TOPIC: Wand Rework Design // Meta Issues // Suggestion

Xavon wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Xavon wrote:
Matthew, you say a wand can kick out 20-30 damage in one room. That is one round of slides for a well kitted Barb, Ranger, or Monk.

This is extra damage on top od spell casting or sliding by the wand user with MoMM.

Oh, I am well aware of that. But considering a Wizard's best spell only does 20 damage plus bonuses, and it a one time thing, that still has to compare to the per turn output of a well built melee monster. Oh, and that is not counting Crits, which spells don't benefit from.

right but that is not is being dicussed. we are not discussing output comparsions between classes there are plenty of those conversations elsewhere.

Maybe an errata to MMM - don’t force the Wizard to swap out their SA wand, and use it twice per round. That way, only turn in one wand per room, not two.

And I think someone else pointed out, you don’t have to use a rare wand every room. Maybe use uncommons in the first four or five rooms if it’s a budget issue.

jedibcg wrote:

Xavon wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Xavon wrote:
Matthew, you say a wand can kick out 20-30 damage in one room. That is one round of slides for a well kitted Barb, Ranger, or Monk.

This is extra damage on top od spell casting or sliding by the wand user with MoMM.

Oh, I am well aware of that. But considering a Wizard's best spell only does 20 damage plus bonuses, and it a one time thing, that still has to compare to the per turn output of a well built melee monster. Oh, and that is not counting Crits, which spells don't benefit from.

right but that is not is being dicussed. we are not discussing output comparsions between classes there are plenty of those conversations elsewhere.

Aren't we? I thought one of the main reasons for the wand change was the 'large' damage bump it gave to casters (and then only the ones that have MMM). If that is the case, aren't damage comparisons relevant?

Xavon wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Xavon wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Xavon wrote:
Matthew, you say a wand can kick out 20-30 damage in one room. That is one round of slides for a well kitted Barb, Ranger, or Monk.

This is extra damage on top od spell casting or sliding by the wand user with MoMM.

Oh, I am well aware of that. But considering a Wizard's best spell only does 20 damage plus bonuses, and it a one time thing, that still has to compare to the per turn output of a well built melee monster. Oh, and that is not counting Crits, which spells don't benefit from.

right but that is not is being dicussed. we are not discussing output comparsions between classes there are plenty of those conversations elsewhere.

Aren't we? I thought one of the main reasons for the wand change was the 'large' damage bump it gave to casters (and then only the ones that have MMM). If that is the case, aren't damage comparisons relevant?

What is the max damage a wizard can do with a wand using it one time?

I don’t think it’s the damage being “large” as much as it’s automatic.. Sliders have to slide. So the fact they do more damage if they hit is hard to compare with a wizard who does less but never misses, not counting a couple of slide spells. But even those hit on a 15, even on Epic, and most monsters have an AC significantly higher than that.

Xavon wrote: Great analysis, Bob. Spot on.

Matthew, you say a wand can kick out 20-30 damage in one room. That is one round of slides for a well kitted Barb, Ranger, or Monk.

Frankly, I think we seem to be blaming the wands, when the offender is the Motor Mouth Medallion.

If I were to fix it, here's what I would do:
1) Keep wands unlimited. It is less of a hassle for payers and and DMs

2) Errata and if necessary, reprint the Motor Mouth. Make it only usable when the wearer casts a spell (not as a scroll). It limits it somewhat, especially for players recasting with EoE or Norns.

3) Wands used in combat (even for healing) require a slide of 15+ (with Dex and other accuracy bonuses added on).

+1

Brad Mortensen wrote: I don’t think it’s the damage being “large” as much as it’s automatic.. Sliders have to slide. So the fact they do more damage if they hit is hard to compare with a wizard who does less but never misses, not counting a couple of slide spells. But even those hit on a 15, even on Epic, and most monsters have an AC significantly higher than that.

Which is why I suggested making wands a slide at 15 instead.

Xavon wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Xavon wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Xavon wrote:
Matthew, you say a wand can kick out 20-30 damage in one room. That is one round of slides for a well kitted Barb, Ranger, or Monk.

This is extra damage on top od spell casting or sliding by the wand user with MoMM.

Oh, I am well aware of that. But considering a Wizard's best spell only does 20 damage plus bonuses, and it a one time thing, that still has to compare to the per turn output of a well built melee monster. Oh, and that is not counting Crits, which spells don't benefit from.

right but that is not is being dicussed. we are not discussing output comparsions between classes there are plenty of those conversations elsewhere.

Aren't we? I thought one of the main reasons for the wand change was the 'large' damage bump it gave to casters (and then only the ones that have MMM). If that is the case, aren't damage comparisons relevant?

i see nothing if Jeff’s comments on wands about damage output comparsions, nor the origin posters. So i would say no we are not.

I have largely given up on the wand debate but feel there is some interesting ideas here.

I largely look at consumables as something I just save for transmute, mostly because the price can start adding up quick if I’m dumping 6 to 8 wands per dungeons, I’ll run out of my current wands likely within 2 cons. If we say the price goes up with the demand, let’s say rare wands go up to $3 each (a low but fair price on a rare) that adds $18 easy to the cost of a run to use mystic mouth as intended basically. So I’ll likely just put mystic mouth up for sale after the rules are in place and hope someone needs it for a transmute. If the wands stay cheep then I may keep it and use it. I may just buy Trent out of stock at the $.89 each figuring I’ll get 3 runs out of them. But when you figure only 1 of every 40 rares is a wand it will not take long for all the cheap wands to evaporate from the market.

So basically I’ll use MMM until it becomes to expensive and I think that will be fast.

jedibcg wrote:

Xavon wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Xavon wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Xavon wrote:
Matthew, you say a wand can kick out 20-30 damage in one room. That is one round of slides for a well kitted Barb, Ranger, or Monk.

This is extra damage on top od spell casting or sliding by the wand user with MoMM.

Oh, I am well aware of that. But considering a Wizard's best spell only does 20 damage plus bonuses, and it a one time thing, that still has to compare to the per turn output of a well built melee monster. Oh, and that is not counting Crits, which spells don't benefit from.

right but that is not is being dicussed. we are not discussing output comparsions between classes there are plenty of those conversations elsewhere.

Aren't we? I thought one of the main reasons for the wand change was the 'large' damage bump it gave to casters (and then only the ones that have MMM). If that is the case, aren't damage comparisons relevant?

i see nothing if Jeff’s comments on wands about damage output comparsions, nor the origin posters. So i would say no we are not.

You are correct. But if we don't know that why, it is hard to accept the what/how. So we try to come up with likely solutions, suggest based upon them, and use the reasoning to back it up.

---

Alternate suggestion:
Wands are not consumable for regular use but are consumable (1/room) for MMM. Justified as the MMM drains the wand's magic to work. You want to use a wand normally, you show it the DM and announce it as your action. But to use MMM, you show the MMM to the DM, and hand her the wand to place on the board. The DM automatically applies the wand's damage (or healing?) at the end of each round of combat, and then throws it in the bin at the end.

Wayne Rhodes wrote: I have largely given up on the wand debate but feel there is some interesting ideas here.

I largely look at consumables as something I just save for transmute, mostly because the price can start adding up quick if I’m dumping 6 to 8 wands per dungeons, I’ll run out of my current wands likely within 2 cons. If we say the price goes up with the demand, let’s say rare wands go up to $3 each (a low but fair price on a rare) that adds $18 easy to the cost of a run to use mystic mouth as intended basically. So I’ll likely just put mystic mouth up for sale after the rules are in place and hope someone needs it for a transmute. If the wands stay cheep then I may keep it and use it. I may just buy Trent out of stock at the $.89 each figuring I’ll get 3 runs out of them. But when you figure only 1 of every 40 rares is a wand it will not take long for all the cheap wands to evaporate from the market.

So basically I’ll use MMM until it becomes to expensive and I think that will be fast.

DIBS!

Err, that is to say, I will be needing one for transmuting, so I would be interested in buying/trading for it, if you decide you don't want it.

I will say the new rules would have been amazing on Lorigorgon.

Here's an idea. Starting this year, print common wands that do 8 pts of damage. Don't print any more uncommon or rare ones. If later on an UR wants to be made, that could have a separate rule that it's "permanent".