Favorite Wands and Artificer Toys

[Oberoni]

I'm going to be playing an Artificer in an upcoming Eberron game, and I was wondering if you folks had any suggestions for magic items (especially Wands) I should be keeping an eye on.

I've already got quite a few ideas, but I enjoy hearing the ideas of others.

If you're curious, I'm probably going to be playing an elf that focuses on archery.

[erik]

Do the wands hafta be crafted by yer artificer? A wand of AMF is always a hit with the ladies. Just need to find a consecrated harrier with craft wand and sanctum spell, or a Chameleon, better yet.

Barring that slice of cheese, illusion wands would probably be a staple utility (mirror image) that I'd choose.

[Oberoni]

Hmmmmm, I'm betting that making a legion of Spell-Storing arrows would greatly benefit me. Anyone have any favorite picks for spells to stuff into those?

[Username17]

I am fond of Hold Person and Vampiric Touch. Neither spell is spectular on its own, but they synergize well with being integrated into a full-attack routine.

-Username17

[Oberoni]

Actually, I was thinking along the same lines with regards to Vamp Touch.

Cool thing about that one is that it deals untyped damage. If you end up Empowering and Maximizing it (quite possible), that's 60 + 10d6 / 2 damage per Vamp Touch, and that's also a lot of HP.

Another cool thing is that this particular spell scales really well as you level; you're never going to just shrug and say "oh, I'm only casting Vampiric Touches from my Spell Storing arrows."

Overall, very good deal.

[Neeek]

I find it a little odd that the Spell Storing weapon feature allows (or at least doesn't address) metamagic to be placed on it's spells without increasing the spell's level, when the Ring of Spell Storing specifically notes that the spells in it take up slots equal to the spell's level plus it's metamagic adjustment

Note: There is no way of reading the Spell Storing weapon property to be the same way, since metamagic(except Heighten) doesn't actually raise spells levels.

Just odd, ya know?

[RandomCasualty]

1112062378[/unixtime]]I find it a little odd that the Spell Storing weapon feature allows (or at least doesn't address) metamagic to be placed on it's spells without increasing the spell's level, when the Ring of Spell Storing specifically notes that the spells in it take up slots equal to the spell's level plus it's metamagic adjustment

Note: There is no way of reading the Spell Storing weapon property to be the same way, since metamagic(except Heighten) doesn't actually raise spells levels.

Just odd, ya know?

I've always just figured it to be a minor technicality. I've always considered that metamagic affects any kind of spell storage or spell duplication, or any other requisite to cast or store the spell.

It's a rather tricky subject to word, and I'm not surprised most designers forget that metamagic doesn't change the official spell level.

Speaking of which, why doesn't it change the spell level in the first place? I never saw any reason why metamagic couldn't just change the spell level. So you get a +3 DC to your maximized fireball, who really cares?

[Oberoni]

I find it a little odd that the Spell Storing weapon feature allows (or at least doesn't address) metamagic to be placed on it's spells without increasing the spell's level, when the Ring of Spell Storing specifically notes that the spells in it take up slots equal to the spell's level plus it's metamagic adjustment

Note: There is no way of reading the Spell Storing weapon property to be the same way, since metamagic(except Heighten) doesn't actually raise spells levels.

Just odd, ya know?

Oh, definitely. It's a very strange oversight I noticed.

I know that when you make wands and such with metamagic attached, it adjusts the "effective" spell level. When you add metamagic to an item you're creating, it adjusts the effective spell level.

When you're adding it to a spell-storing weapon...nothing.

It's dumb that a ring of spell storing and a weapon of spell storing use different rules in that regard, but whatever.