Currently, a 14th level Artillerist focused exclusively on damage can deal.
Poison Spray 3d12 = 3 > 36
+5 (Int Mod) Or +2 (ignores Half-Cover)
4d8 Force Damage as a bonus action with 2 turrets = 4 > 32
Ignoring resistances, you can deal up to 36+5+32= 73 damage and if target is under half cover, use the other wand to deal up to 70 damage while ignoring it.
This is without any cost other than summoning the turrets which last 10 minutes.
Alternatively, they can use Fireball and deal 8d6 +2 ignoring half cover in addition to the 4d8 force damage on survivors.
That's up to 46+2+32= 80 damage ignoring half cover.
Or is it that you guys forgot the Prototype wand only gives the bonus to the single assigned cantrip while the Enhanced Wand gives it to every spell you cast? Their effects are incompatible.
Their effects are actually quite synergistic. Artillerists can use wands as a spell focus for casting spells, including the Prototype Wand.
So if Artillerist has an Enhanced Prototype Wand, it can give +1/+2 to attack rolls for any spell using the wand as a spell focus due to it being Enhanced...
Or it can give +1 / +2 to attacks with the cantrip(s) within the Prototype Wand (due to it being Enhanced) and then deal + Int Modifier (Prototype) to damage.
Nothing in the text for the Wand Prototype does it say that the Wand Prototype can be used as a spellcasting focus. The Wand Prototype is just like a Wand of Fireballs or Wand of Magic Missile, it can only cast the single cantrip that is invest in it (or 2 cantrips if you are 14th level or higher).
Yes you can, it is part of Tools of the Trade, where it says you gain the ability to use rods, staves and wands as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells and the prototype wand is a wand, so it can be used as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells.
You guys misunderstood. The effects are incompatible as in exclusive. You use one wand for one thing and the other for something else, not because you can't do the same with the other wand but because it brings an exclusive benefit.
I did not meant you cannot use a wand to cast a spell because that is a subclass feature.
What brings you to that conclusion? As far as I an tell, none of the actual wording of the items or the DMG rules on using magic items says they would be exclusive.
ACTIVATING AN ITEM
Activating some magic items requires a user to do something special, such as holding the item and uttering a command word. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use one or more of the following rules for their activation. If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item.
[paragraphs on command words/consumable items which aren't relevant]
SPELLS
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.
A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability-perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature- your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.
Dungeon Master's Guide, p 141. Emphasis mine.
WAND PROTOTYPE
By 6th level, you now regularly experiment with channeling different types of magic through wands. Whenever you finish a long rest and your woodcarver’s tools are with you, you can touch a nonmagical, wooden wand and turn it into a magic item. When you do so, you invest it with one artificer cantrip of your choice—even one you don’t know—that has a casting time of 1 action. As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip, using your spellcasting ability modifier (other creatures are unable to use the wand’s magic). The wand loses this magic when you finish your next long rest. Any damage roll you make for a cantrip in the wand gains a bonus equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1). When you reach 14th level in this class, you can invest the wand with two cantrips at the end of a long rest.
The Artificer Returns, p 10. Emphasis mine.
ENHANCED WAND
Item: A wand (requires attunement)
While holding this wand, a creature gains a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls. In addition, the creature ignores half cover when making a spell attack. The bonus increases to +2 when you reach 12th level in this class.
The Artificer Returns, p 12. Emphasis mine.
The DMG says that the requirements for activating a magic item are specified in that item's description. The description for the wand prototype says that it requires an action to produce the cantrip and that only the maker can use it. The description for the enhanced wand says only that the creature must be attuned to it and holding it. Is there any reason the maker can't use an action for the wand prototype while holding the enhanced wand? I can't think of one. Further, the enhanced wand's description does not place any restrictions on the origin of the spell attack, except that it be made by the creature attuned to and holding the wand.
I think the key concept clash people are having is "Casting through a Wand/Arcane Focus." The wording of Enhanced wand specifically says you just need to be holding it to get the benefit, while the wording of Wand Prototype specifically states you produce the Cantrip from the Wand. Hence I can hold the Enhanced Wand in my left hand while casting the Cantrip using the Prototype in my right hand.
Also, as above people have pointed out, the wording of Tools of the Trade Wands, and Infuse item permit both to be used as Arcane Focuses. But nowhere in 5e does it state that all magic has to come from the focus.
Lastly there is no RAW rules that prevent you from dual wielding wands and no RAW rules that explicitly say that non weapons are not possible to dual wield, eg. I can definitely pick up one rock in each hand in my DnD game.
Yeah, both can be used as a focus, i never said anything contrary to this and am in fact supporting this? But only one item can be used as a focus at a time since one already replaces the material components of a spell (of zero value)
If the material component is already replaced by focus #1, focus #2 doesn't play any part in casting the spell since the material component is already replaced. And to use a spellcasting focus you must be replacing a material component.
Yeah, both can be used as a focus, i never said anything contrary to this and am in fact supporting this? But only one item can be used as a focus at a time since one already replaces the material components of a spell (of zero value)
If the material component is already replaced by focus #1, focus #2 doesn't play any part in casting the spell since the material component is already replaced. And to use a spellcasting focus you must be replacing a material component.
Nowhere in Enhanced Wand does it say you have to be "using it as a focus" to gain it's benefits. You only have to be holding it.
Yeah, both can be used as a focus, i never said anything contrary to this and am in fact supporting this? But only one item can be used as a focus at a time since one already replaces the material components of a spell (of zero value)
If the material component is already replaced by focus #1, focus #2 doesn't play any part in casting the spell since the material component is already replaced. And to use a spellcasting focus you must be replacing a material component.
Nowhere in Enhanced Wand does it say you have to be "using it as a focus" to gain it's benefits. You only have to be holding it.
Indeed. Further, many spellcasters (clerics, paladins, rangers, arcane tricksters, eldritch knights) cannot use a wand as a focus at all. Does that make the enhanced wand useless for them? That seems like really poor design.
Yeah, both can be used as a focus, i never said anything contrary to this and am in fact supporting this? But only one item can be used as a focus at a time since one already replaces the material components of a spell (of zero value)
If the material component is already replaced by focus #1, focus #2 doesn't play any part in casting the spell since the material component is already replaced. And to use a spellcasting focus you must be replacing a material component.
Nowhere in Enhanced Wand does it say you have to be "using it as a focus" to gain it's benefits. You only have to be holding it.
Indeed. Further, many spellcasters (clerics, paladins, rangers, arcane tricksters, eldritch knights) cannot use a wand as a focus at all. Does that make the enhanced wand useless for them? That seems like really poor design.
Kind of. For those classes they just need a free hand to provide the material and somantic components. It is clear the Enhanced Wand is designed for arcane casters that can use wands as a focus.
I don't think it is that poor of design, not all infusions are designed for every class or party. Is it poor design that classes that don't have proficiency with any armor / shield can't use the Enhanced Defence infusion?
This is the only segment of chapter 10 that mentions Spellcasting focuses:
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
1 - a spellcasting focus replaces the need for material components without specified value.
2 - if the material component requirement is already replaced by the first wand, WHAT could a second wand do to become involved in the spellcasting?
3 - As Raw, you only need to hold the Enhanced Wand, true. But in play the wand is truly not involved in the process of spellcasting.
As such either ruling applies, as decided by the individual DM? Or at least until confirmed either way.
This is the only segment of chapter 10 that mentions Spellcasting focuses:
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
1 - a spellcasting focus replaces the need for material components without specified value.
2 - if the material component requirement is already replaced by the first wand, WHAT could a second wand do to become involved in the spellcasting?
3 - As Raw, you only need to hold the Enhanced Wand, true. But in play the wand is truly not involved in the process of spellcasting.
As such either ruling applies, as decided by the individual DM? Or at least until confirmed either way.
In the sense that ANY ruling applies if the DM decides it so, I suppose that's true. However, the rules are pretty clear that Enhanced Wand only needs to be held(that could change in the future, but that's the rule right now). I checked the PHB and nowhere does it say that rules only apply if NeoPhantom thinks they make sense.
Currently, a 14th level Artillerist focused exclusively on damage can deal.
Poison Spray 3d12 = 3 > 36
+5 (Int Mod) Or (ignores Half-Cover)
4d8 Force Damage as a bonus action with 2 turrets = 4 > 32
Ignoring resistances, you can deal up to 36+5+32= 73 damage and if target is under half cover, use the other wand to deal up to 68 damage while ignoring it.
This is without any cost other than summoning the turrets which last 10 minutes.
Alternatively, they can use Fireball and deal 8d6 ignoring half cover in addition to the 4d8 force damage on survivors.
That's up to 46+32= 78 damage ignoring half cover.
Or is it that you guys forgot the Prototype wand only gives the bonus to the single assigned cantrip while the Enhanced Wand gives it to every spell you cast? Their effects are incompatible.
Your math is incorrect.
The Wand Prototype that has Poison Spray (saving throw spell) it can do....
Poison Spray 3d12 = 3 or 36 + INT mod so that can be a minimum of 4 (+1 INT) to 8 (+5 INT) points of damage and a max of 37 (+1 INT) or 41 (+5 INT).
For the Force Ballista turret (2d8) they have a max of 16 points of force damage or 32 point if the player rolls a crit. If 2 Force Ballista turrets are on the field those numbers are double. So, in a single turn with the best possible outcome the player can have....
36 Poison Damage + +5 INT mode + 64 Force Damage = 105 points of damage*
*This math shows target failed their saving throw for the poison spray and 2 crits were rolled for the turrets and the player rolling max damage on all the dice.
The Enhanced Wand can give the player a +1 or +2 to their spell attack rolls and allows them to ignore 1/2 cover.
In the case of a Fireball spell being cast, the max damage of the Fireball spell and the 2 turrrets would be 112 points of damage.
Math wasnt incorrect. I calculated the cantrip in two phases first the rolls 3d12 = max 36 then the maximun posible modifier +5 Int Mod. Then I calculated 2 turrets because a player can have up to 2 out at the same time so 4d8 = 32 force damage.
I DID however exclude critical hits from the calculation, which results in the additional 32 force damage in your calculation totaling 105 damage.
Fireball was wrong though as it should be 8d6 = 48 plus 2 plus 4d8 = 32 equaling 82 damage ignoring half cover. Or 114 with crits which as mentioned were not originally part of the calculation. Though it seems you miscalculated the +2 with the Fireball.
Where exactly is that +2 to fireball damage coming from?
@NeoPhantom The above wasn’t directly to you but to multiple posts over past pages. The main point directed to you which I still think you disagree with is:
You do not have to cast through the Enhanced wand to receive the benefit. Otherwise they would have said so. Think of bracers of archery, you don’t actually shoot them to get the bonus.
About the conversation regarding Enhanced Wand: I think this may be something to ask about in the survey. It just seems a little far-fetched to me to be able to gain the benefits of a wand without casting through it, it would be like using 2-weapon fighting and getting a +2 bonus on all your attacks when only one of your weapons has that bonus.
Off-topic, does anyone else think Swift Quiver should be on the Artificer spell list? It seems to me like something that would be thematically appropriate to the class.
@derekleketchum: Rude... and uncalled for since I had already retracted the statement. Seriously, that's what discussions are for.
@Arutha: thing is the bracers are an equipped item, so it makes sense. But wands are held items which usually need to be in use or activated to be in effect... anyways below...
@Mezzurah: you have resumed what I have been trying to convey much better than myself and for that you have my upmost thanks.
Swift quiver... might be a good one since it's so rare to see. But isn't it redundant with the Repeated Shot infusion? After all with it you don't use ammunition at all so the spell becomes redundant (endless ammunition) or inoperable (2 bonus attacks when using the ammunition).
About the conversation regarding Enhanced Wand: I think this may be something to ask about in the survey. It just seems a little far-fetched to me to be able to gain the benefits of a wand without casting through it, it would be like using 2-weapon fighting and getting a +2 bonus on all your attacks when only one of your weapons has that bonus.
Off-topic, does anyone else think Swift Quiver should be on the Artificer spell list? It seems to me like something that would be thematically appropriate to the class.
It does seem far-fetched, but there are worse combinations of effects that play double-dutch with the rules as written out there. Anyone who's ever conjured pixies and had them polymorph their entire party into dinosaurs knows what I'm talking about. The way benefits and effects in this game are worded matters. Look at the wording for a +1 Weapon: "You have a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon." Now imagine if the emphasized part wasn't there. For another example, look at the wording for a Defender sword: "You gain a +3 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The first time you attack with the sword on each of your turns, you can transfer some or all of the sword's bonus to your Armor Class, instead of using the bonus on any attacks that turn. For example, you could reduce the bonus to your attack and damage rolls to +1 and gain a +2 bonus to AC. The adjusted bonuses remain in effect until the start of your next turn, althoughyou must hold the sword to gain a bonus to AC from it." Again, imagine if the emphasized part wasn't there.
As to your off-topic idea of adding swift quiver to the artificer spell list, I agree that it's thematically appropriate but between the existing short list of 5th-level artificer spells and limited number of 5th-level spell slots, I don't think it's feasible to add it.
@derekleketchum: Rude... and uncalled for since I had already retracted the statement. Seriously, that's what discussions are for.
@Arutha: thing is the bracers are an equipped item, so it makes sense. But wands are held items which usually need to be in use or activated to be in effect... anyways below...
@Mezzurah: you have resumed what I have been trying to convey much better than myself and for that you have my upmost thanks.
Swift quiver... might be a good one since it's so rare to see. But isn't it redundant with the Repeated Shot infusion? After all with it you don't use ammunition at all so the spell becomes redundant (endless ammunition) or inoperable (2 bonus attacks when using the ammunition).
No offense was meant or intended. I literally only discovered this forum 2 days ago and 50+ pages of discussion already in. If you're expecting me to be so up-to-date on your posting history, perhaps your expectations of other people aren't where they ought to be.
@derekleketchum: Rude... and uncalled for since I had already retracted the statement. Seriously, that's what discussions are for.
@Arutha: thing is the bracers are an equipped item, so it makes sense. But wands are held items which usually need to be in use or activated to be in effect... anyways below...
@Mezzurah: you have resumed what I have been trying to convey much better than myself and for that you have my upmost thanks.
Swift quiver... might be a good one since it's so rare to see. But isn't it redundant with the Repeated Shot infusion? After all with it you don't use ammunition at all so the spell becomes redundant (endless ammunition) or inoperable (2 bonus attacks when using the ammunition).
No offense was meant or intended. I literally only discovered this forum 2 days ago and 50+ pages of discussion already in. If you're expecting me to be so up-to-date on your posting history, perhaps your expectations of other people aren't where they ought to be.
???????? I meant it was rude specifying a name like that, specially in a context that makes the other party appear as overbearing.
"I checked the PHB and nowhere does it say that rules only apply if NeoPhantom thinks they make sense."
I have no expectation on the internet. That's basically the only rule on the internet after all. But calling out things that are not liked or approved in forums to prevent future mishaps is a thing I do. It's a courtesy to the other party in my opinion.
As if I've here any longer than you have! Specially since the comment I mentioned is the one you quoted in the first place. Lol
@derekleketchum: Rude... and uncalled for since I had already retracted the statement. Seriously, that's what discussions are for.
@Arutha: thing is the bracers are an equipped item, so it makes sense. But wands are held items which usually need to be in use or activated to be in effect... anyways below...
@Mezzurah: you have resumed what I have been trying to convey much better than myself and for that you have my upmost thanks.
Swift quiver... might be a good one since it's so rare to see. But isn't it redundant with the Repeated Shot infusion? After all with it you don't use ammunition at all so the spell becomes redundant (endless ammunition) or inoperable (2 bonus attacks when using the ammunition).
No offense was meant or intended. I literally only discovered this forum 2 days ago and 50+ pages of discussion already in. If you're expecting me to be so up-to-date on your posting history, perhaps your expectations of other people aren't where they ought to be.
???????? I meant it was rude specifying a name like that, specially in a context that makes the other party appear as overbearing.
"I checked the PHB and nowhere does it say that rules only apply if NeoPhantom thinks they make sense."
I have no expectation on the internet. That's basically the only rule on the internet after all. But calling out things that are not liked or approved in forums to prevent future mishaps is a thing I do. It's a courtesy to the other party in my opinion.
As if I've here any longer than you have! Specially since the comment I mentioned is the one you quoted in the first place. Lol
I'm not the one who called you out like that. That was @TheresNoRaceLikeGnome. But please, tell me more about how "it was rude specifying a name like that, specially in a context that makes the other party appear as overbearing."
@derekleketchum: Rude... and uncalled for since I had already retracted the statement. Seriously, that's what discussions are for.
@Arutha: thing is the bracers are an equipped item, so it makes sense. But wands are held items which usually need to be in use or activated to be in effect... anyways below...
@Mezzurah: you have resumed what I have been trying to convey much better than myself and for that you have my upmost thanks.
Swift quiver... might be a good one since it's so rare to see. But isn't it redundant with the Repeated Shot infusion? After all with it you don't use ammunition at all so the spell becomes redundant (endless ammunition) or inoperable (2 bonus attacks when using the ammunition).
No offense was meant or intended. I literally only discovered this forum 2 days ago and 50+ pages of discussion already in. If you're expecting me to be so up-to-date on your posting history, perhaps your expectations of other people aren't where they ought to be.
???????? I meant it was rude specifying a name like that, specially in a context that makes the other party appear as overbearing.
"I checked the PHB and nowhere does it say that rules only apply if NeoPhantom thinks they make sense."
I have no expectation on the internet. That's basically the only rule on the internet after all. But calling out things that are not liked or approved in forums to prevent future mishaps is a thing I do. It's a courtesy to the other party in my opinion.
As if I've here any longer than you have! Specially since the comment I mentioned is the one you quoted in the first place. Lol
I'm not the one who called you out like that. That was @TheresNoRaceLikeGnome. But please, tell me more about how "it was rude specifying a name like that, specially in a context that makes the other party appear as overbearing."
In that case, i apologize for reading the wrong username.
As for what I meant (in terms of concept) is that by saying a name as an example, particularly in a way that seems that the person only cares for his own opinion, such as the example provided in which it specifies that the "rules don't say that x person is correct" and its many variations, the person will feel the comment as a personal affront rather than a continuation of the conversation.
Better expressions could easily be: "We'll have to check on survey", "the rules by raw don't specify", "No one other than Swords of the Coast and affiliates directly determine the oficial rulings", etc depending on the context.
Perhaps this is non-issue in certain parts of the world where such dialect is prevalent, but in other parts it may cause some... unnecessary conflict. This I say from experience seeing such things occur. Hence, why I always specify it.
I just think that for the Artilerest that the Improved Wand infusion should work with the Prototype Wand as using 2 wands is silly. It is not like the Prototype Wand is considered in my opinion a real magic item, for me if anyone could cast that cantrip out of it sure but it is there for the simple act of giving the Artilerest a combat cantrip and a second on at level 14.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What brings you to that conclusion? As far as I an tell, none of the actual wording of the items or the DMG rules on using magic items says they would be exclusive.
The DMG says that the requirements for activating a magic item are specified in that item's description. The description for the wand prototype says that it requires an action to produce the cantrip and that only the maker can use it. The description for the enhanced wand says only that the creature must be attuned to it and holding it. Is there any reason the maker can't use an action for the wand prototype while holding the enhanced wand? I can't think of one. Further, the enhanced wand's description does not place any restrictions on the origin of the spell attack, except that it be made by the creature attuned to and holding the wand.
I think the key concept clash people are having is "Casting through a Wand/Arcane Focus." The wording of Enhanced wand specifically says you just need to be holding it to get the benefit, while the wording of Wand Prototype specifically states you produce the Cantrip from the Wand. Hence I can hold the Enhanced Wand in my left hand while casting the Cantrip using the Prototype in my right hand.
Also, as above people have pointed out, the wording of Tools of the Trade Wands, and Infuse item permit both to be used as Arcane Focuses. But nowhere in 5e does it state that all magic has to come from the focus.
Lastly there is no RAW rules that prevent you from dual wielding wands and no RAW rules that explicitly say that non weapons are not possible to dual wield, eg. I can definitely pick up one rock in each hand in my DnD game.
Also found below question discussing this exact question from pre Artificer perspective: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/a3zgjl/dual_wielding_wands/
Yeah, both can be used as a focus, i never said anything contrary to this and am in fact supporting this? But only one item can be used as a focus at a time since one already replaces the material components of a spell (of zero value)
If the material component is already replaced by focus #1, focus #2 doesn't play any part in casting the spell since the material component is already replaced. And to use a spellcasting focus you must be replacing a material component.
Nowhere in Enhanced Wand does it say you have to be "using it as a focus" to gain it's benefits. You only have to be holding it.
Indeed. Further, many spellcasters (clerics, paladins, rangers, arcane tricksters, eldritch knights) cannot use a wand as a focus at all. Does that make the enhanced wand useless for them? That seems like really poor design.
Kind of. For those classes they just need a free hand to provide the material and somantic components. It is clear the Enhanced Wand is designed for arcane casters that can use wands as a focus.
I don't think it is that poor of design, not all infusions are designed for every class or party. Is it poor design that classes that don't have proficiency with any armor / shield can't use the Enhanced Defence infusion?
This is the only segment of chapter 10 that mentions Spellcasting focuses:
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
1 - a spellcasting focus replaces the need for material components without specified value.
2 - if the material component requirement is already replaced by the first wand, WHAT could a second wand do to become involved in the spellcasting?
3 - As Raw, you only need to hold the Enhanced Wand, true. But in play the wand is truly not involved in the process of spellcasting.
As such either ruling applies, as decided by the individual DM? Or at least until confirmed either way.
In the sense that ANY ruling applies if the DM decides it so, I suppose that's true. However, the rules are pretty clear that Enhanced Wand only needs to be held(that could change in the future, but that's the rule right now). I checked the PHB and nowhere does it say that rules only apply if NeoPhantom thinks they make sense.
Where exactly is that +2 to fireball damage coming from?
@NeoPhantom The above wasn’t directly to you but to multiple posts over past pages. The main point directed to you which I still think you disagree with is:
You do not have to cast through the Enhanced wand to receive the benefit. Otherwise they would have said so. Think of bracers of archery, you don’t actually shoot them to get the bonus.
About the conversation regarding Enhanced Wand: I think this may be something to ask about in the survey. It just seems a little far-fetched to me to be able to gain the benefits of a wand without casting through it, it would be like using 2-weapon fighting and getting a +2 bonus on all your attacks when only one of your weapons has that bonus.
Off-topic, does anyone else think Swift Quiver should be on the Artificer spell list? It seems to me like something that would be thematically appropriate to the class.
Here's something that might help clarify things:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/23/does-the-bonuses-of-rod-of-the-pact-lord-and-wand-of-the-war-mage-stack/
@derekleketchum: Rude... and uncalled for since I had already retracted the statement. Seriously, that's what discussions are for.
@Arutha: thing is the bracers are an equipped item, so it makes sense. But wands are held items which usually need to be in use or activated to be in effect... anyways below...
@Mezzurah: you have resumed what I have been trying to convey much better than myself and for that you have my upmost thanks.
Swift quiver... might be a good one since it's so rare to see. But isn't it redundant with the Repeated Shot infusion? After all with it you don't use ammunition at all so the spell becomes redundant (endless ammunition) or inoperable (2 bonus attacks when using the ammunition).
Ok and done deal. Dual wands are a thing then so long as the wording allows it.
It does seem far-fetched, but there are worse combinations of effects that play double-dutch with the rules as written out there. Anyone who's ever conjured pixies and had them polymorph their entire party into dinosaurs knows what I'm talking about. The way benefits and effects in this game are worded matters. Look at the wording for a +1 Weapon: "You have a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon." Now imagine if the emphasized part wasn't there. For another example, look at the wording for a Defender sword: "You gain a +3 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The first time you attack with the sword on each of your turns, you can transfer some or all of the sword's bonus to your Armor Class, instead of using the bonus on any attacks that turn. For example, you could reduce the bonus to your attack and damage rolls to +1 and gain a +2 bonus to AC. The adjusted bonuses remain in effect until the start of your next turn, although you must hold the sword to gain a bonus to AC from it." Again, imagine if the emphasized part wasn't there.
As to your off-topic idea of adding swift quiver to the artificer spell list, I agree that it's thematically appropriate but between the existing short list of 5th-level artificer spells and limited number of 5th-level spell slots, I don't think it's feasible to add it.
No offense was meant or intended. I literally only discovered this forum 2 days ago and 50+ pages of discussion already in. If you're expecting me to be so up-to-date on your posting history, perhaps your expectations of other people aren't where they ought to be.
???????? I meant it was rude specifying a name like that, specially in a context that makes the other party appear as overbearing.
"I checked the PHB and nowhere does it say that rules only apply if NeoPhantom thinks they make sense."
I have no expectation on the internet. That's basically the only rule on the internet after all. But calling out things that are not liked or approved in forums to prevent future mishaps is a thing I do. It's a courtesy to the other party in my opinion.
As if I've here any longer than you have! Specially since the comment I mentioned is the one you quoted in the first place. Lol
I'm not the one who called you out like that. That was @TheresNoRaceLikeGnome. But please, tell me more about how "it was rude specifying a name like that, specially in a context that makes the other party appear as overbearing."
In that case, i apologize for reading the wrong username.
As for what I meant (in terms of concept) is that by saying a name as an example, particularly in a way that seems that the person only cares for his own opinion, such as the example provided in which it specifies that the "rules don't say that x person is correct" and its many variations, the person will feel the comment as a personal affront rather than a continuation of the conversation.
Better expressions could easily be: "We'll have to check on survey", "the rules by raw don't specify", "No one other than Swords of the Coast and affiliates directly determine the oficial rulings", etc depending on the context.
Perhaps this is non-issue in certain parts of the world where such dialect is prevalent, but in other parts it may cause some... unnecessary conflict. This I say from experience seeing such things occur. Hence, why I always specify it.
I just think that for the Artilerest that the Improved Wand infusion should work with the Prototype Wand as using 2 wands is silly. It is not like the Prototype Wand is considered in my opinion a real magic item, for me if anyone could cast that cantrip out of it sure but it is there for the simple act of giving the Artilerest a combat cantrip and a second on at level 14.