D&D 5E (2014) wands

[Gilwen]

Do magic wands require a spell caster? Since the description of the two wands in the Basic DMG rules refer to casting a spell I'm leaning towards yes....thoughts?

 

[rjfTrebor]

that's how i would rule it.

 

[Paraxis]

I think you do need to have the spell on your list and capable of casting it and here is why.

Wand of Magic Missiles (from the starter set)
This wand has 7 charges. With the wand in hand , you can use your action to fire the magic missile spell from the wand no components required and expend 1 to 3 of the wand's charges. For each charge you expend beyond 1, the spell's level increases by 1.You can use this wand even if you are incapable of casting spells.
The wand regains 1d6 + 1 expended charges each day at dawn.If you expend the wand 's last charge, roll a d20. On a 1, the wand crumbles into ash and is destroyed.


Wand of Magic Missiles (from the basic rules)
Wand, uncommon
While you hold this wand, you can use an action to expend 1 to 3 of its 7 charges to cast the magic missile spell without using any components. For 1 charge, you cast the spell as if you used a 1st-level spell slot, and you increase the spell slot level by one for each additional charge you spend.
The wand regains 1d6 + 1 expended charges each day at dawn. However, if you expend the wand’s last
charge, roll a d20. On a 1, the wand crumbles to ashes and is destroyed.

So they changed the wording from fire the magic missile to cast the magic missile spell, and removed the sentence about using it even if you are incapable of casting spells. So if they made those changes I would say the intent is to have as a caster only device.

But the basic rules also say
"Work in Progress!"
This information from the Dungeon Master’s Guide represents in-progress versions of the rules in that book. Updated information will appear in future versions of the D&D basic rules.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Reading the exact same things, I come to a different conclusion.

A plain reading of the (new) wording gives no suggestion that you need to already be a spell caster.

Why, then, would they have removed a sentence specifying this? Because that way they don't need to add such a sentence for every other (non-specialized) magic item in the game. It's simply to increase clarity throughout the rules.

That's my read, at least.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Why, then, would they have removed a sentence specifying this? Because that way they don't need to add such a sentence for every other (non-specialized) magic item in the game. It's simply to increase clarity throughout the rules.

That's my read, at least.

I came to the opposite conclusion--they removed it to decrease clarity of the rules.

 

[MarkB]

Reading the exact same things, I come to a different conclusion.

A plain reading of the (new) wording gives no suggestion that you need to already be a spell caster.

Why, then, would they have removed a sentence specifying this? Because that way they don't need to add such a sentence for every other (non-specialized) magic item in the game. It's simply to increase clarity throughout the rules.

That's my read, at least.

I tend to agree. In the Starter Set, they needed to include that "even if you're incapable of casting spells" line in order to break the expectations of people familiar with 3.xe. In the main ruleset they'll make a blanket clarification for all such items - though it'd help if they could do that now, rather than later.

 

[jadrax]

From the discussion we had on Scrolls some time ago, I seem to recall the Starter Set was actually using a later version of the rules than the Basic DM's Guide, so I would go with the Starter Set wording.

 

[Tormyr]

The rogue's use magic object trait allows it to ignore restrictions on magic items so that the rogue can use that Paladin specific Holy Avenger. Since the rogue has a trait that specifically ignores restrictions, I think the lack of restrictions one most magic items is significant. If I remember correctly, scrolls do have a spellcasting restriction, and if that spell is not in your list, you can attempt to use the spell with a check (arcana?). Since these are specifically mentioned, I think the stuff that does not have restrictions is fair game. So anyone can pick up that wand of magic missile and blast someone.

 

[Agamon]

From the discussion we had on Scrolls some time ago, I seem to recall the Starter Set was actually using a later version of the rules than the Basic DM's Guide, so I would go with the Starter Set wording.

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Everyone was saying the Starter set rule trumped the Basic for scrolls, now everyone's saying the opposite for wands.

For both items, I like the idea of allowing items to be used by anyone. Not saying that's my interpretation, that's my preference and ruling for my game. YMMV.

 

[Boarstorm]

I think they're just going to move the line about "even if you're incapable of casting spells" to the general description for wands, as opposed to tacking it onto every wand individually.