I'm considering requiring Wizards to use wands to cast spells in my game/setting

I'm considering requiring Wizards to use wands to cast spells in my game/setting.

Would you enjoy a concept like this?

Other urls found in this thread:

gamefaqs.com/boards/615803-the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/70283636
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Wands are lame, real mages use staves.

Mine requires spellbooks for all characters but fairies. Wands are definitely ok.

I actually think staves are pretty lame.

Imagine a Wizard walking around town. He needs protection and just to show off his wizardliness, so what does he take his staff around?

Why not a wand? Small, discrete, ingenious for house work style magic and you can actual DIRECT magic with a wand. You can barely point with a staff, a wand is a much better symbol of magic users.

>inb4 some fag makes a dick joke
Using a staff is literally compensating.

I personally like the concept of it.

I use the option of wands or staves. Wands are quick and lightweight, but staves can be used to defend oneself. I also like the idea of being able to have that means of channeling magic disarmed, leaving you vulnerable.

No, stop having fun, right nao!

the imagery of a wizard holding up a staff is a lot more striking

harry potter shows security guards pulling out a tiny wand whem trouble starts, and it looks a smidge underwhelming

Depends on the setting.

Maybe for a particular class.

The wand is a "focus" for an already inherent magical potential. That focus (in most settings) can also be crystals, fingers, staves, swords, daggers, bones, runes, tattoos and so forth.

To limit these to only one tool seriously limits the attractiveness of playing a mage. Imagine wanting to play a warrior but being forced to use only hammers. I enjoy role playing games because I can customize my character and tell a story through him. Unless it's an integral part of a very interesting lore that makes up for the loss of freedom, limitations aren't a good thing in any setting.

There are reasonable limitations such as the limitation of technology in a medieval setting. I don't see many setting benefiting from requiring the usage of wands to perform magic.

To be fair, once you climb out of the 3.5/Pathfinder pit into glorious 5e, all a wizard needs to cast magic is an "arcane focus". This "Arcane Focus" can be pretty much anything you can hold like a weapon. Wand, staff, prayer beads, whatever.

Why not a wide selection of magical foci, with traits you pick out for yourself, and a few notable drawbacks for each?

So like, staves always need two hands and add on extra range or area, wands reduce range/area but you only need one hand and it's easier to do subtly, a gauntlet can't cast past touch but lets you cast in melee, a symbol can be anywhere on your person and needs no hands but you take a distinct penalty for casting something not connected with the symbol, etc.

Depends on the why

Sounds needlessly complicated an autistic. Magic already comprises like 60% of the rules in most games to include it, it doesn't need even more variables and mechanics shit to take into account.

This. Wands are fucking weak.

No. If you only use wands, then your magic will always be equated with Harry Potter.

Depends on setting/rules of magic in your setting.

Is this DnD homebrew? Absolutely not.

Is this your own game that you're making? Very big maybe.

>He needs protection and just to show off his wizardliness, so what does he take his staff around?
I'll assume you meant why instead of what, but staves in my opinion are better for multiple reasons.

1. If you want to show off you're a Wizard, a giant magical rod as your symbol of authority will definitely do the trick.

2. You can't very well beat things off with your wand, now can you? A staff makes an excellent physical defence by merely using it as a large and hefty rod or club.

3. There is nothing saying one needs to direct their magic by pointing. Doing so with your mind is far more wizardlike.

4. Any and all phallic imagery you've came up with is your own, and merely coincidental.

Wizards only use foci to replace the use of components; they don't strictly need it. Prayer beads are also more the realm of divine casting.

>You can't very well beat things off with your wand, now can you?
You can stab things with them
Now that's got me thinking of a setting where wands are basically fancy stilettos

>beat things off with your wand

Why is that a problem?

Wizards will always be inferior to glorious Charisma Caster Sorcerers anyway. Components? Who needs em? Casting focuses? Who needs em? Bitch, we cast magic just by being looking good.

I like this idea. I've got a really simple magic system so the idea of adding variety to how you choose to cast sounds appealing.

But I agree with that in a more complex magic system it could be too much.

>stabbing things with wands
I'm afraid not, user. All standard wands are too thick and long to properly shank with, but too thin and short to properly beat things with.

Point number 4, user!
sauce/pdf?

>literal wizard duels
Loser gets shanked.

Why not just build wands into everything? Does it actually need to be a specific separate pointer-shaped thingie, or is it a magically active mechanism dealio like harry potter?
If the latter, just put wand cores in fucking everything. Size it up or down, or make wand bundles to see what the fuck happens. Science up in this bitch.

I'm imagining a folding fan where all the ribs are wandlets, allowing you to do a spread/burst fire dealio, while also having a large flat focus for shielding spells.

Harry Potter magic is pretty cool in my book. There's isn't as much mind bending multiverse stuff but the nature of magic requiring the use of a wand lends itself well to creating suspense.

I have a sorcerer whose lifelong dream is to mass-produce magical weapons, arm the peasantry and lead them on a glorious revolution against those uppity wizards who think they know so much just because they read books all day.
Imagine a regiment of commoners with "stick of scorching ray." It would be glorious my comrades, the world would never be the same.

No idea, it's on amazon, grabbed the best result from GIS 'Dildo Wizard'

Wouldn't have to go too crazy with it. And I assume there's some similar level of differentiation with the weapons system?
I'm figuring it would be like weapon choice, possibly with magic upgrades adding or removing traits in case you want a gauntlet that shoots firebolts or a sniping staff.

This is the real reason why you should always have wands require a magic wand/spellbook or something in games. It's another way to keep balance against the Wizard/

>Charisma = how hot/pretty/handsome your character is

When will this meme die?

yeah, that's a good point. I currently don't have anything for meta magic, so alternative focuses could be a way to have that component

When butthurt neckbeards stop being jealous of glorious Charisma Casters and all their sex appeal.

>generic high charisma sorcerers having sex appeal
>not Master Neloth's superior Dunmeri genes
>not Valen Dreth's superior Dunmeri Dunmeat
>tfw no more Adventures of Valen Dreth
>D: Cry

I require physical foci that are in some way physically or culturally associated with the premises of the spell--for example, an expired flare cartridge could work for a basic light show or firestarter, or a busted NVG tube for darkvision. I find that little odds and ends like that make for fun pieces of bonus loot, and the more robust or versatile ones can serve as basis of excursions all their own.

My Dunmeri brother!

Brother!

>tfw Valen Dreth threads are no more
>the dunmeat is doomed to never return
>here's a link to a good one
gamefaqs.com/boards/615803-the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/70283636

There should be a good reason for trying to limit the players' characters' construction...IIRC the reason wizards were squishy was if they weren't everyone would be walking around in armor and throwing spells. Justified in universe as wizards being basically nerds with atrophied muscles who wouldn't be able to move in heavy armor.

Did someone kill all the staff users? Is there a current school of magic that rules over all wizards that teaches the use of wands and wands only? In universe, is there a reason to use only wands? Others have said that they're smaller and sneakier, could the sneakier bit be the case? Is magic untrusted in your setting?

Fucking yes. I like Harry Potter because it's balanced as fuck. Dropping your wand doesn't just mean you can't dust your room with a flick of your wrist. You are now vulnerable to every animal/creature/monster with innate-magical abilities.

gayyyyyyyy

Are you calling my tools of arcane destruction gay, boi?

fpbp

Third one down from the top is GOAT, any wand that isn't straight and/or still has bark on it is shit-tier Druid trash.

At least three of those are honey dippers. Don't lie to me

Wands are light, portable and suitable for light spellcasting. Court Wizards and local mages will most commonly carry these as they walk around. Why bother with anything more heavier if you're not expecting to deal with anything today?
Due to the common folk seeing wizards enjoying a comfy life using wands the most, they have gained a reputation of being the "dignified" choice or the mark of a master. Wand-wielding wizards are keen to uphold the stereotype as it gives them an air of gravitas when dealing with the common folk.

Staves are wand's opposite in all ways, heavy and cumbersome but capable of storing and channeling vast amounts of magic. Combat mages and town wizards performing powerful rituals will carry them in order to use their greater power. A wizard wielding a staff is expecting to deal with shit today and with copious amounts of magical force.
Seen by the common folk as the tool of a novice or unrefined wizard, as road-weary travelling magicians are the ones most commonly seen using staves and well.. clearly they can't be as good as the ones with the fancier robes with a comfy lifestyle, right?

Occasionally a wizard will come up with the idea of making a SUPER STAFF, but quickly run into problems both of an arcane nature -instability being foremost- as well as practical ones -how the hell do you carry it? which leads to the project being quietly dropped.
Toothpick sized micro-wands were toyed with, but while possible are difficult to construct and are largely useless. Although the study did allow for the invention of magical lockpicks, which did nothing good for the researcher's reputation.

I feel like the correct answer is "choose one". Wands, staves, rods, or tomes, pick the focus that best suites you.

>t. overcompensating man children who think 'hur dur its bigger and therefore cooler! wands are g4y lol'

>SUPER STAFF
Just enchant it to fly and ride around on your magical death log.

How about rings? Scarves? Wands or rods built into weapons? A complicated 'casting computer' with rotating runic sections to put a thousand times the varieties of magic circuits at your fingertips? Or floating orbs?

Best foci are swords. It's like a rod, except metal. And sharp. Plus you can pretend to be a not-wizard while retaining your wizard tools.

I'm the kind of person who likes all of them.

Rondel daggers, Cinquedea, etc. There's plenty of daggers and knives that could have a wand worked into them. Don't be a spoilsport. Besides, having Italian wizard gang fights makes everything cooler.

>Bravos with rapiers and wands offhand
>Arguing over duelling styles plus magic
>Speed yourself up?
>Curse opponent with floppy sword and just stab them?
>Parry and counter with a fire blast?
>Heavy armored paladin the fuzz bust in, wearing blessed steel to protect against magic
>Oh shit, get to the canals

That wand may be straight but the same cannot be said for its weilder.

I wouldn't enjoy it, but it wouldn't be a deal breaker

I have a set of forearm wraps that I crafted as a replacement for my arcane focus. The idea being that they'd just chill on my wrists and I'd never have to worry about dropping my focus.
Immediately upon being crafted, they displayed signs of animation, each possessed by a willpower that allows them to move snakelike wherever they please. Glad I had friends around when making those guys, I came pretty close to dying. Their first instinct upon being brought into existence was to attempt to strangle me.

I wouldn't be adverse to it.
I think it'd be neat to use a number of magically charged marbles as magical foci, myself, but I'd be fine with a wand.

Any phallic imagery or "compensation" you're imagining is 100% on you.

Staves are much cooler when wielded similarly to Spears, Glaives or Quarterstaffs rather than Walking sticks.

>Is this DnD homebrew? Absolutely not.
What is an arcane focus.

PF
Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp)
At 1st level, wizards form a powerful bond with an object or a creature.
>cutting out familiar rules
Wizards who select a bonded object begin play with one at no cost. Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon.
>wand
These objects are always masterwork quality. Weapons acquired at 1st level are not made of any special material. If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be held in one hand. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell.
>must use wand, other item, to cast or suffer penalty

4e
Orb, staff, wand and tome implement proficiencies
Many wizard spells require an implement to use, often specific ones or different effects for each implement.

Wand of Accuracy: Once per encounter as a free action, you gain a bonus to a single attack roll equal to your Dexterity modifier. You must wield your wand to benefit from this feature. This form of mastery is good for war wizards because it helps increase their accuracy with damaging powers.

I wont comment on 5e and its shit rules.

>inb4 some fag makes a dick joke
ok.
you can recognize a wizard's staff because it has a knob on the end.

Because you end up like that Dresden fellow.
Rod, staff, wristband, each focus used for one spell only, with the potential for some variation on the fly that's unoptimal and doesn't happen very often.

You could fix that requiring attunement or something similar, so people can only use 1 focus as a rule, and with more flexible focuses.

My (current) wizard uses a sword cane.
The sword is for stabbing. The cane part is an arcane focus. Using the SCAG blade archetype from 5e to run it.

I'm tempted to make a STR based Barbarian/Wizard at some point, just for the "getting angry and smacking someone's shit with a staff" elements.

What about orb focus wizards?

Something to channel the magic would be better, wands are too specific.

I've always been a fan of grimores and ritual daggers.

>wands
>staves
>rods
>rings
>crystals
>other foci
Fucking awful. Magical tattoos is where it's at.

>wands
>staves
>not scepters

Doubles as a club too.

>ooooooo scary wands. Beware. Ooooooo

In my super original setting, wands are a necessity of spellcasting as they act as a "funnel" that allows the mage to channel and direct magical energy. They're also very personal, and work better if the wielder is connected to it (carved from a beloved childhood toy or even the femur bone of a hated enemy, for example). As the mage grows in experience, their wand can be grown to a staff, so to speak, but it's little more than a stylistic choice.

>Not using the natural flow and beauty of wood
user plz

well ain't that some 'absolutely fabulous' wand you got there, does it match your cloak, or your eyes?

In my setting each medium has it's special properties.

>Wands - Lightweight, best for dual-weilding
>Staves - Stronger spells, can also be used as a weapon.
>Tomes - Two-handed(one handed with high dex), weaker spellcasting than wands and staves. Can cast a spell you don't know by reading from the book
>Hands(no medium) - Ultimate versatility, spells are less stable without a medium and have a chance to fail

Pardon me, kobolds, just a dragonborn wandering through.

I am a goddamned moron in the wrong thread.

Spinoff from this:

>Wizards can use wands and staffs (or other foci) in place of material components without "using up" the wand or staff

Staves/staffs are rifles, wands pistols

Lookong at those, now I want wizards to also be backstabbing bastards who shank each other with their wands. In fact, wands were created to be a wizard's murder knife and magical focus. In adventuring parties wizards are both the assassin and the caster, though the culture that produces these mages only know of support type magic and not fireballs and magic missile.

Wizards have to use one of the following to cast spells:

>Staves they have to carve themselves. Can double as a cudgel if need be.
>Elephants. Living elephants that may or may not enjoy having irresponsible fonts of magic anywhere near them.
>Cats. Hold 'em, pet'em, put on yer head.
>A tiny engine worn on the belt, handcrafted. No two are alike. One might be a hornet in a quartz bulb attached to a piston. Another might be two fish racing about inside a ball of water held together by angel's silk. There's ALWAYS a rip-cord to git 'er dun.
>Specially prepared meals. Gotta get dem carbs for dem magical squats, bro.

Could cards be used as magical foci?

They should be.

I go with the idea that wizards don't _need_ wands, but it can help make effects and focusing easier.

The problem I see with this is that you're going to have a lot of guys go for the wand user, legally ban wands and plan to dickstab the wizard by cutting his wand hand. Then a bunch of wizards do a lot of countermeasures, then the other guys trying their own, and it might become the focus of the campaign like a shitty arms race for a while taking away other interesting implications of magic.

Then again, if you can pull it off, that's your choice, and it would be enjoyable as long as it is properly implemented.

Why not use powder/fairy dust?

>What is the old wise man archetype?
>Why are staves signs of authority in myth?

Wands are for convenience, Staves are for POWER.

...That doesn't sound that bad actually.

I like the idea of wands and staves, but they have to be something more than just a stick.

They need to be some expensive magic item implement and not something they can just go replace in the woods. Some kind of master work crafted item that is annoyingly expensive to get in the first place.

I'd say go the other way and have the government ban staves but not wands "because smaller means less stopping power" so all magic users have to conceal carry their wands to stop dindus.

Okay, not all staves. Just military-grade assault staves.

If this was a thing I would use baseball bat as a wand.
>I cast Strike!

3 4 and 5 from the top are great, and I can see 1 being used by a wizardly soldier type, short and stout so it won't break easily, and charred at the end from lots of blasting magic.

Please define fpbp

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no......fuck no.

first post best post.

>there are only wands in HP

Phallic imagery is pleasing to fertility gods and spirits which will naturally contribute to a wizards more benevolent spells of healing and good luck. If anything wizards should be tying two brass spheres to the top of their staff as well.

that's a magical cane, not a staff

At one point does a staff become a cane or vice versa?

In my game, the magic system I wrote has an implement as a requirement initially. As the wizard grows in power, he sheds restrictions until he just stares at you and you explode.

why not? Wands can be stylish as fuck.

Different things, mate, different. You don't use a wand to awaken a forest or call down a thunderstorm. You don't use staff to open locks (unless you bash the door open, that is) or weave small subtle enchantments.

>purification in progress
I'd allow it.

>the nature of magic requiring the use of a wand
HP magic doesn't require a wand

>I like Harry Potter because it's balanced as fuck
>HP
>balanced