DWW vs Wand Apept [Archive] - Wizards Community

DWW vs Wand Apept [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
scissors
05-13-05, 02:54 AM My apologies if this has been discussed, but I haven't seen it and I read a lot of posts. If it has been discussed, a link to the thread would be much appreciated.

How would you guys handle the Double Wand Weilder feat from CA? Would you allow it in conjuction with the Wand Adept's ability, replace it, or disallow it altogether?

For those not familiar with the differences:

Double Wand Wielder requires Two Weapon Fighting and Craft Wand as prereq. feats. It costs each wand 2 charges.

The Wand Adept ability ( from Sharn: City of Towers ) isn't a feat persay, so has no requirements other than the req'd class level, but costs each wand 1d4 charges.

I was just curious. Im planning on importing my Evereskan wizard to Eberron ( making her an artificer and wand adept ) and she has Double Wand Wielder... so I thought it'd be an awesome alternative to wizard.

Thanks in advance!

Edit: While reading this I realized it may belong on another board... but I thought it may be generalized enough to pass here. If not, I apologize.
Gez
05-13-05, 05:56 AM Hellcow hinted that the Double Wand Wielder feat should either not exist, or be gained as a bonus feat by the Cannith Wand Adept.

Otherwise, it steals the CWA's thunder.

I'd replace Dual Wand Use by DWW as a bonus feat. And I'd give a fourth level to the Cannith Wand Adept, like this:
Lvl BAB Fo Re Wil Special
4th +3 +1 +1 +4 Wandstrike, +1 spellcaster level

Wandstrike as a bonus feat, and +1 spellcaster level because losing out 4 spellcasting level is too harsh a price.

Kinda like the Spellhands, Soul of the North, and other "wanna pretend you're a gnome with three cantrips per day?" feats from CoAr. If they're exist as-is, they steal the Dragonmark's thunder, so they have to suffer additional restrictions if they want to exist in Eberron. Like having Least Dragonmark as a prerequisite.

Feat: Least Dragonmark required
Communicator: Scribing
Insightful: Detection
Necropolis Born: Death... Too bad it doesn't exist anymore!
Night Haunt: Shadow
Soul of the North: Storm
Spell Hand: Passage
Crimsonsun
05-25-05, 01:27 AM Hellcow hinted that the Double Wand Wielder feat should either not exist, or be gained as a bonus feat by the Cannith Wand Adept.

The only problem with that is that it completely locks off the ability for any race OTHER than human to get that ability. At most, change DWW to 1d4 charges, and give the feat to the Cannith wand adept for free. That would still keep the cost of the 2nd wand activation the same, but it would allow other races to be able to do the same ability
Sarlax
05-25-05, 02:12 AM I'd replace the ability with the feat. It strikes me as akward design to have a major class feature based on such a random feature.
Kid SixXx
05-25-05, 08:20 AM The only problem with that is that it completely locks off the ability for any race OTHER than human to get that ability.

Aha, but it also locks out humans if they are not from House Cannith, and even locks out House Cannith members if they don't have a Dragonmark, or are not Favored In House, since being either FIH or having a Dragonmark is a prereq to taking the PrC.

I'd really be tempted to keep it as an ability for the CWA, or make it a Bonus Feat, but you'd still have to qualify for the Bonus Feat before you were able to use it, correct?

If that's so, then that means that in order to use DWW, an Artificer will have to burn a feat slot he'd normally reserve for a crafting feat in order to take TWF, and he wouldn't get much mileage out of that feat I don't think.

Craft Wand would be simple, as Artificers get Craft Wand for free.
Crimsonsun
05-25-05, 08:34 AM I'd really be tempted to keep it as an ability for the CWA, or make it a Bonus Feat, but you'd still have to qualify for the Bonus Feat before you were able to use it, correct?

IIRC, if your given the specific feat, you dont need to meet the pre-reqs, but if your given a choice (fighter bonus feat, wizard bonus feat, etc) you have to meet the requirements
Kid SixXx
05-25-05, 08:55 AM IIRC, if your given the specific feat, you dont need to meet the pre-reqs, but if your given a choice (fighter bonus feat, wizard bonus feat, etc) you have to meet the requirements

That sounds about right: DWW would just be given out as a virtual feat.

I think I need another cup of coffee.

The "restricts other races" argument isn't terribly compelling to me, especially given that certain races, such as Shifters and Kalashtar, get their own special feats, so exclusion is commonplace.

Now that I've thought about it, I'd probably keep Dual Wand as a feature of the PrC. Not only does it make the PrC rather unique, but it also adds flavor to the notion that House Cannith's artificers would be among the best of the game world, and the CWA would be an example of an elite cadre.

Mechanically, there are no real differentiating qualities that separate one Artificer from another, but PrC's like the CWA add teeth to the concept of House Cannith being a premier faction among artificers, although the Gnomes are no slouches either.
Crimsonsun
05-25-05, 11:18 AM although the Gnomes are no slouches either.

Which is the reason im for DWW rather than purely CWA ability. *points at sig*
Kid SixXx
05-25-05, 11:58 AM Which is the reason im for DWW rather than purely CWA ability. *points at sig*

House Sivis has the Mark of Scribing so I'm not terribly sure how that relates to an argument that DWW should be an open feat, unless you're suggesting that it's simply be cool to have. On that basis, it's a personal opinion of how you'd prefer mechanics to operate.

If anything, House Sivis would make best use of the Geometer from Complete Arcane (I might even house rule the Geometer as being "Sivis only" for purposes of Eberron play), or since Gnomes are supposed to be the best known elemental binders (second only to Drow I think), a PrC should be developed with EB in mind and it should perhaps even be kept uniquely Gnomish in flavor.

My answer would be to make something unique that the Gnomes themselves excelled at doing, instead of snagging something from another arena.

Hmmm. I wonder when we'd see such a PrC. ;) *hint to Magic of Eberron devs* ;)
Crimsonsun
05-25-05, 05:49 PM House Sivis has the Mark of Scribing so I'm not terribly sure how that relates to an argument that DWW should be an open feat

Ive got no relation to Sivis, just a gnome ;) And a geomancer wouldnt help me (although it is a cool PrC) cuz Im an artificer lol
Kid SixXx
05-25-05, 06:05 PM Ive got no relation to Sivis, just a gnome ;) And a geomancer wouldnt help me (although it is a cool PrC) cuz Im an artificer lol

My fault for assuming. :(

There's not much available for Artificers other than House Cannith, but then again even a Changeling has to be a member of an organization in order to make use of the Cabinet Trickster.

Such is reality when playing a campaign with not a lot of shelf time. Your options can be terribly limited at times, and something cooler always invariably shows up in a future supplement that makes you curse the day you drafted your first character. :embarrass

I DM a young lady that plays a Kalashtar Psion and she invariably screams woe nearly every game session because she did not roll up a soulknife.

One can only hope that Magic of Eberron will bring even more options to the setting.
Crimsonsun
05-25-05, 06:18 PM My fault for assuming. :(

No reason to be sorry, you didnt know :)
Gez
05-25-05, 07:49 PM The only problem with that is that it completely locks off the ability for any race OTHER than human to get that ability.

I said "either suppress the feat entirely or give it as a bonus feat for the CWA".

While suppressing the feat locks the ability entirely (just as it was supposed to be, for any Eberron campaign where only core+Eberron books are allowed), giving it as a bonus feat doesn't. Just because rangers get Track as a bonus feat doesn't prevent anybody else from taking it.
aelryinth
05-26-05, 12:14 AM I'll second racial exclusivity...and in this case, House Exclusivity. Just make it a feat tied to the Dragonmark of Making and you are just fine.

DWW could certainly exist in some other format, but should be a lot harder to take. Making it better then the Wand Adept ability is just too much, on top of it...these guys ARE the master of Wands, why should a joe schmoe get a better ability? AT best, they should be at par.

I'd House Rule both Wand Adept and DWW are the same feat, and the feat's available to Mark of Making casters with Craft Wand at some level if they want it. If you want to open it to all casters, then yeah, stick on TWF for additional recourse.

It should be a pricey ability to get, meaning seen only in the hands of Cannith people for the most part.

===Aelryinth

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
scissors 05-13-05, 02:54 AM	My apologies if this has been discussed, but I haven't seen it and I read a lot of posts. If it has been discussed, a link to the thread would be much appreciated. How would you guys handle the Double Wand Weilder feat from CA? Would you allow it in conjuction with the Wand Adept's ability, replace it, or disallow it altogether? For those not familiar with the differences: Double Wand Wielder requires Two Weapon Fighting and Craft Wand as prereq. feats. It costs each wand 2 charges. The Wand Adept ability ( from Sharn: City of Towers ) isn't a feat persay, so has no requirements other than the req'd class level, but costs each wand 1d4 charges. I was just curious. Im planning on importing my Evereskan wizard to Eberron ( making her an artificer and wand adept ) and she has Double Wand Wielder... so I thought it'd be an awesome alternative to wizard. Thanks in advance! Edit: While reading this I realized it may belong on another board... but I thought it may be generalized enough to pass here. If not, I apologize.
Gez 05-13-05, 05:56 AM	Hellcow hinted that the Double Wand Wielder feat should either not exist, or be gained as a bonus feat by the Cannith Wand Adept. Otherwise, it steals the CWA's thunder. I'd replace Dual Wand Use by DWW as a bonus feat. And I'd give a fourth level to the Cannith Wand Adept, like this: Lvl BAB Fo Re Wil Special 4th +3 +1 +1 +4 Wandstrike, +1 spellcaster level Wandstrike as a bonus feat, and +1 spellcaster level because losing out 4 spellcasting level is too harsh a price. Kinda like the Spellhands, Soul of the North, and other "wanna pretend you're a gnome with three cantrips per day?" feats from CoAr. If they're exist as-is, they steal the Dragonmark's thunder, so they have to suffer additional restrictions if they want to exist in Eberron. Like having Least Dragonmark as a prerequisite. Feat: Least Dragonmark required Communicator: Scribing Insightful: Detection Necropolis Born: Death... Too bad it doesn't exist anymore! Night Haunt: Shadow Soul of the North: Storm Spell Hand: Passage
Crimsonsun 05-25-05, 01:27 AM	Hellcow hinted that the Double Wand Wielder feat should either not exist, or be gained as a bonus feat by the Cannith Wand Adept. The only problem with that is that it completely locks off the ability for any race OTHER than human to get that ability. At most, change DWW to 1d4 charges, and give the feat to the Cannith wand adept for free. That would still keep the cost of the 2nd wand activation the same, but it would allow other races to be able to do the same ability
Sarlax 05-25-05, 02:12 AM	I'd replace the ability with the feat. It strikes me as akward design to have a major class feature based on such a random feature.
Kid SixXx 05-25-05, 08:20 AM	The only problem with that is that it completely locks off the ability for any race OTHER than human to get that ability. Aha, but it also locks out humans if they are not from House Cannith, and even locks out House Cannith members if they don't have a Dragonmark, or are not Favored In House, since being either FIH or having a Dragonmark is a prereq to taking the PrC. I'd really be tempted to keep it as an ability for the CWA, or make it a Bonus Feat, but you'd still have to qualify for the Bonus Feat before you were able to use it, correct? If that's so, then that means that in order to use DWW, an Artificer will have to burn a feat slot he'd normally reserve for a crafting feat in order to take TWF, and he wouldn't get much mileage out of that feat I don't think. Craft Wand would be simple, as Artificers get Craft Wand for free.
Crimsonsun 05-25-05, 08:34 AM	I'd really be tempted to keep it as an ability for the CWA, or make it a Bonus Feat, but you'd still have to qualify for the Bonus Feat before you were able to use it, correct? IIRC, if your given the specific feat, you dont need to meet the pre-reqs, but if your given a choice (fighter bonus feat, wizard bonus feat, etc) you have to meet the requirements
Kid SixXx 05-25-05, 08:55 AM	IIRC, if your given the specific feat, you dont need to meet the pre-reqs, but if your given a choice (fighter bonus feat, wizard bonus feat, etc) you have to meet the requirements That sounds about right: DWW would just be given out as a virtual feat. I think I need another cup of coffee. The "restricts other races" argument isn't terribly compelling to me, especially given that certain races, such as Shifters and Kalashtar, get their own special feats, so exclusion is commonplace. Now that I've thought about it, I'd probably keep Dual Wand as a feature of the PrC. Not only does it make the PrC rather unique, but it also adds flavor to the notion that House Cannith's artificers would be among the best of the game world, and the CWA would be an example of an elite cadre. Mechanically, there are no real differentiating qualities that separate one Artificer from another, but PrC's like the CWA add teeth to the concept of House Cannith being a premier faction among artificers, although the Gnomes are no slouches either.
Crimsonsun 05-25-05, 11:18 AM	although the Gnomes are no slouches either. Which is the reason im for DWW rather than purely CWA ability. points at sig
Kid SixXx 05-25-05, 11:58 AM	Which is the reason im for DWW rather than purely CWA ability. points at sig House Sivis has the Mark of Scribing so I'm not terribly sure how that relates to an argument that DWW should be an open feat, unless you're suggesting that it's simply be cool to have. On that basis, it's a personal opinion of how you'd prefer mechanics to operate. If anything, House Sivis would make best use of the Geometer from Complete Arcane (I might even house rule the Geometer as being "Sivis only" for purposes of Eberron play), or since Gnomes are supposed to be the best known elemental binders (second only to Drow I think), a PrC should be developed with EB in mind and it should perhaps even be kept uniquely Gnomish in flavor. My answer would be to make something unique that the Gnomes themselves excelled at doing, instead of snagging something from another arena. Hmmm. I wonder when we'd see such a PrC. ;) hint to Magic of Eberron devs ;)
Crimsonsun 05-25-05, 05:49 PM	House Sivis has the Mark of Scribing so I'm not terribly sure how that relates to an argument that DWW should be an open feat Ive got no relation to Sivis, just a gnome ;) And a geomancer wouldnt help me (although it is a cool PrC) cuz Im an artificer lol
Kid SixXx 05-25-05, 06:05 PM	Ive got no relation to Sivis, just a gnome ;) And a geomancer wouldnt help me (although it is a cool PrC) cuz Im an artificer lol My fault for assuming. :( There's not much available for Artificers other than House Cannith, but then again even a Changeling has to be a member of an organization in order to make use of the Cabinet Trickster. Such is reality when playing a campaign with not a lot of shelf time. Your options can be terribly limited at times, and something cooler always invariably shows up in a future supplement that makes you curse the day you drafted your first character. :embarrass I DM a young lady that plays a Kalashtar Psion and she invariably screams woe nearly every game session because she did not roll up a soulknife. One can only hope that Magic of Eberron will bring even more options to the setting.
Crimsonsun 05-25-05, 06:18 PM	My fault for assuming. :( No reason to be sorry, you didnt know :)
Gez 05-25-05, 07:49 PM	The only problem with that is that it completely locks off the ability for any race OTHER than human to get that ability. I said "either suppress the feat entirely or give it as a bonus feat for the CWA". While suppressing the feat locks the ability entirely (just as it was supposed to be, for any Eberron campaign where only core+Eberron books are allowed), giving it as a bonus feat doesn't. Just because rangers get Track as a bonus feat doesn't prevent anybody else from taking it.
aelryinth 05-26-05, 12:14 AM	I'll second racial exclusivity...and in this case, House Exclusivity. Just make it a feat tied to the Dragonmark of Making and you are just fine. DWW could certainly exist in some other format, but should be a lot harder to take. Making it better then the Wand Adept ability is just too much, on top of it...these guys ARE the master of Wands, why should a joe schmoe get a better ability? AT best, they should be at par. I'd House Rule both Wand Adept and DWW are the same feat, and the feat's available to Mark of Making casters with Craft Wand at some level if they want it. If you want to open it to all casters, then yeah, stick on TWF for additional recourse. It should be a pricey ability to get, meaning seen only in the hands of Cannith people for the most part. ===Aelryinth