07-16-2022, 08:54 AM | #31 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Why would wizards want wands?
Quote:
Thanks, Axly! |
|
07-17-2022, 02:26 AM | #33 |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Why would wizards want wands?
In principle. I see that as actually true. If allowing, as per Wizard, that a wand is a 1d6 damage weapon, it should be as good for Defend and parrying as you'd allow for a rapier, hatchet, or fuller size Staff. Not because it does or doesn't look big enough, but because it's a magic weapon that does the same combat damage as those other weapons (if you accept the Wizard rule quoted in my last post).
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
07-17-2022, 05:06 AM | #34 |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Why would wizards want wands?
I concur. Before Legacy I always played that (for combat purposes) a staff was a staff was a staff, and was a wizard's 1d6 weapon regardless of its exact shape and size, from wand up to a Gandalf-esque branch. (Upgrade-able with Staff of Power, iirc).
With Legacy expanding a Staffs with occult strikes and mana, I've generally continued to play all staffs (including wands) as 1d6 physical weapons in addition to their new abilities. Where I've shaken things up (I believe under HCobb's influence) is in allowing a walking stick/staff be used as a 1 handed or 2 handed club, in which case it does 1d6 or club damage, whichever is higher. Wands don't get that, but it doesn't matter for most wizards. |
07-17-2022, 06:56 AM | #36 |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Why would wizards want wands?
“At best”? Shouldn’t the value of what is held be dictated by circumstance? The options are myriad: an apple, key, glass of wine, lover’s hand, letter of introduction, quill pen, garter, mirror, dice, pet ferret, pearl, harmonica, rope, book, …
|
07-17-2022, 01:39 PM | #37 |
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Durham, NC
|
Re: Why would wizards want wands?
If you are playing with just legacy ITL (not mixing in Wizard rules' staff), then the 1d6 is the occult attack and it costs 1 ST. Wizard rules the staff 1d6 is free. Thus with legacy ITL the club damage matters. 1 ST per strike adds up.
BTW, I allow two handed weapons to be carried in one hand. Thus a spear or two-handed club in one hand with a torch in the other is okay. The torch may be dropped in an instant since torches may be dropped without going out (ITL 124 "An intentionally dropped torch will not go out."). I am lenient with them being carried by the temporarily freed hand of person carrying a two handed weapon in the other hand. BTW, scrolls are two handed weapons, ITL 107 "A magic scroll is a 2-handed weapon." So even if you are requiring your wizard to have a 1-handed club-staff to carry a scroll he cannot use the scroll without dropping the staff. |
07-17-2022, 01:46 PM | #38 | |
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Indiana
|
Re: Why would wizards want wands?
Quote:
I concur that carrying a two handed weapon and wielding it are two different things. It takes all of one or two seconds to drop a torch and add the other hand to the two handed weapon which is all well within the 5 seconds per turn. |
|
07-17-2022, 04:25 PM | #39 |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Why would wizards want wands?
And then here is another plus for the wand. Where I'd rule a wizard must drop a full-size staff to do anything two-handed in the same turn (such as using that scroll in Axly's example), I'd allow a wand to be quickly tucked in a belt or up a sleeve, or dropped into an external pocket in the same turn as using anything two-handed that was already held in the other hand.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
07-17-2022, 04:28 PM | #40 |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Why would wizards want wands?
Heck, holding a wand in the same hand as a book or scroll shouldn't even be a problem.
|
|
|