items, but as I can't stand the idea of consumables (actual consumables) still needing to spend RP on top of their limited-then-done uses, I don't mind it.
(Bonus benefit - Harry Potter fans will love it, and a homebrew could take the idea and run with it to suit that setting.)
That sounds more like staves to me but maybe there should just be one item class of magic focus that could be shaped like a wand or staff as desired by the crater. wands are small and can be hidden etc, staffs can be use for bonking folks which is always fun.
This was my post on this topic over in the trinkets thread, I think it relevant here as well on a more focused thread. This solution would remove charges from the game but keep some wands at a similar cost level.
RE: Charges and Resonance
I don't think tracking both resonance and charges is worth it. Let potions, scrolls, and trinkets be the only consumables. I'd say drop all spells from low level staves and make them spell boosting items that cost 1 RP to invest. High level staves have spells as appropriate but without charges/only RP limited.
Split wands into lesser and greater wands:
Make lesser wands be 1 RP per use items for cantrips only. Higher level wands cast heightened cantrips. Good for non-casters to pick up some magic tricks or for mages to get extra cantrips but not really a risk of being over powered or over priced for the role.
Greater Wands cast 1st-3rd leveled spells 1 RP in one spell out, price them accordingly.
I like what you are saying and I feel it is in a similar vein to what I am looking at. I kind of think as staves as more powerful, which is part of why I liked the idea of basically making staffs the spell boosting (likely higher level effects than a wand or foci can achieve) and casting (higher limit or no limit on spell level) item (think the foci on top of an elongated wand, you know like all the fancy staffs have some sort of precious something or other on them), the kind of thing that your higher end more powerful spell casters will be carrying around all the time. This left wands/foci as your lower spell level and lower bonus stuff. I like your idea of lesser and greater wands, which I think is a great idea and could even be "sub-implemented" under my idea of wands, I would maybe even make the lesser wands a invested item and/or not require at spellcasting/UMD type ability
For one I forgot to mention resonance and semi-intentionally left out trinkets. I am to this point too unsure about the kinds of effects will produce as they don't seem to be "spell in a can" necessarily thought some might be. On that note resonance:
Potions, scrolls, trinkets, no resonance, price accordingly.
Yes this might mean that the "wand of CLW problem" becomes a "barrel of scroll of CLW" problem, but I hope that with proper pricing it will be more about balancing a gold only no resonance option vs a minimal gold with resonance option, as below.
Staves, invested RP for bonuses, activation RP or spell slot for casting. Should be higher level and higher cost effects and spells. Some special lower level stuff could be possible like the healing too, but these should mostly focus on higher tier.
Wands/foci, activation RP if for casting, invested RP if for bonuses. Capped on power, maybe even lower than 4th level this time, 3rd? to create more space for staves to be and feel powerful. Similar for bonuses, but that is less simple to define. And also some way of not combining them with each other like metamagic rods were.
Wands: Each wand is 1/day spend an RP to get a spell, and then is spend an RP and a spell slot to get a spell.
I like wands in a space a little more limited than staves so that a staff feels like an upgrade.
That’s basically how the staffs work.
That’s basically how the staffs work.Wands: Each wand is 1/day spend an RP to get a spell, and then is spend an RP and a spell slot to get a spell.
I like wands in a space a little more limited than staves so that a staff feels like an upgrade.
Th problem with that is why would you want a Wand when you already have a Staff? I think Wands and Staves should cover different design spaces.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Th problem with that is why would you want a Wand when you already have a Staff? I think Wands and Staves should cover different design spaces.That’s basically how the staffs work.Wands: Each wand is 1/day spend an RP to get a spell, and then is spend an RP and a spell slot to get a spell.
I like wands in a space a little more limited than staves so that a staff feels like an upgrade.
I think KingofAnything is meaning basically like a staff without the bonus effect, in the blog example being the bonus to healing, so it is a low cost option till you can afford the more powerful staff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think KingofAnything is meaning basically like a staff without the bonus effect, in the blog example being the bonus to healing, so it is a low cost option till you can afford the more powerful staff.Th problem with that is why would you want a Wand when you already have a Staff? I think Wands and Staves should cover different design spaces.That’s basically how the staffs work.Wands: Each wand is 1/day spend an RP to get a spell, and then is spend an RP and a spell slot to get a spell.
I like wands in a space a little more limited than staves so that a staff feels like an upgrade.
That is what I'm trying to say, I don't like Wands just being cheaper low level Staves, I would prefer to see them do something different.
I would prefer to see wands become more of a 'metamagic rod' focus item than spells-in-a-can. If you attuned yourself that day (for your initial RP cost), they allow modifications to your spell casting. 'Bigger' influences might need an on-the-spot RP cost, while other minor ones might not. The wand can be spell specific, or school specific, or metamagic feat specific; they might allow you to apply one of your metamagic feats known without adding an action perhaps, or provide a metamagic feat you spend a Resonance on to add to your spell. Yes, it steps on the 'rod' section of items, but as I can't stand the idea of consumables (actual consumables) still needing to spend RP on top of their limited-then-done uses, I don't mind it.
(Bonus benefit - Harry Potter fans will love it, and a homebrew could take the idea and run with it to suit that setting.)
Potions: More expensive than scrolls. Resonance is paid by the creator on creation. User pays nothing.
Scrolls: Pretty cheap, anyone can use them. Resonance is paid by the user to "complete" the spell.
Staves: Actually really like where they went with Staves, keep em as is.
Wands: Used as the equivalent of a +x weapon for certain schools, improving either your DCs or To-Hit rolls. Thus you don't have a wand of fireballs, you have an Evokers Wand +1, or a Necromancers Wand +2 etc.
I think you are both getting at in different ways and varying breadths the kind of bonuses I am talking about for my option 2 of wands/foci. It is nice to see I am not the only one at least.
Specifically what Malk is saying is the kind of thing I was think of when trying to describe them, but couldn't figure out how best to apply it to spell casting, to me straight +1s that equate to the same meanings as for a martial's sword will likely end up making spell casters "weapons" significantly more potent than a martial's is why I avoided the type of explanation you gave, but it is definitely the same type of thinking.
That is what I'm trying to say, I don't like Wands just being cheaper low level Staves, I would prefer to see them do something different.I think KingofAnything is meaning basically like a staff without the bonus effect, in the blog example being the bonus to healing, so it is a low cost option till you can afford the more powerful staff.Th problem with that is why would you want a Wand when you already have a Staff? I think Wands and Staves should cover different design spaces.That’s basically how the staffs work.Wands: Each wand is 1/day spend an RP to get a spell, and then is spend an RP and a spell slot to get a spell.
I like wands in a space a little more limited than staves so that a staff feels like an upgrade.
Fair enough, so how would you make them work and be different?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, so how would you make them work and be different?That is what I'm trying to say, I don't like Wands just being cheaper low level Staves, I would prefer to see them do something different.I think KingofAnything is meaning basically like a staff without the bonus effect, in the blog example being the bonus to healing, so it is a low cost option till you can afford the more powerful staff.Th problem with that is why would you want a Wand when you already have a Staff? I think Wands and Staves should cover different design spaces.That’s basically how the staffs work.Wands: Each wand is 1/day spend an RP to get a spell, and then is spend an RP and a spell slot to get a spell.
I like wands in a space a little more limited than staves so that a staff feels like an upgrade.
Given the Staff of Healing as example leave Staves focus on spells, that means boosting spells, extra spells per day, or spontaneous casting.
I would like to see Wands focus on the other aspects of casting, boost caster level, spell DCs, and Concentration.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think KingofAnything is meaning basically like a staff without the bonus effect, in the blog example being the bonus to healing, so it is a low cost option till you can afford the more powerful staff.Th problem with that is why would you want a Wand when you already have a Staff? I think Wands and Staves should cover different design spaces.That’s basically how the staffs work.Wands: Each wand is 1/day spend an RP to get a spell, and then is spend an RP and a spell slot to get a spell.
I like wands in a space a little more limited than staves so that a staff feels like an upgrade.
Yes. Higher-level casters with staves get more than 1 spell worth of charges for their invested RP, a selection of spells, and also an item bonus to spells. Wands would be mini-staves without the frills, but more effective than a staff for low-level casters.
I like wands and staves in the same design space, but with different value functions for low-level vs higher-level casters. Beginners and journeymen use wands for a boost in power, but are inefficient with staves. Grand sorcerers and elite wizards find wands limiting, and so use staves to enhance their power.
Potions: More expensive than scrolls. Resonance is paid by the creator on creation. User pays nothing.
Scrolls: Pretty cheap, anyone can use them. Resonance is paid by the user to "complete" the spell.
Staves: Actually really like where they went with Staves, keep em as is.
Wands: Used as the equivalent of a +x weapon for certain schools, improving either your DCs or To-Hit rolls. Thus you don't have a wand of fireballs, you have an Evokers Wand +1, or a Necromancers Wand +2 etc.
I find it kinda odd that Potions are more expensive than Scrolls.
But I suppose I can run with the idea of the potion ingredients are harder to get/costly as opposed to say what goes into making a Scroll.
Besides that little oddity, I can actually get behind this idea.
Potions: More expensive than scrolls. Resonance is paid by the creator on creation. User pays nothing.
If the potions don't "go bad" at the end of the day, the Resonance cost for making them would be meaningless (as you wouldn't need to worry too much about spending Resonance during downtime).
Potions: More expensive than scrolls. Resonance is paid by the creator on creation. User pays nothing.
Scrolls: Pretty cheap, anyone can use them. Resonance is paid by the user to "complete" the spell.
Staves: Actually really like where they went with Staves, keep em as is.
Wands: Used as the equivalent of a +x weapon for certain schools, improving either your DCs or To-Hit rolls. Thus you don't have a wand of fireballs, you have an Evokers Wand +1, or a Necromancers Wand +2 etc.
I find it kinda odd that Potions are more expensive than Scrolls.
But I suppose I can run with the idea of the potion ingredients are harder to get/costly as opposed to say what goes into making a Scroll.
Besides that little oddity, I can actually get behind this idea.
I think it has more to do that Potions are easier to use than Scrolls, so cost differences is a balancing factor.
|
|
As a note back to my wand commentary, I happen to like the 'theme' planning of staves, where you have access to multiple spells and possibly other effects all in one place, whereas I see wands as being a sliver of that power/flexibility. /Staves/ I don't mind keeping the internal charges per day plan overall; so if you don't have spell X you can pull uses (spend charges) of that spell from the staff, or if you CAN cast it you can expend your own spell slots.
I may be influenced by the fact that I once had an oracle in PFS play who, by level 9 or 10, had maxed out her UMD and bought pretty much every partial wand on chronicle sheets, and had a 'utility beltpouch' of wands numbering over 20(often only 1-4 charges in any one of them outside of her healing wands). Having multiple wands of VERY specific use each appeals to me; whereas a staff in my mind is a toolkit (or swiss army knife) kind of deal (around a theme, that is.)
Eduardco and KingofAnything,
I think you are both poking at the opposite ideas of wands I have put in my original post.
Eduardco, I like your idea of diversifying that staves focus on spell effect where wands focus on casting process.
I have a question though, if another item (in the case I presented casting foci like a magic-y skull or gem or whatever) did this would you be apposed to wands being the "spell access with resonance" option that KingofAnything and my other wand option proposed?
KingofAnything, What your saying about staves seems to be where the design team currently has them from the example, and the idea of wands being no frills lower level versions of staffs fits in with how I felt the difference in wands and staves was dealt with in PF1. Do you have any opposition to the other version that Eduardco and my other wand concept put out, if maybe it were a variant of wand or foci item?
Potions: More expensive than scrolls. Resonance is paid by the creator on creation. User pays nothing.
Scrolls: Pretty cheap, anyone can use them. Resonance is paid by the user to "complete" the spell.
Staves: Actually really like where they went with Staves, keep em as is.
Wands: Used as the equivalent of a +x weapon for certain schools, improving either your DCs or To-Hit rolls. Thus you don't have a wand of fireballs, you have an Evokers Wand +1, or a Necromancers Wand +2 etc.
This, potion spam can be balanced by their bulk, since they are heavy and take up lots of space while being one-use. There was never a problem with potion spam before, so I think it should be the go-to reliable source of spells that doesn't spend resonance.
Scrolls would be a bit too good becaus eof their negligible bulk if they were endless, these probably can use resonance if there's a big worry of super spam. Granted, I never saw them be too overpowering.
Wizards gotta be able to do things at low levels though! I recently decided to play Beginner Box with some newbie friends and the Ezren guy was pretty much helpless without all those wands/scrolls/potions to let him contribute besides his 2 garbage spells in a day.
Eduardco and KingofAnything,
I think you are both poking at the opposite ideas of wands I have put in my original post.
Eduardco, I like your idea of diversifying that staves focus on spell effect where wands focus on casting process.
I have a question though, if another item (in the case I presented casting foci like a magic-y skull or gem or whatever) did this would you be apposed to wands being the "spell access with resonance" option that KingofAnything and my other wand option proposed?
I like your proposal of wands/foci and that is the route I will like to see Wands take. I think low level Staves are already covering "spell access with resonance", I don't see the point of having Wands do it again, also I don't like the idea that Wands are multi use Scrolls, in general I don't like the idea of multi use consumables, leave consumables be single use, aka Potions, Scrolls, and Trinkets.
|
|
KingofAnything, What your saying about staves seems to be where the design team currently has them from the example, and the idea of wands being no frills lower level versions of staffs fits in with how I felt the difference in wands and staves was dealt with in PF1. Do you have any opposition to the other version that Eduardco and my other wand concept put out, if maybe it were a variant of wand or foci item?
I put several ideas for wands in the Trinkets thread. I'm for just about anything that isn't the current 50 charges bulk spell-in-a-can. My favorite right now just happens to be wands as minor staves (with slightly different RP efficiency).
I think wands should remain subordinate to staves, I'm just not sure what function they should take. A special designation for cantrip-only staves? Invested items with passive-only benefits (e.g. +1 dmg or +1 heal)?
Random thought: Particular passive effects tuned to a single spell. So a wand of fireball could let you treat any 1s on the dice as 2s. Or a wand of haste gives the caster 20% miss chance for a round.
So yeah. I would be okay with wands of necromancy or wands of enchantment or other kinds of bonuses. I think this space will be occupied by rods, though.
KingofAnything, What your saying about staves seems to be where the design team currently has them from the example, and the idea of wands being no frills lower level versions of staffs fits in with how I felt the difference in wands and staves was dealt with in PF1. Do you have any opposition to the other version that Eduardco and my other wand concept put out, if maybe it were a variant of wand or foci item?I put several ideas for wands in the Trinkets thread. I'm for just about anything that isn't the current 50 charges bulk spell-in-a-can. My favorite right now just happens to be wands as minor staves (with slightly different RP efficiency).
I think wands should remain subordinate to staves, I'm just not sure what function they should take. A special designation for cantrip-only staves? Invested items with passive-only benefits (e.g. +1 dmg or +1 heal)?Random thought: Particular passive effects tuned to a single spell. So a wand of fireball could let you treat any 1s on the dice as 2s. Or a wand of haste gives the caster 20% miss chance for a round.So yeah. I would be okay with wands of necromancy or wands of enchantment or other kinds of bonuses. I think this space will be occupied by rods, though.
Thematically, I'd love to see rods rolled into wands, and just make staves more epic. Then, remove rods. Smaller effects can still be fulfilled by scrolls and potions.
Rods are kind of a grab bag though. Some can be folded in to staves and wands as either magic enhancers or spells in a can but some are more wondrous item (immovable rod) and some are just odd weapons (Rod of the Viper)
Thematically, I'd love to see rods rolled into wands, and just make staves more epic. Then, remove rods. Smaller effects can still be fulfilled by scrolls and potions.KingofAnything, What your saying about staves seems to be where the design team currently has them from the example, and the idea of wands being no frills lower level versions of staffs fits in with how I felt the difference in wands and staves was dealt with in PF1. Do you have any opposition to the other version that Eduardco and my other wand concept put out, if maybe it were a variant of wand or foci item?I put several ideas for wands in the Trinkets thread. I'm for just about anything that isn't the current 50 charges bulk spell-in-a-can. My favorite right now just happens to be wands as minor staves (with slightly different RP efficiency).
I think wands should remain subordinate to staves, I'm just not sure what function they should take. A special designation for cantrip-only staves? Invested items with passive-only benefits (e.g. +1 dmg or +1 heal)?Random thought: Particular passive effects tuned to a single spell. So a wand of fireball could let you treat any 1s on the dice as 2s. Or a wand of haste gives the caster 20% miss chance for a round.So yeah. I would be okay with wands of necromancy or wands of enchantment or other kinds of bonuses. I think this space will be occupied by rods, though.
Only if I can make a bigger wand and use it as a Mace. Wait can we do that or was it a DM that said yes, I can smack something that's assaulting me with the Rod.
Only if I can make a bigger wand and use it as a Mace. Wait can we do that or was it a DM that said yes, I can smack something that's assaulting me with the Rod.
Stand still, while I beat you to death with my Merciful Metamagic Rod!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the solution is to divorce forma and function from thees magic items. Have a Magic Focus item creation section similar to the magic weapon and magic armor sections.
There are three different classes of effects that I see (in terms of how they work with charges/RP)
Spell Batteries
-Like PF 1 Wands and PF 1 Staves these contain spells and consume charges, I personally don't really want this in PF 2 since I don't like tracking resonance and charges.
Spell Producers
-This is like a PF 1 magic item or some of the rods. in PF 2 this would be 1 RP in one spell out, pretty powerful/high level item for any spell other than maybe a cantrip
Spell Enhancers
-Gives some sort of bonus to spells like the ability mentioned in the blog or old metamagic rod. Might take 1 RP to attune for a small buff (+1 Hp healed per spell) or 1 RP per use for a big buff (how I imagine metamagic booster would work in PF 2)
There are also three different iconic forms
Wand, small, easy to hide in clothes or keep up a sleeve
Rod, doubles as a club or a scepter, good for bashing folks who get too uppity
Staff, good as a walking stick, iconic, good for bashing folks who get too uppity.. maybe parrying ability if wielded two handed?
Maybe the pre-canned magic items follow some sort of standard where staves are X wands are Y and rods are Z but make it clear that you can make whatever you want. Personally I think that the iconic wizard staff as a spell enhancer is the things I want most in the game but a lot of younger folks are going to be big harry potter fans and want their wizards to have wands as their primary tool rather than a disposable trinket, and I think the game should accommodate them.
PF2 has spells (such as Heal) that can be cast with different components. A wand could, perhaps for 1RP or if attuned (is that the right word?), apply one component (presumably material) for zero action cost. So certain spells (depending on the wand) are more potent if cast with the aid of that wand. It's totally different to how wands exist in 1e or earlier D&D, but it fits quite a lot of fiction.
This mechanic might work better for things other than wands, of course. And it very much depends on how many spells work like that, which we don't know.
|
|
I put several ideas for wands in the Trinkets thread. I'm for just about anything that isn't the current 50 charges bulk spell-in-a-can. My favorite right now just happens to be wands as minor staves (with slightly different RP efficiency).I think a cool way of doing wands in PF2 would be to have them be able to cast a spell, say, thrice per day at the cost of 1 resonance per casting. That removes the problem of letting a mid-level caster get an extra ten uses of a great spell, while also not requiring the same amount of book-keeping as the current 50-charge wands.
I thought along the same lines. However, to get even close to the same RP efficiency with a staff as a 3/day wand of a 3rd level spell, you need access to 9th level spells. Even then, you are spending 4 RP for 3 castings (and some minor item bonus). I think that makes wands too powerful, and why I went with 1/day. And because 1/day is really lackluster, added the ability to spend spell slots like a staff.