| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in 3.5, staves and wands were those odd magic items that you couldn't really have as an integral part of your image for your character because they would eventually and permanently run out of charges. And sure, you can just buy another just like it, but that was never the point. If I'm going to have a magic staff or a magic wand, I believe I have a decent expectation based on the genre that THAT specific staff or wand should last the same as a martial's magic weapon or armor.
3.5 did fix half the issue with the introduction of the Eternal Wand in Eberron. Only two uses per day, but useful for as many days as you like. Much more fitting to the concept.
Then P1E comes out and, while wands are still those things that eventually become useless sticks, staves finally get to match the concept. Once you have a magic staff, it's for keeps. You may exhaust it in a day, but it won't have to stay exhausted.
And in P2E, staves still get to last you your adventuring career. You get to have your magic staff be an integral part of your character's identity.
But not wands. Do you imagine your character having a signature wand just like her buddy and his signature staff? Too bad. You get ten charges and then a big toothpick.
And even the latest update still insists that wands must be those things that eventually become useless sticks.
Why? Why must they? And yes, I'm aware of the Spell Duelist's Wand. In truth, it quite fits the concept, in a similar fashion as the Eternal Wands from 3.5 Eberron. The issue is, you can make a wand for any spell, but there isn't really a template for making a Spell Duelist's Wand for anything besides Acid Arrow, Enervation, Disintegrate, or Polar Ray.
So this is that request: can we have, in addition to exhaustible wands, sustainable wands (well, more than just the four existing Spell Duelist's Wands) that can finally last as long as our characters and better fit the likely inspirations that go into having a wand in the first place?
How would a wand differentiate from a staff with those rules?
How does a Spell Duelist's Wand currently differentiate from a staff? And while I'll certainly concede that there should be an obvious difference between wands and staves, why pick "can be exhausted"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does a spell duelist wand even exist? Can't a potency rune on a staff do the same thing without creating extra items? You can already wave the staff around and have it count for somatic actions, so you're clearly supposed to be able to cast while holding one. But you're also encouraged to put it away and take out another item (the duelist wand) that does nothing except help you hit things with your spells.
So if you wanted to use a Staff of Evocation to cast from, you're doing it at a penalty if you cast anything that needs a to hit roll because reasons. It's silly.
I'm with you on this. Wands are a mess in the playtest and need to have their identity sorted out.
How would a wand differentiate from a staff with those rules?How does a Spell Duelist's Wand currently differentiate from a staff? And while I'll certainly concede that there should be an obvious difference between wands and staves, why pick "can be exhausted"?Spell duelist just has a specific spell/day.
Wands have a specific/day and then 1/focus. But are limited.
Staffs have 1/day and then 1/focus. But have the added benefits of adding the spells as Spontaneous and won't burn out.In all actuality, there's 0 reasons for wands to exist atm:
If you want 1/focus (and 1 free/day) go staff.
If you want consumable, go scroll.
Wand being worse versions of consumable staffs, with only upside of "it's cheap"Just doesn't add anything in the game imo.
And that right there is my whole point. Wands, however they work in their various fictional sources, are iconic and integral parts of whatever character is using them. As such, they deserve a better* representation in the game.
*And yes, I'm defining "better" as, no matter what else, "lasting and not to be thrown away".
But if they are lasting, then they are staffs.
Both will be 1 free spell/day and 1/focus.
Well, there'd still be the difference in options (staves have multiple spells, wands have one (further, one of 4th level or less)). But even discounting that, why would it be an issue that wands are lasting? Why would that make them stepping on staves' conceptual toes?
Coming at this from a different perspective, within the larger universe of the genre, in settings where staves and wands both exist and both are lasting, what is the difference between those staves and wands? Or more to the point, besides D&D-derived fiction, what is a setting where "can be exhausted" is an integral part of the concept of a wand? Where it must eventually become a useless stick, or it isn't a wand?
"The fiction and inspiration of the wand are one thing, 3.5/P1E/(current)P2E present something else and something lesser" is my point.
I haven't read through all the magic item list, but are we missing Spell Storing Ring? If so, that kind of function would be an amazing hole for wands to fill. When you talk about non-exhausting wands, I think of Eragon with the magic battery gem-sticks that the elven wizards would use to compensate for long magic battles' drain on their reserves. And/Or making them like Staves but for a single spell, making them more efficient but less potent than the iconic Staff item that mages are known to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big difference thematically between wands and staffs, imo, is something that often gets overlooked (although it is said outright in the Resonance Test rules): Staves can also be used as a weapon, and include that in both their cost and design.
So even if wands are just "staves-light", they also have the difference that they are purely magical implements, not weapons in any way.
In any case, I'm hugely in favor of infinite-use wands. With the new Focus system, I don't see why they don't just make wands 1/day, plus spend a Focus point for each additional use. Less to track, easier to remember, more satisfying.
THAT said, the current edition of the Focus system does give one slight advantage to wands over staves: A wand can cast a spell ten times in a row for only 1 Focus point, instead of the 10 a stave would need.
Another idea I had that might be easier to implement: keep wand use as is, charges and all, but introduce a recharge process. Something simple to accomplish, but only possible during downtime.
For example:
"Wands have a limited number of charges and can be potentially exhausted. However, as long as there's at least one charge remaining, you can regenerate the magic within the wand, eventually up to its full capacity. The process takes ten minutes long and can only be done at the end of a day during which you haven't spent any Focus. Spend (some amount of) Focus, and the wand regains a single charge."
"Useless stick" averted, maybe?
The thing is, in the previous iteration of Resonance it was easy to remove charges from wands, because you'd eventually get rid of them in order to get "more bang for your buck" from your limited Resonance pool.
Under Focus, that limitation is lifted and you need some other way to incentivise higher purchases. That comes in the form of "no matter how much you invest in this, it'll stop working after 10 uses".
A less punitive form of wand management could be "Wands can be used 1/day, or 5/day if you spend Focus on them", but it still requires tracking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you had an issue with the "Wand of CLW" in PF1, you'll be driven crazy by it in PF2. It's not one wand that you wave at your teammates: you have a bag of holding filled with wands that you pull out and wave one at a time at your teammates. I can seriously see a high-level party with 50 or more wands stowed away for out-of-combat healing.
Also the Spell Duelist's wand is problematic and should go. It's an equipment tax to use certain kinds of spells and powers, and for the most part most characters can't really afford that equipment tax.
If you had an issue with the "Wand of CLW" in PF1, you'll be driven crazy by it in PF2. It's not one wand that you wave at your teammates: you have a bag of holding filled with wands that you pull out and wave one at a time at your teammates. I can seriously see a high-level party with 50 or more wands stowed away for out-of-combat healing.
Also the Spell Duelist's wand is problematic and should go. It's an equipment tax to use certain kinds of spells and powers, and for the most part most characters can't really afford that equipment tax.
I'm not after breaking the magic item use economy of an individual day at all. I don't have a problem with wand use costing Focus and if there's the potential problem of buying a buttload of low-level wands just for a buttload of 1/Day pre-Focus-expenditure castings of whatever spell got put into all of those wands, then I agree that should be looked at.
I'm after a character being able to use the same wand after dozens of individual adventures where the wand got used during each one, even if that means only a few uses per adventure. And that's really my only reason for liking the Spell Duelist's Wand. Were they to tweak the SDW and the math it interacts with to prevent it from being an equipment tax but leave it as an inexhaustible magic item, it would still be a better wand than something that eventually becomes a toothpick.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about:
STAFF
* A staff is usable as a weapon and can get runes.
* A staff tends to have multiple spells it can perform, or abilities that boost some spells. A staff is always "wide": it does more than one different thing.
* A staff is invested.
* A staff gives you one free cast per day (the staff's own Focus point). This "free" 1/day thing is okay because it's invested.
* You can cast more than that one daily free spell from the staff, but you have to spend a spell slot or focus point.
* The spells in a staff are set at a specific level; you can't heighten them
WAND
* Wands are not invested.
* Wands always require Focus to use.
* Wands don't have charges; it's using Focus that powers them.
* Wands contain only a single spell.
* When you cast a spell from a wand it's always heightened to the maximum you can cast.
What about:
STAFF
* A staff is usable as a weapon and can get runes.
* A staff tends to have multiple spells it can perform, or abilities that boost some spells. A staff is always "wide": it does more than one different thing.
* A staff is invested.
* A staff gives you one free cast per day (the staff's own Focus point). This "free" 1/day thing is okay because it's invested.
* You can cast more than that one daily free spell from the staff, but you have to spend a spell slot or focus point.
* The spells in a staff are set at a specific level; you can't heighten themWAND
* Wands are not invested.
* Wands always require Focus to use.
* Wands don't have charges; it's using Focus that powers them.
* Wands contain only a single spell.
* When you cast a spell from a wand it's always heightened to the maximum you can cast.
That's way too strong of an effect.
They should never be able to be heightened.
The rest seems fine.
That works for me. It's relatively simple, creates a distinction, and gives you a reason to use wands without mass spam (carry one for spells you sometimes want but don't want to have to always prepare).
The rune on the staff should also boost your attack roll with spells that require one if you cast them while holding the staff, so we don't have this silliness with spell duelist wands and gloves also being a thing. (Strictly speaking I'd do that with any weapon you happen to be holding while casting a spell, so we're not making a staff mandatory and can have a scimitar wielding Cleric of Sarenrae not being penalized for actually using their deity favored weapon.)
if you do that you'd have to completely replace TAC attacks with Attacks vs normal AC thought. (that's the reason spell duelist has alower total+x at each level, because they are aimiing at 2 points lower AC with spells)
Which eliminates extra complexity that isn't adding any value in TAC at the same time.
Sounds like a good idea.
I'd be in favor of touch AC going away. Or go the way of flat-footed, and change it into a flat penalty.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It'd be pretty easy to get rid of touch AC entirely, by making the accuracy of spells be based on casting modifier rather than Dex. I'd even allow alchemists to use Dex or Int (whichever is higher) for their bombs (easy enough to justify, as Alchemists are smart enough to do the trigonometry on the fly).
|
|
It'd be pretty easy to get rid of touch AC entirely, by making the accuracy of spells be based on casting modifier rather than Dex. I'd even allow alchemists to use Dex or Int (whichever is higher) for their bombs (easy enough to justify, as Alchemists are smart enough to do the trigonometry on the fly).Yes, but it should be either "use potency of staffs" or "use main stat". Not both simultaneously.
That's because, imo, casters shouldn't be as accurate as Fighters (and that's what you'd have if you do both the suggestions simultaneously)
I don’t think the damage output would approach the fighter, because spellcasters spells take multiple actions, and alchemists still have to draw bombs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be in favor of touch AC going away. Or go the way of flat-footed, and change it into a flat penalty.
I'm all for further simplification. This seems like a good one. TAC isn't necessary as a stat, just as a flat penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't speaking from the perspective of pure damage. I was speaking more from the side of the trademark of 2e that "fighter has the highest accuracy of all classes bar none".
That's what a fighter does, he hits stuff.
In terms of actually hitting things, that wouldn't change. A caster trying to physically hit someone with a weapon is using their weapon prof and STR, which will not be that good. But given that spells are limited resources, having them be less accurate than the +1 beatstick of endless swings is not a great idea.
If you get to use your casting stat, casting prof, and the weapon you're holding's runes, you are going to at least have a comparable chance to hit against AC, which given that you can't get that spell back if it misses is pretty reasonable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be in favor of touch AC going away. Or go the way of flat-footed, and change it into a flat penalty.I'm all for further simplification. This seems like a good one. TAC isn't necessary as a stat, just as a flat penalty.
That's effectively what it is now, isn't it? It seems like every character has TAC that's AC - 2. I'm not sure why that needs to exist.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1 for "TAC doesn't need to exist". It tracks very closely to AC-2 and doesn't deviate often enough that it's worth tracking a separate type of AC.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1 for "TAC doesn't need to exist". It tracks very closely to AC-2 and doesn't deviate often enough that it's worth tracking a separate type of AC.
TAC and AC differentiate by as much as 4 (the heavy armors) and by as little as none (light armor/unarmored). Losing TAC would be a small loss to classes like the Rogue and the Monk, since they have some form of bragging rights compared to others in that they're dodging everything thrown at them the same, whereas spells hit the other classes with heavier armor.
So I want to say as someone who loves the Monk class and wants it to shine and stellarly so:
+1 to "lose TAC"; it's not worth the trouble.
|
|
Plus a Dex fighter would still be better at throwing bombs than an alchemist, because bombs are weapons. And I don't necessarily think a fighter should be better than a mage to hit things with Spells.
On top of that wands (the original point of this thread) cap your spell rolls, so a caster won't be as accurate with their magic stick than a fighter would be with their magic weapon.
Plus a Dex fighter would still be better at throwing bombs than an alchemist, because bombs are weapons. And I don't necessarily think a fighter should be better than a mage to hit things with Spells.
On top of that wands (the original point of this thread) cap your spell rolls, so a caster won't be as accurate with their magic stick than a fighter would be with their magic weapon.
The bolded is a separate issue that I'm (at some point) also going to raise.