Is it just me

[Seisho]

...or is the 'magical attack' of the wand implement really horrible?

It needs the same ammount of actions as a spell but deals half as much damage as an average cantrip

I suppose it is not bad for weaknesses...but if the enemy has weaknesses why not use the Antothesis and whack them with a d12 weapon? or shoot them with a d8 weapon? you are using their weakness either way

[YuriP]

Also as wand don't strike I don't know if it works with custom weakness. By RAW I understand that isn't.

[Puna'chong]

I'm not big into the wand. I think it's a good opportunity for the class to get some AoE, or a variable action implement that reflects the versatility of wands, but right now I can't see myself ever taking it. The range is better than electric arc, but you can't go after a second enemy, you have the opportunity cost of not taking another implement, and at least in APs fights are rarely at a range where 80ft is going to make a huge difference.

Thaumaturge is a d8 class with a mental KAS; it should have a way to do AoE. Wand seems the best fit.

[John R.]

I'd say it's good once you get it up to adept. The debuffs/persistent damage procs off normal failures, not just critical failures. If you get it up to paragon, you have an at-will mini-fireball with selectable damage type that also comes with a debuff. That sounds amazing to me.

[Captain Morgan]

Personally, I think range is highly underrated, including APs. Many start in fairly small dungeons, but I've never seen one that didn't include outdoor encounters, or at higher levels have dungeons built for giants that might as well be outside.

[beowulf99]

Seisho wrote:

...or is the 'magical attack' of the wand implement really horrible?

It needs the same ammount of actions as a spell but deals half as much damage as an average cantrip

I suppose it is not bad for weaknesses...but if the enemy has weaknesses why not use the Antothesis and whack them with a d12 weapon? or shoot them with a d8 weapon? you are using their weakness either way

It has a couple of key things that make it interesting imo.

1. Intentional or not, it currently doesn't have the manipulate trait, nor does it call out interacting with the implement to activate it. So you could use it point blank with an enemy with AoO or equivalent, and they wouldn't get that reaction.

2. It is not casting a spell. Arguably, foes with increased saves against spells wouldn't get that bonus against the wand. Though most foes I can think of usually get that benefit to their will I believe. See Edit 2

It scales exactly the same as Ray of Frost, 1d4 per spell level. It's adept benefit is nice since it only requires a failed save, not a crit fail. And the Paragon benefit makes it a little fire/ice/lightning ball.

Overall, I think this is the most "fine" Implement. Not too good, not too bad. I would certainly take it in a more support centric Thurge.

Edit: I would like to see a "drain" option like the Chalice for the Wand that maybe upgraded the damage die to d6's or even d8's, but made it useless for 10 minutes.

Edit 2: Upon further review, it looks like creatures who gain a bonus to their saves vs. spells actually get it vs. "all magic". So that bonus should apply to the wand.

[Squiggit]

The thing about it scaling just like Ray of Frost is that Ray of Frost and other cantrips are intentionally on the weaker side because they're meant to be fallback options.

Snagging a wand implement turns it into one of your primary class features and you're a martial character.

The AoE is cool, but I mean it's at level 17. That's really far out there.

[beowulf99]

Squiggit wrote:

The thing about it scaling just like Ray of Frost is that Ray of Frost and other cantrips are intentionally on the weaker side because they're meant to be fallback options.

Snagging a wand implement turns it into one of your primary class features and you're a martial character.

The AoE is cool, but I mean it's at level 17. That's really far out there.

I can see that. That's why I put it firmly in the "fine" category honestly. Good if you want to do more aid or other skill actions in a support role, bad if you want to be a real front liner focusing on melee combat.

But even a front line character could see some use out of it, since it gives you a fairly long ranged way of dealing reasonable damage. And the Adept Benefit is my favorite part of it to be honest. Only requiring a failure makes it pretty good against foes without a good Reflex save.

[Alchemic_Genius]

The wand's damage would be fine if it benefitted from EA; the fact that it's a basic save means it's practically garanteed damage. If it also offered some will and fort save options, it would also allow the thaum to target weak saves starting at level 7, which is also pretty cool and on brand.

I like the wand conceptually, but it really does want for a little more oomph; I think a "drain" or "overcharge" once/10 min, chalice style to like double the dice or something is a cool option, and I'd REALLY like different save targeting

[Golurkcanfly]

The wand is underwhelming in a two-fold manner:

1) The damage is weak. It gets outdone by a hand crossbow rather easily. Letting it benefit from EA would be an excellent fix.

2) The upgrades are underwhelming. It should frankly be able to choose its damage type freely from the start and the upgrades could be swapped so you get the versatility upgrade sooner and the raw power upgrade later.

Then it also has the issues of implements in general where they lack feat support and customization. A feat that lets you choose a spell for your Wand and then cast that spell from the Wand X times per day could go a long way to making it feel special as well as provide some extra flavor for your character.

[John R.]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Then it also has the issues of implements in general where they lack feat support and customization. A feat that lets you choose a spell for your Wand and then cast that spell from the Wand X times per day could go a long way to making it feel special as well as provide some extra flavor for your character.

I think it'd be simple and cool that, if you have the wand implement, you could cast your Scroll Esoterica through your wand, freeing up the action from interact and then a "breadth" feat for Scroll Esoterica with the prerequisite of having chosen the wand implement.

[Golurkcanfly]

John R. wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Then it also has the issues of implements in general where they lack feat support and customization. A feat that lets you choose a spell for your Wand and then cast that spell from the Wand X times per day could go a long way to making it feel special as well as provide some extra flavor for your character.

I think it'd be simple and cool that, if you have the wand implement, you could cast your Scroll Esoterica through your wand, freeing up the action from interact and then a "breadth" feat for Scroll Esoterica with the prerequisite of having chosen the wand implement.

While I think that would be stronger, I do prefer my solution since it also involves flavoring your character's specific wand to suit it's origin. Your wand made from a Red Dragon's Tongue should feel a bit different from someone else's wand fashioned from a Dryad's Finger. That sort of flavor thing.

[John R.]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

John R. wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

Then it also has the issues of implements in general where they lack feat support and customization. A feat that lets you choose a spell for your Wand and then cast that spell from the Wand X times per day could go a long way to making it feel special as well as provide some extra flavor for your character.

I think it'd be simple and cool that, if you have the wand implement, you could cast your Scroll Esoterica through your wand, freeing up the action from interact and then a "breadth" feat for Scroll Esoterica with the prerequisite of having chosen the wand implement.

While I think that would be stronger, I do prefer my solution since it also involves flavoring your character's specific wand to suit it's origin. Your wand made from a Red Dragon's Tongue should feel a bit different from someone else's wand fashioned from a Dryad's Finger. That sort of flavor thing.

Yeah, makes sense. I'd be down for that.

[aobst128]

An easy fix would be for it to benefit from esoteric antithesis. Then on a successful save, targets still take their weakness damage. That might be overturned though. Would lead to some shenanigans with your explanations of just what's coming out of your wand when you create a custom weakness. Could be a lot of fun

[Golurkcanfly]

aobst128 wrote:

An easy fix would be for it to benefit from esoteric antithesis. Then on a successful save, targets still take their weakness damage. That might be overturned though. Would lead to some shenanigans with your explanations of just what's coming out of your wand when you create a custom weakness. Could be a lot of fun

The math works out to Wand being roughly equal to an appropriately-leveled Hand Crossbow on a shot per shot basis. Hand Crossbow only taking one action for the first shot (only needs to spend two for reload + fire on later shots) while the Wand has a saving throw attached.

But then if you have something like a repeating crossbow (or other sort of non-reload one-handed ranged weapon), that will still blow the Wand out of the water with the appropriate runes just by being significantly more action-efficient, assuming you already have it drawn.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

I can't speak for whether it is balanced or not, but I am confused by the assertion that Fling Magic deals half the damage of a cantrip when it appears to do essentially the same damage as Produce Flame or Divine Lance (1d4 per spell level/2 character levels) and only one point per spell level less than Telekinetic Projectile, while having a much higher range than most except Ray of Frost.

It would seem Fling Magic does about the exact same damage as an average cantrip, though perhaps in some cases missing extra effects like burning or slowing on a critical hit, until Adept.

[Seisho]

I have to admit I mixed something up when I wrote the threat and seeing that the wand has basically standard cantrip damage makes it actually kind of good

but the thing with strike and custom weakness is still kind of bad for the class

[aobst128]

Golurkcanfly wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

An easy fix would be for it to benefit from esoteric antithesis. Then on a successful save, targets still take their weakness damage. That might be overturned though. Would lead to some shenanigans with your explanations of just what's coming out of your wand when you create a custom weakness. Could be a lot of fun

The math works out to Wand being roughly equal to an appropriately-leveled Hand Crossbow on a shot per shot basis. Hand Crossbow only taking one action for the first shot (only needs to spend two for reload + fire on later shots) while the Wand has a saving throw attached.

But then if you have something like a repeating crossbow (or other sort of non-reload one-handed ranged weapon), that will still blow the Wand out of the water with the appropriate runes just by being significantly more action-efficient, assuming you already have it drawn.

Well, the wand isn't competing with your choice of weapon. You're using a one handed weapon anyways. The fact that the wand is a save makes it a decent option to avoid map, if you have the actions, especially with the adept lightning option. It could definitely be better though.

[Castilliano]

The Wand is a fine Cantrip, but it does use a hand (which later can switch out w/ Implements). Yet w/o MAP or AoOs, it has its niche alongside weapon use, but isn't sufficient to be one's primary spiel. It does get a lot better if it's your advanced Implement, but never as good as the spells your caster allies are dropping.
If you think of it as an offhand weapon increase, it resembles the damage of a Magus or an Eidelon backed by Cantrips. (Unfortunately those latter two also get spells and didn't need to invest a major class feature, yet they also might provoke AoOs. Hmm...that makes a Thaumaturgist look pretty bad since their other abilities don't compensate IMO.)

[John Ryan 783]

Wand is great, weapon in one hand, wand in the other. Most things don't have AoOs and if they do you just don't use it in melee, it is a cheap ok ranged option.

But Electric is a cheap damage to inflict Flat Footed and then you can attack.

[Golurkcanfly]

Wand is just kinda worse Electric Arc at base, and takes a long time to do much else.

And a cantrip isn't really worth one of your defining class features.

And the Wand just isn't all too interesting as-is.

[Squiggit]

Eventually it gets better but that's kind of my thought too.

It's basically just electric arc with more range but fewer targets until you get an adept benefit and proficiencies start scaling, which just doesn't feel like a Big Class Feature at level 1.

[Golurkcanfly]

Squiggit wrote:

Eventually it gets better but that's kind of my thought too.

It's basically just electric arc with more range but fewer targets until you get an adept benefit and proficiencies start scaling, which just doesn't feel like a Big Class Feature at level 1.

At the bare minimum it should start with all three damage types, and you choose on cast. It should also work with FF/EA (should it stay the same)

[Paradozen]

John Ryan 783 wrote:

Wand is great, weapon in one hand, wand in the other. Most things don't have AoOs and if they do you just don't use it in melee, it is a cheap ok ranged option.

But Electric is a cheap damage to inflict Flat Footed and then you can attack.

2 actions and an adept benefit is not what I would call cheap, especially given how many ways there are to make creatures Flat Footed already.

[Leotamer]

I would really want the wand to be a good primary source of damage, because at least then if the thaumaturge remains as MAD is it, having a good ranged charisma weapon/pseudo-cantrip, it would give you room to have higher int/wis over dex/con. And I think using a wand is pretty thematic for a more mental-focused thaumaturge.