Talk:Wand Wizard (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)

Ratings
Meant to go with Wizard's_Wand_(3.5e_Equipment)The Dire Reverend 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What benefit?
I guess I don't really understand why this is any good. You're giving up a decent amount of power (free spellbooks, a familiar) for nothing much in return. Is there something I'm not understanding? Surgo 04:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For one, you get bonuses to your ranged touch attacks (If the wand is magical). What do you mean free spellbooks? Any other suggestions for either the wand or the class feature you can think of? I was thinking of also making the bonus from the wand apply to saves, but I don't know. The Dire Reverend 07:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First, about the free spellbooks: a default wizard gets his spellbook for free. Unless you are going to do the same with a wand (which does not appear to be the case, since the wand costs 35 gp before any anchantments), you are basically paying for your spellbook from level 1. I'm also not even sure spellbook pages are ever a consideration; for the most part, I always assumed that you get your spells and move on without even paying it any attention. This is also a minor nitpick, but the sentence about how the wand gives bonuses to ranged touch attacks is rather awkward and could/should be rephrased (too many commas for my liking).


 * Just a final thought, I'm not really feeling this whole "Harry Potter Wizard" deal, especially with all the implications of having it as a weapon. What if you get disarmed (you're a wizard, it could happen) and then you have no way to channel ranged touch attacks and no way to regain spells until you get it back? What if it gets sundered by the giant and his greatclub? Then you're doubly screwed. So yeah, just some stuff to think about. - TG Cid 15:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * re being disarmed, you could look to Harry Potter for a solution - allowing the Wizard to call the wand to himself. Possibilities: range restricted, costs a spell slot (0th-level? 1st-level?).
 * re sundered, perhaps allow the wand-less Wand Wizard to cast spells of a level up to their max spell level - 2 or 3? So, without their wand they are able to do something, just not at their usual level. Reddir 17:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wand Recall : As a standard action, a Wand Wizard can expend any prepared spell of first level or higher to summon their Wizard's Wand into one of their hands. The Wand Wizard must be at least 10xCL feet away from their wand to use this ability.
 * Operating without a wand: A Wand Wizard can cast spells without their wands, however they have a -2 penalty to hit and the DCs of their spells. In addition they are unable to cast the two highest spell levels they have. (Minimum 1st level)
 * I really dislike the wording of the second one. Opinions?The Dire Reverend 18:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I really like this ACF, to me it gives good value for money as it were. It gives the benefits of the eschew materials feat, even better as it also does away with focuses aside from the wand itself.  Plus the wand is a weapon and does away with somatic components as well.  To me, that sounds like it also negates the arcane spell failure chance from armour.  That's a pretty good deal right there.  Neither the ACF, nor the Magic Wand item, state that you can only have one wand.  Sure if you got disarmed of your sweet magically augmented wand you would be pissed, but I don't see why we need special abilities like Wand Recall or Operating without a wand to rectify it.  Simply pull out your backup wand.  In fact any wizard above level 5 or so is going to have more than one wand anyway if wands are limited to 100 spell levels worth of spells stored in them like a spellbook.  Another feature is that the ACF and item make no mention of a GP cost to store spells in it like a spellbook, which helps avoid one of the biggest money sinks of being a wizard.  So sure, your great wand got knocked out of your hand, but you can always pick it up after the fight is over to get it's magical effects and the spells stored in it back.  After all you don't absolutely need that particular wand back until it's time to prepare spells.  Just my thoughts.  Tunganation (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)