TOPIC: Last Chance to Give General Token Guidance

I hate it when I agree with henwy, but I think on these issues he's right.<br /><br />Remember, we don't go into the dungeon with the wands we want, we go into the dungeon with the wands we have.<br />

<br />Page 53 of token guide: Each of these wands require a spoken word to activate and thus cannot be used in areas of magical silence or while sneaking.<br />

<br /><br />I agree; you made a lot of good points.<br /><br />If Jeff rulese that TD wands do not require verbal components, however, I'd much rather have a wand than a scroll. 

Nope, wands (and scrolls) have verbal activation.

<br />What a difference a night of good sleep makes.  <br />The more I thought about the wands needing charges the more I thought it may not be so bad, as long as wand do a minimum damage without said charges, they would in essence be like bows for mages.  While I like what JimC said where charges are multipliers for damage, I am more in favor of fixed pluses to effects.   That way wands can be scaled easily and if I recall my psych class correctly its easier for the human mind to add vs. multiplication. <br />So for example  let's look at wands that have been released before: <br />Wand of Lightning Base Damage 4, DC 12 Ref save for half. Wizard only.<br />Wand of Frost Based damage 2, no save. Wizard only.<br />Wand of Cure light wounds - heals 0 point of damage - Cleric, Druid, Bard<br /><br />Then we have common charges +2 to wand effect, uncommon charges +4 to wand effect, rare charges +8 to wand effect.<br />If a mage got a wand with no charges then at least they could always do some damage, meaning their spells will be  better but it's a hold out weapon.  <br />This approach I think would line up the wands to be more like other ranged weapons and eliminates the need for the coaches to provide tokens to those who got rares without charges.  And as long as the charge bonus + the wand effect does not create power creep (like Henwy said we need to watch out for that) that exceeds already stable scrolls (for example the wand of cure lt wounds +1 rare charge is the same as 1 Rare Scroll: Cure light Wounds (8pts)).<br /><br />So looking at the existing set of wands, we do have wands with effects other than damage or healing.<br />So the wand of slow is a good first example - DC12 save  or loose next action.  Perhaps the save is adjusted by the bonus provided by the rarity of the charge.<br />So Wand of Slow DC 8 Will save or loose next turn.   With a common charge it becomes DC 10, Uncommon DC12, and Rare DC 16.<br /><br />Which would prompt me to change the Wand of Lightening Bolt to be about the same.<br /> Base Damage 4, DC 8 Ref save for half. Wizard only.<br /><br />So really charges would need to be written +X to effect and save modifiers on the wand.  This would cover saves and damage.<br /><br />Last wand type that would need to be examined - Wand of Detect Magic - I think this would be written, Expend any charge for 1 use.<br /><br />So if I was to reserrect every wand under this idea of charges having fixed adjustments<br /><br />Common Charge +2 to effect and save modifiers on the wand<br />Uncommon Charge +4 to effect and save modifiers on the wand<br />Rare Charge +8 to effect and save modifiers on the wand<br /><br />I would go with.<br />Wand Magic Missle: 1pt of damage<br />Wand of Lightning Bolt:  Base Damage 4, DC 8 Ref save for half.<br />Wand of Melf's Acid Arrow: Base Damage 4, Hit AC 15. Wizard only.<br />Wand of Detect Magic: expend a chage to use<br />Wand of Cure Light Wounds: Heal 0 points of damage.<br />Wand of Slow: DC 8 Will save or monster miss next turn<br />Wand of Lifestealing: DC 8 Fort save or target takes 2 points of damage AND wizard healed 2 points of damage<br /><br />So as long as most wands do something without a charge I am ok with this charge proposal.<br />

<br /><br />Greyseer-<br />I thought about the multiplication factor when I proposed it.  I was a little worried about the 1.5x especially since I was thinking about the Wand of Frost with 7pts of damage.  Do you round up or down? <br /><br />Something along the line:<br />Common 1x<br />Uncommon 1x+n<br />Rare 2x or 1x+2n<br />would be pretty easy to do.  Though your idea of +2/+4/+8 has plenty of merit.  I've read a lot about power creep, but to me the wands that do pure damage just aren't worth unless we bump them up some.  Limiting the wand of frost to 10pts using a rare charge means (to me) it ain't going to be used.  But if that was +8 to the base of 7 damage, I think it would be a hot item and a lot of people would be looking for rare charges.<br /><br />As far as charges being specific to a wand, I don't think so.  We are after all still sticking to 40 tokens of each type (each year).  But a charge that added a bonus much like special ammunition would be good.  I would also like to see that the base wand doesn't use up it's "boxes" (I hate defacing any lovely token LOL!).  This is also more in line with a ranged weapon.  (as you/others mentioned)<br /><br />As far as needing a verbal component to activate, I believe Old style D&D didn't require it to be verbal (it was more based on Intellect). It was an activation sequence that only someone who studied the obscure arts could decipher.<br /><br />I think it woul be neat to let other classes use wands, maybe with the help of some of the new URs being proposed (I know I read this somewhere, sorry for forgetting who authored it), or in combination with something (potion maybe?) that raises intellect.

One thought about wands.  Obviously they run out of charges.  I was wondering if we could work a way to recharge a wand at the expenditure of rare/uncommon tokens?  To recharge an uncommon wand, sacrifice 10 commons per charge.  For a Rare, sacrifice 10 uncommons per charge.  For UR, sacrifice 10 rares per charge.  It might open up possibilities for ultra-rare wands that could be used.<br />Just a thought.

<br />As far as needing a verbal component to activate, I believe Old style D&D didn't require it to be verbal (it was more based on Intellect). It was an activation sequence that only someone who studied the obscure arts could decipher.<br /><br />I think it woul be neat to let other classes use wands, maybe with the help of some of the new URs being proposed (I know I read this somewhere, sorry for forgetting who authored it), or in combination with something (potion maybe?) that raises intellect.<br />

<br /><br />I am just quoting the token guide re: the verbal portion of the rules.  And there were a couple of wands that were usable by other spell casting classes (like ranger, paladin and bard), detect magic was one and cure light wounds was the other. (Page53 of the token guide for both points).<br />Now DMG 3.5ed (page 245) does not say a verbal component is part of using a wand, but someone put it in the Token Guide, which is the only reason I pointed it out.  But we must always remember TD is loosely based on 3.5 (for now) and as such some discrepancies may exist.

It would seem to me that using common and uncommon tokens as wand rechargers and establishing tokens for this purpose makes sense. It could even be extended to other magically powered items in a manner similar to but not exactly like Morrowind/Oblivion. It functioned very nicely there. <br /><br />Activating wands verbally seems like a highly discretionary decision, and a weakness for any self-respecting mage to best avoid if possible.

I still think the whole recharging thing is ridiculous. What's next? Asking to let potions be drunk twice or scrolls cast twice? At least wands get multiple uses compared to other consumables. I just don't see why we should prop up wand usage. People can expend them if they please, and if not, not.<br /><br />If anything, we might consider ways to make them more efficient in the equivalent of DPS. Why not a token that lets a spell caster fire 2 volleys at once or two wands at once. There's another UR idea then. A bracelet that does basically that.

I see your point Henwy, and in some ways I agree. I agree with your passionate arguments against power creep. Still, what we have here is an awful lot of tokens that go essentially unused because the buyers have dozens of them and in some cases don't even need one of them. This approach is likely to increase the portion of common and uncommon tokens that have some use, even if that use is limited to wand users. With all of the control ability that can be had over this, e.g. make powerless wands rare or ultra rare, charge them with common and uncommon tokens that each hold a charge, etc. It's one way to consider for increasing the proportion of tokens from a pack of 300 that will ultimately have a use. I'm sure there are other ways, but this seems like a reasonable thing to consider to me, and there is a track record of success (im my opinion) elsewhere.

It's already been addressed through the trade tokens. I just don't see why that's somehow not enough and instead we have to open this nutty pandora's box. It's not as if there aren't enough freaking wands out there. Any argument made for wands goes triply so (or more) for any other consumables. Why not trade 5 uncommons to drink any rare potion twice?  After all, who would ever ever use a rare potion? WoooOOoOoOO, it only gets _one_ use.

Maybe the trade tokens will address it adequately. That remains to be seen. You really think it's a pandora's box? It doesn't seem that dangerous to me. Maybe if you can give an example that would help. Nuts are in the eye of the beholder and some nuts turn out to be candy.