Why would wizards want wands?

[madhopper50]

Sorry, but I can't resist: Haven't you learned yet, it's "not the size of the wand but the magic in it"!

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

And that minimum damage of 1d6 for even a pencil-sized stick has always struck me as one of the best weapons in the game.

ITL 148: Disadvantage: does no damage of its own if you strike with it.

[pzmcgwire]

John Wick would disagree with that statement about a pencil not doing any damage. :)

[Skarg]

Also, some wizards may have zero intention to fight anything, and not like carrying a silver dagger around.

And, though Henry asked to omit these, all the endless social reasons some wizards may have in various cultures and settings and situations.

[Rolando]

Carrying a wand is comfortable, fashionable and socially acceptable.

Non adventuring mages probably prefer them, specially the academic types, to daggers and heavy staffs. Some may prefer the aesthetic of an adorned staff though, but it will look outdated and "rough" for big city mages and the big academies.

What else you need but the approval of your peers?

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by hcobb

ITL 148: Disadvantage: does no damage of its own if you strike with it.

I for one never take away from any wizard character what they had or could have had if created under the rules in Wizard, regardless of what any edition of ITL said later.

Identical quotes from Wizard (1978, page 16) and Legacy Wizard (2018, page 19):

"Regardless of what the staff looks like (rod, wand, quarterstaff, etc.), it does one die of damage when the wizard hits with it. Striking with the staff is treated just as though the wizard were a fighter using a one-die weapon. It costs no ST to strike with a staff."

For me that trumps Legacy ITL 148, and always will. It is a 40 year old precedent, and they chose not to change any word of it when Wizard was reissued in 2018. That a small magic wand stings with 1d6 damage could be considered the original (and less complicated) "occult zap".

Of course. YMMV.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by pzmcgwire

A wand or chopstick is the same size as a dagger/stiletto, so I'd think a wand could be used to defend.

A dagger is made of steal. A chopstick is not. Defending with chopsticks will just break your chopsticks. Now how are you going to eat lunch?

[Axly Suregrip]

ITL 148 "The wizard must be holding or wearing the staff for it to be useful."

Thus another reason for a wand-staff is to have an usable ST battery in your pocket. Not even on a belt like a dagger but in a pocket or belt pouch, like the hairpin-staff. Assuming it is a manastaff.

[pzmcgwire]

There are metal chopsticks and a wand could be a silver metal wand as well.

Perhaps you haven't seen enough martial art films where defending or attacking with chopsticks isn't so uncomon.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

A dagger is made of steal. A chopstick is not. Defending with chopsticks will just break your chopsticks. Now how are you going to eat lunch?

Grogan swung his greatsword at the bamboo chopstick but it did not break. "By Zeus, what sorcery is this?"
"Staff II" the tiny Tengu witch replied.