Rods, wands and staves -- Which classes can use them

[anglefish]

It seems that scrolls are Wiz/Illusion only, but the M&T is sort of vague on what other races can use non-weapon/armor toys.

C.

[Treebore]

Thats another one of those areas for the CK decide. Personally I adapted the 3E version on these rules, as well as what armor can stack with what, magically speaking. Plus I use the 3E "item slots" rules for determining how much can be worn in what areas. IE one cloak can be worn/used, not 2 or more, etc...

Plus it made it makes it easy to put into house rules documents. Just go to the SRD on line and copy/paste the relevant sentences and edit to fit C&C.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Lord Dynel]

If I recall correctly, I think some of this is covered in M&T...I'm not 100% certain, though. I think clerics can use divine scrolls. Miscellaneous magic items, unless otherwise stated, are available to all. Rods, Ring, and Potions are available to all - though a couple of rings (notable Wizardry) might not make any sense for non-arcane casters to bear. Weapons and armor are dependant on what arms and armor a character can use. I think that leaves only wands and staves - which don't explicitly state in M&T who can or cannot use them.

I can't say what the Trolls intentions were for leaving it ambiguous. You could most definitely take Treebore's suggestion, as it is an excellent one. Personally, I would probably leave these to the hands of casters - druids, clerics, and wizards, depending on the nature of the wand or staff. Certainly, some staves could be used by more than spellcasters (this is especially true if you create or use ones not in M&T). To each their own, though...such is the wonderment of C&C's flexible system.

[Treebore]

I believe you are right about the M&T specifying most things, like potions, scrolls, and miscellaneous magic. So I think the only thing you really need to decide about is the wands, staves, and Rods.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Jonathan of White Haven]

anglefish wrote:
It seems that scrolls are Wiz/Illusion only, but the M&T is sort of vague on what other races can use non-weapon/armor toys.

Well, M&T doesn't actually have much on wands, saying mainly that they are essentially storage devices for spells (not specifically Wizard/Illusionist only, mind you), that they typically hold up to 50 charges, and that they can be recharged. There are some wands listed in the item tables, but no descriptions are given. There are a selection of rods and staves in the tables, along with descriptions.

But none of them, that I can recall (I don't have the book in front of me right now), place restrictions upon which classes can use them.

In my game, I use the lists, descriptions, and restrictions listed for wands, staves, and rods from 1E Unearthed Arcana. I did this because of the lack of descriptions/restrictions in M&T, along with the fact that my players acquired a Wand of Missiles. (Later, they found a Wand of Fireballs.)

For the former, I ruled that anyone could use the WoM, but Wizards or Illusionists could use it as a fire-and-forget device, automatically striking their target. Also, they could fire one or two missiles, at a cost of one charge per missile. Other classes would have to make a touch attack roll to see if they hit their target, but could only fire one missile at a time. For the latter, I ruled that only Wizards and Illusionists could use it.

I will probably end up using a combination of the tables and descriptions from M&T, and the 1E DMG and UA, as necessary.
_________________
"You don't understand, Beaufingle", said Lungwort cryptically. "You ARE dinner." -- M.M. Moamrath

[Lord Dynel]

After re-familiarizing myself with the 1e DMG and UA, I noticed while they don't give specific, blanket, rules as to what classes can and cannot use wands and staves, there are restrictions listed in the treasure tables. Many wands are available to any class, with some restrictions (mostly to Magic-users). As for staves, all but a couple are restricted to magic users, clerics, and druids. 3.x's rules are much more comprehensive (and easier to remember). The third method would be to adjudicate them as you wish. That's the great thing about C&C...it's flexibility.

Whichever method's right for you, remember to be fair and have fun!

[Barrataria]

FWIW, in the Basic/Expert rules, and I believe OD&D before them, magic-users (and elves) were the only characters that could use wands. This became important because magic-users at lower levels couldn't cast many spells. So, in essence it's an unstated character ability of magic-users in B/X. Only clerics and magic-users could use staves, depending on the type. Rings were open to anyone (except as pointed out a ring of wizardry or some such).

That gets clogged up a bit in AD&D with wand of wonder, etc. But you might decide that, to the extent 3E and CnC essentially make the wands just like scrolls of wizard spells, only wizards should use them. Again, that becomes like an extra ability for the wizard.

I don't know if that's helpful, but there once was logic to the idea that only magic-users got to use wands.
_________________
Fantasy Roleplaying Supplements for Basic, Expert, and Advanced games, free for download or print-on-demand and available now! http://www.barrataria.com/

[voynich]

page 117 of monsters and treasures, second printing, under the heading of rods states, specifically the following, with bold added for clarification

cited reference wrote:
Rods are scepter-like devices that have unique magical powers and do not usually have charges. Any class may use a rod.

it then continues

Quote:
Details relating to rod use vary from item to item. See the individual descriptions for specifics.

i read this to mean that, unless stated against the default, any class can use any rod.

page 119 of the same book, under the entry for staves reads the following

newly cited source wrote:
Unlike wands, which can contain a wide variety of spells, each staff is created to a certain theme and thus...

there is no mention, like for rods, and it only briefly compares itself to a wand, so i interpret this to mean a staff functions as a wand excepting for their differences (thematic approach, number of charges, and whether it is rechargeable.)

wands, according to page 120 of monsters and treasure, are

page noted wrote:
simply storage devices for spells and thus have no special descriptions.

my reading of this lends toward the aforementioned approach by others in that it is subject to whatever one would want. my inclination is to have wands and staves used by spellcasting characters only, but the treasure book does not seem to explicitly agree or deny that assessment.
_________________
the voynich manuscript is a mysterious illustrated book written in an indecipherable text. it is thought to have been written between 1450 and 1520. the author, script and language of the manuscript remain unknown.

[Treebore]

voynich wrote:
page 117 of monsters and treasures, second printing, under the heading of rods states, specifically the following, with bold added for clarification


it then continues



i read this to mean that, unless stated against the default, any class can use any rod.

page 119 of the same book, under the entry for staves reads the following



there is no mention, like for rods, and it only briefly compares itself to a wand, so i interpret this to mean a staff functions as a wand excepting for their differences (thematic approach, number of charges, and whether it is rechargeable.)

wands, according to page 120 of monsters and treasure, are


my reading of this lends toward the aforementioned approach by others in that it is subject to whatever one would want. my inclination is to have wands and staves used by spellcasting characters only, but the treasure book does not seem to explicitly agree or deny that assessment.

Right. This is where CK preferences come in. You want it to be "Wands can only be used by spellcasters with the relevant spell on their spell lists." IT can, or "Unless specifically stated otherwise in the Wand description, any class can use any wand.", or whatever you decide upon for your campaign.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Lord Dynel]

Treebore wrote:
Right. This is where CK preferences come in. You want it to be "Wands can only be used by spellcasters with the relevant spell on their spell lists." IT can, or "Unless specifically stated otherwise in the Wand description, any class can use any wand.", or whatever you decide upon for your campaign.

Exactly. Since it doesn't explictly state who can and cannot use wand and staves, as CK you have a few options - use a method in place from another system, or make your own rule. Honestly, I kind of miss the old days when a rogue or fighter could pick up the odd wand and go blasting away. I think 3e did well with a concise set of rules, but the more I think about this topic, the more I want to go back to the 1e rules...
CK: Okay, you are approached by two members of the town guard. The appear to be oming to arrest you.
Player 1: Uh-oh. Looks like we're in trouble now!
Player 2: Yeah, right. I point and laugh, and tell them to leave quietly unless they want to get hurt.
CK: They each pull small wooden sticks, that appear to be wands, out of their belts. One says, "Come quietly, or there will be...trouble!"
Player 2: Uh...uh...this doesn't look good.

[anonymous]

Surely in AD&D, the town guard would only have been able to use a Wand of Magic Missiles, unless the threat was to cancel a magic item belonging to the PCs?

[Lord Dynel]

Well, it was just a silly little illustration that served to show a bit of flexibility of the 1e method over the 3.x one. Nothing more.
1e definitely allows a bit more flexibility than 3.x does.

[voynich]

if those guards happened to possess a rod of rulership, the party would be in some serious trouble. or, if the dungeon master had incorporated the rules for zero-level characters from greyhawk adventures into the campaign, one of the guards could be an apprentice magic-user and hold a wand of paralyzation.

but, this a tad too much justification for my tastes.
_________________
the voynich manuscript is a mysterious illustrated book written in an indecipherable text. it is thought to have been written between 1450 and 1520. the author, script and language of the manuscript remain unknown.

[Lord Dynel]

voynich wrote:
if those guards happened to possess a rod of rulership, the party would be in some serious trouble. or, if the dungeon master had incorporated the rules for zero-level characters from greyhawk adventures into the campaign, one of the guards could be an apprentice magic-user and hold a wand of paralyzation.

but, this a tad too much justification for my tastes.

Indeed. I was just musing at the fact that players' rogues and/or fighters' could get back in the the wand-wielding business. And it would only add to the diversity of encounters.

[The Pugilist]

For a Magocracy, I kind of like the idea of 1 HD town guards with +1 Flaming Swords (but only function as magical items for 5 minutes after activation, and then need to be recharged) and Wands of Magic Missile or Sleep (10 Charges only).