you meant a stick like sun wu kong / sun go kong stick?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mguJeYchpas

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

Or, in my case: a spiked baseball bat which is magically attuned and fed with Flame spells.

.....you know......if someone were to cross fallout and TES into one game.......would be see raiders beating people to death with a fireball staff with nails all in it? srry , off topic, but paints a picture......one i hope someone mods into existance

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

What I tried to say is: ANY piece of wood, even a ball, could be infused to become a "staff/wand" type object.
In this case the "staff" could be used for... well... umm... pool.
NO, to throw at someone.

I find it so silly: "Wand are Willy Popper and staves are Grand Alf the purple."
Kids...

i consider them both useless sticks, one of which ZOS has forced me to hold, and i dont want to be forced to hold two twigs. A mages power is his knowledge and magicka reserves, this is all that should be needed for a truly powerful mage. unfortunatly im forced to use a staff, a useless stick.

Traditionally, mages had to resort to daggers when they ran out of magica which always seemed to me to be dumb. Now if those daggers replenished magica at an increased rate when used, think cast on hit, I might consider it. I, personally, wouldn't use a shield because I can never remember to block but since the animation is one-handed even though the weapon is two-handed then it seems that an off hand shield or weapon. would be nice.

Moonscythe wrote: »

Traditionally, mages had to resort to daggers when they ran out of magica which always seemed to me to be dumb. Now if those daggers replenished magica at an increased rate when used, think cast on hit, I might consider it. I, personally, wouldn't use a shield because I can never remember to block but since the animation is one-handed even though the weapon is two-handed then it seems that an off hand shield or weapon. would be nice.

I think mages call them Athame, a ceremonial dagger used in spellcraft.

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

What I tried to say is: ANY piece of wood, even a ball, could be infused to become a "staff/wand" type object.
In this case the "staff" could be used for... well... umm... pool.
NO, to throw at someone.

I find it so silly: "Wand are Willy Popper and staves are Grand Alf the purple."
Kids...

See, I see a wand as a good alternative for a weapon as a staff, I can equip a weapon, AND a shield.
Twice a win.

You turn this into a "A wand is a Pooping Terry and a Staff is a... whatever character thingy?
Tsssssk.

If this were true, we could just "infuse" any weapon like a mace or sword to be used as a "staff type object" sadly that is not the case.

Mechanically what you're asking for is for a loophole in the current system. You want it both ways where you can use long range attacks but still have a set piece bonus and added spell damage from dual wielding.

All bonus no drawbacks. Right now, the drawback of dual wielding is a sacrifice in DPS and range, in exchange for an extra set piece, more spell power, and with the shield, access to other skills like defensive stance. You're trading the ability to say, weave LA and force pulse in exchange for your other spells to hit harder and the ability to reflect other spells. Which is what builds diversity in class builds. To be able to still weave attacks, and get a set item bonus, and access to other skill lines, all with no drawback and all the bonuses, theres literally NO reason to ever use anything else. You effectively kill the entire staff skill lines and weapons. Every mage would run 2 wands or wand and shield. Sure you're not FORCED to, but I'm also not forced to use Hardened Ward, except for the fact there's literally no other defensive alternative for a magSorc on Live right now.

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

What I tried to say is: ANY piece of wood, even a ball, could be infused to become a "staff/wand" type object.
In this case the "staff" could be used for... well... umm... pool.
NO, to throw at someone.

I find it so silly: "Wand are Willy Popper and staves are Grand Alf the purple."
Kids...

See, I see a wand as a good alternative for a weapon as a staff, I can equip a weapon, AND a shield.
Twice a win.

You turn this into a "A wand is a Pooping Terry and a Staff is a... whatever character thingy?
Tsssssk.

If this were true, we could just "infuse" any weapon like a mace or sword to be used as a "staff type object" sadly that is not the case.

Mechanically what you're asking for is for a loophole in the current system. You want it both ways where you can use long range attacks but still have a set piece bonus and added spell damage from dual wielding.

All bonus no drawbacks. Right now, the drawback of dual wielding is a sacrifice in DPS and range, in exchange for an extra set piece, more spell power, and with the shield, access to other skills like defensive stance. You're trading the ability to say, weave LA and force pulse in exchange for your other spells to hit harder and the ability to reflect other spells. Which is what builds diversity in class builds. To be able to still weave attacks, and get a set item bonus, and access to other skill lines, all with no drawback and all the bonuses, theres literally NO reason to ever use anything else. You effectively kill the entire staff skill lines and weapons. Every mage would run 2 wands or wand and shield. Sure you're not FORCED to, but I'm also not forced to use Hardened Ward, except for the fact there's literally no other defensive alternative for a magSorc on Live right now.

No, if this was a loophole, then this loophole alreay exists, since I cast wielding sword and shield.
Point was, that holding a sword, and not doing a thing with it, is utterly idiotic, but i HAVE to, for the set's bonus.
Now, turn this into a wand, with the set bonus, and I'd be happy.
Hell, turn it into a frikken baseball, and I'd be happy, I could not care less, really.
Just this not-wielding of a sword I find disturbing for a Summoner Vampire.
Just give me a wand then.

And that's my point that's the loop hole. A wand to give you access to long range while you still get the set bonus. THATS the trade off you're asking them to just get rid of entirely. I used to dual wield swords for more damage but I lost my light attack weaving and range, so I went back to dropping the extra set piece in favor of a staff that could use range and weave attacks. The Wand/shield or wand/wand combo would remove that trade off. Thus making any other combination worthless by comparison.

What if the wand say, did what others have commented on and just gave you close range magic damage in the form of a bound sword when you used a light attack. How is it mechanically any different than the sword you already have? and if its mechanically the same, whats the point of even adding it?

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

What I tried to say is: ANY piece of wood, even a ball, could be infused to become a "staff/wand" type object.
In this case the "staff" could be used for... well... umm... pool.
NO, to throw at someone.

I find it so silly: "Wand are Willy Popper and staves are Grand Alf the purple."
Kids...

See, I see a wand as a good alternative for a weapon as a staff, I can equip a weapon, AND a shield.
Twice a win.

You turn this into a "A wand is a Pooping Terry and a Staff is a... whatever character thingy?
Tsssssk.

If this were true, we could just "infuse" any weapon like a mace or sword to be used as a "staff type object" sadly that is not the case.

Mechanically what you're asking for is for a loophole in the current system. You want it both ways where you can use long range attacks but still have a set piece bonus and added spell damage from dual wielding.

All bonus no drawbacks. Right now, the drawback of dual wielding is a sacrifice in DPS and range, in exchange for an extra set piece, more spell power, and with the shield, access to other skills like defensive stance. You're trading the ability to say, weave LA and force pulse in exchange for your other spells to hit harder and the ability to reflect other spells. Which is what builds diversity in class builds. To be able to still weave attacks, and get a set item bonus, and access to other skill lines, all with no drawback and all the bonuses, theres literally NO reason to ever use anything else. You effectively kill the entire staff skill lines and weapons. Every mage would run 2 wands or wand and shield. Sure you're not FORCED to, but I'm also not forced to use Hardened Ward, except for the fact there's literally no other defensive alternative for a magSorc on Live right now.

No, if this was a loophole, then this loophole alreay exists, since I cast wielding sword and shield.
Point was, that holding a sword, and not doing a thing with it, is utterly idiotic, but i HAVE to, for the set's bonus.
Now, turn this into a wand, with the set bonus, and I'd be happy.
Hell, turn it into a frikken baseball, and I'd be happy, I could not care less, really.
Just this not-wielding of a sword I find disturbing for a Summoner Vampire.
Just give me a wand then.

And that's my point that's the loop hole. A wand to give you access to long range while you still get the set bonus. THATS the trade off you're asking them to just get rid of entirely. I used to dual wield swords for more damage but I lost my light attack weaving and range, so I went back to dropping the extra set piece in favor of a staff that could use range and weave attacks. The Wand/shield or wand/wand combo would remove that trade off. Thus making any other combination worthless by comparison.

What if the wand say, did what others have commented on and just gave you close range magic damage in the form of a bound sword when you used a light attack. How is it mechanically any different than the sword you already have? and if its mechanically the same, whats the point of even adding it?

Do you see me asking for long range attacks?
Well, why not, make it 1/3rd the damage of a staff.
I personally do not use these, but someone might find it funny.
If i could, I'd be dual wielding shields, but well...

Indeed, thank you for that.
Why are wands always mentioned with Flarry the Whopper?

Magic wands are OP

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8oWAb5NVALw&oref=https%3A%2F%2Faccounts.google.com%2FServiceLogin%3Fuilel%3D3%26service%3Dyoutube%26passive%3Dtrue%26hl%3Den%26continue%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fsignin%253Ffeature%253Dmobile%2526hl%253Den%2526next%253D%25252Fverify_age%25253Fclient%25253Dmv-google%252526ipadtype%25253D2%252526layout%25253Dtablet%252526next%25253D%2525252Fwatch%2525253Fv%2525253D8oWAb5NVALw%252526tsp%25253D1%252526utcoffset%25253D-420%2526action_handle_signin%253Dtrue%2526app%253Dm&has_verified=1&layout=tablet&client=mv-google

KingYogi415 wrote: »

I have picked enough lore books for it to make sense to wield one!

Which books are those, I have yet to find any myself.

True...
Merely saying a wand would be far less disturbing in my case.
Then again, holding only a SHIELD would be just as silly. Bah.

templesus wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

catalyst10e wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

What I tried to say is: ANY piece of wood, even a ball, could be infused to become a "staff/wand" type object.
In this case the "staff" could be used for... well... umm... pool.
NO, to throw at someone.

I find it so silly: "Wand are Willy Popper and staves are Grand Alf the purple."
Kids...

See, I see a wand as a good alternative for a weapon as a staff, I can equip a weapon, AND a shield.
Twice a win.

You turn this into a "A wand is a Pooping Terry and a Staff is a... whatever character thingy?
Tsssssk.

If this were true, we could just "infuse" any weapon like a mace or sword to be used as a "staff type object" sadly that is not the case.

Mechanically what you're asking for is for a loophole in the current system. You want it both ways where you can use long range attacks but still have a set piece bonus and added spell damage from dual wielding.

All bonus no drawbacks. Right now, the drawback of dual wielding is a sacrifice in DPS and range, in exchange for an extra set piece, more spell power, and with the shield, access to other skills like defensive stance. You're trading the ability to say, weave LA and force pulse in exchange for your other spells to hit harder and the ability to reflect other spells. Which is what builds diversity in class builds. To be able to still weave attacks, and get a set item bonus, and access to other skill lines, all with no drawback and all the bonuses, theres literally NO reason to ever use anything else. You effectively kill the entire staff skill lines and weapons. Every mage would run 2 wands or wand and shield. Sure you're not FORCED to, but I'm also not forced to use Hardened Ward, except for the fact there's literally no other defensive alternative for a magSorc on Live right now.

No, if this was a loophole, then this loophole alreay exists, since I cast wielding sword and shield.
Point was, that holding a sword, and not doing a thing with it, is utterly idiotic, but i HAVE to, for the set's bonus.
Now, turn this into a wand, with the set bonus, and I'd be happy.
Hell, turn it into a frikken baseball, and I'd be happy, I could not care less, really.
Just this not-wielding of a sword I find disturbing for a Summoner Vampire.
Just give me a wand then.

And that's my point that's the loop hole. A wand to give you access to long range while you still get the set bonus. THATS the trade off you're asking them to just get rid of entirely. I used to dual wield swords for more damage but I lost my light attack weaving and range, so I went back to dropping the extra set piece in favor of a staff that could use range and weave attacks. The Wand/shield or wand/wand combo would remove that trade off. Thus making any other combination worthless by comparison.

What if the wand say, did what others have commented on and just gave you close range magic damage in the form of a bound sword when you used a light attack. How is it mechanically any different than the sword you already have? and if its mechanically the same, whats the point of even adding it?

Do you see me asking for long range attacks?
Well, why not, make it 1/3rd the damage of a staff.
I personally do not use these, but someone might find it funny.
If i could, I'd be dual wielding shields, but well...

No I don't, which proves the point that if its mechanically the same there is no point in adding them. You'd have them bring in artists, designers, coders, and the like just to fresh code in a wand that is mechanically a dagger, create the different motif versions, bend the lore moreso than they already have, and then release it to the public because it'd be "funny"?

• If its not doing anything different it isnt worth it, in any sense of the word "worth" to do it.
• If it IS going to be doing something different like adding a new skill line, or use a preexisting one, it's going to disrupt the already chaotic balancing issues we already have. Maybe balance the skills we have first before adding more to the pile.
• If it's significantly weaker, and all it's providing is the set bonus, why wouldnt you just keep the sword and shield or dual wield swords? that circles back to it being pointless.
• If it causes more problems than it solves, which a wand solves no problems, it is again not worth it to add.

At best you could get a crown store costume for your weapon that disguises it as a wand but I doubt ZOS would even do that, as we cant even dye our weapons, let alone hide them.

Its not mechanically the same, say I'm a stam NB and I animation cancel my DW heavy attacks with surprise attack, I'm hitting say a 5k heavy attack and 6k surprise attack(random numbers) now swap over to magicka, I animation cancel my DW heavy attacks with concealed weapon, but only hit a 2k heavy attack and 6k concealed. Wands will allow for up close DPs (dks, templars, NBS) to maximize their DPs with light/heavy attacks. I honestly could care less about another skill line, if they make DW HA or LA scale off stam or magicka I'd be happy.

If its random numbers how do you use that as a basis? But this also brings us back to balancing. By choosing to be a mageblade, and dual wielding, you are losing out on LA/HA damage but you make up for that with set bonues, empowerment bonuses via mages guild, most of the class skills in the Nightblade skill line are magicka based(like the every popular mass hysteria), and, this is the part you really need the real math for, I regularly out DPS stam users when all I have is 3k spell damage while they sit at upwards of 5k. I find it hard to believe the ONLY difference in damage between the Surprise attack and concealed would be just the 3k damage from the LA that proceeded it.

What you're asking for is just to get a 1 handed weapon that scales off max magicka and deal magic damage. (or at the very least the option was available) ignoring the loophole its trying to avoid, why would wands need to be added to fix that? that sounds like a passive could be added or even a toggle effect if they really needed it. But as it stands now, each weapon having trade offs is good and what promotes diversity. once one of them becomes so obvious superior we'd have a bad power creep on our hands with whole skill lines going unused in both PVE and PVP.

Forget wands. Call them "sceptres" and make them the magical equivalent to a sword, mace, axe, or dagger.

A sceptre is to staff as sword is to 2H.

This would really improve upon Magicka Tanks (they could wield a sceptre and shield) and you'd finally be able to dual wield sceptres instead of swords.

Donzie bo bunzie.