Because you can't hide a dagger in your vest, and then drive it silently into your target's back when he isn't looking.

Conversely, you don't just use the BIGGEST wrench to fix your pipes... that's idiot-logic, and we don't want to fall into that trap, now do we? I think we've all seen what happens when we just assume that the bigger weapon has more power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTqxFIpc1j4

Of course, in Oblivion, the only advantage to not having a bigger weapon (if it was made out of the same material, etc) was it's weight, and when your character can hold over 300 pounds, that's a non-issue

Unless Skyrim makes assassinations only possible with daggers and shortswords, I'll just stick to smacking them with the biggest thing I've got on me at the time, which does more sneak damage anyway
Add to that the fact that even that assassination thing wouldn't apply to wands, and you'll get a totally inferior weapon (unless it raised your magical abilities instead of just firing super powerful spells with no recharge time, which would make it have different uses)

Wands have been in fantasy gaming since fantasy gaming existed. While 3-3.5e D&D are not my favorite editions and I think item creation kind of borked things, I do kind of like how they did wands and staves. Wands handled spells levels 1-4, staves 1-9 and could have different spell effects in the same staff. Both came with 50 charges, but the staff was just more powerful. And I did dig when they came out with the dual wield wand feat. I can see the same thing for skyrim. Something like wands(one handed staves) can handle the first two tiers of spells, staves(2handed) can handle and tier of spell. Or magika based, wands can handle spells that cost up to 10 magicka, staves can handle spells that cost up to 25 magicka. Your enchanting skill could determine the effective magicka for spells you put into the item. (numbers and tiers pulled out of thin air to illustrate)

I think you may have missed the point... o.o

It wasn't an argument about assassination. It was an argument about using the best tool for the job, not the biggest.

That Claymores and Daggers had no greater difference than weight in terms of their ability to be used was not something which should be counted on. It was a design flaw, which made using other weapons POINTLESS. With any luck, it is a flaw which will have been rectified in Skyrim.

So, yeah. Claymores would be worthless in steal situations, if the game has -anything- right about it.

That would be like making a stealth MISSILE LAUNCHER. Once you cross a certain line, there's no point in using any other weapon... and the game gets terribly boring very quickly. This was one of the first things I modded OUT of Oblivion.

This. You can't be much more of a badass wizard than Harry Dresden.

Wand was before in D&D along with rods and staffs,
Well I use some mods for adding them to game in Oblivion and Morrowind, they interesting wizard tool.
Wands
http://tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16418
Tools of the Art: Wands
http://planetelderscrolls.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Mods.Detail&id=3161
Wands have interesting implementation in Demon Souls, and according to gameplay trailer and arts Skyrim will have one handed staffs so even if there will no wand they can be easy modable.

Daggerfall had wands it also had marks and a few other intersting enchantables including beer mugs and candlesticks I think.. basicaly everything was enchantable and they had a fair amount of stuff designed for the mage to cart around full of charges of stuff.

But with staves being one handed we dont need wands as thier only real purpose was as a 1 handed magic tool. Still I would like to see more cartables that you can enchant for rainy day supplies of magic.

To say "we want staffs but no wands" is like saying "Oh no, we don't need that SMG, we got our bazooka right here" when you are supposed to enter a building full of enemies (or enemas, just as unpleasant as it can be).

When I play any TES title, I try my very best to just use magic, and nothing else. Morrowind was challenging, Oblivion was a breeze, and Daggerfall....well it didn't go so well. This only applies to my Fire Mage, much like my other characters have their own focus. Not to say I didn't use anything else, but I found that playing a pure mage was more fun to me than playing, say, a spellsword.

I agree with what Col. Tannanbaum said -- You really shouldn't need any weapon except your spells. Even when it comes down to which is more important out of health and magicka, I'd personally say magicka, and health second. With magicka I could run around with my flimsy robe, but with my Shield spell I was wearing plate armor. I could even fortify my health if I wanted to, and heal it as well. Heck I could use magicka to fortify magicka, awesome!

I'm cool with wands, totems, grimoires, staves, etc. As long as the weapon doesn't define the mage, it'll be fine. Mages are channelers of magic in TES series, and while it would be nice to use a wand to bloster magical effects, it, like staves, shouldn't be required. So, I guess to add my own idea to the idea of wands instead of rambling about magical preferences, I believe staves should remain weapons that contained their own charges to cast preset spells and wands, if included in Skyrim, should act as a focus that increased the effects of your spells, be it active or passive.

No lightning bolt tattoo?

I know and realize this, see the now bolded part. The problem is that it doesn't "sit well". It's all about preserving good game balance and mechanics. As a channelizer, you either get non powerful mages without a wand, or overpowered mages with a wand but without a cost/penalty to it (better swords typically weight more). Everyone would hate being forced to look like Harry-Potter-With-A-Twig - (hehe, nice "cost" but I don't think it would be acceptable) if they wanted to be a powerful mage.

You seem to be missing the point.

A wand is not a WEAPON... it's not something you can use to FIGHT with. In a battle, any sensible mage would be using a staff... and preferably not a ceremonial staff with all kinds of stupid ornate carvings and the like. It'd be a good solid wooden staff (presumably of some wood which channels and holds magicka well), and it would be useful in battle as well as for casting. If you can 'fire' your staff's magical charge off, then you might even see them being wielded more like firearms than blunt weapons, by some... but a staff is still a much more feasible weapon.

You can argue all you like about the balance... but the balance comes in -this-:

Wands are tools. They're smaller... unless they've got some serious magicka infusing gems, or the best wood money can buy, they would hold less of an enchantment... and as a general rule, they're far less durable than a staff would be. Unless your wand is made of stone or some kind of metal, it's not going to block an attack. And even if it does survive an attack, you're not going to keep it in your hand. Being disarmed has a very high probability for anyone wielding one in combat.

On the other hand, if you did fool-hardily decide to go to war with a wand, you could unleash fiery hell with a light-weight and compact instrument which could easily be concealed. You sacrifice the melee combat in favor of a faster, lighter spellcasting method. Not one which is outsripped by staves! Don't get me wrong, staves ought to always have their place.

The idea is to broaded the 'staff' type weapon's horizons... adding unique and balanced options.

You're describing poor design... which has nothing to do with the -ability- of the weapon to improve the balance of magic combat.

I want a staff in one hand and a ceremonial dagger in the other. Unfortunately I assume that, like in oblivion, staffs will have their own attack/enchantment so I won't be able to funnel spells through it which is kind of how I think staffs should be as a mages preferred weapon. I'm pretty meh about wands, they don't really seem battle appropriate, be cool if they had special functions like revealing hidden writing/dispelling magical traps etc.

I want my ceramonial toilet plunger and my solid gold gem encrusted spork. Oh and my gem encrusted brick of doom.

This is it, exactly!

They -could- be used as a weapon... but their REAL advantage is as a TOOL... an instrument, through which a mage can channel magic.

As a weapon, it's just a light weight... slightly-less-powerful one handed staff.

As a tool, with specialized abilities, it becomes a piece of equipment you wouldn't knowingly leave home without. Unless of course you're one of those meatheaded 'Not big enough stick' types, who really has no place in the Academia of Magi anyhow.

Which would as pointed out by hoblak force the use of wands in all mages. I suspect most people want mages without needing a stick to cast spells at peak efficiency. I have no problem with wands, but I don't want channeling wands.

I think of a staff as a wizard's all-purpose magic magic assist thing that helps them with spellcasting, and they'd only have one. A wand could be a tool that only is able to do one thing, but since it's smaller it'd be more practical to have fire, ice and lightning wands and swap between them as needed. I can't really picture a wizard carrying multiples of those big two-handed staves, but wands or those smaller 1-handed staves that they had in the skyrim pictures better fit the role of magic items that only contain a single spell IMO.

Look...

... you're entitled to your opinion and all, but don't go trying to make your case with false points. NOTHING about the system for wands I described makes them -required-. It makes them DESIRABLE, as instruments, with which you can perform certain actions that other forms of spellcasting wouldn't allow. As it stands, in Oblivion, if I want to play a mage... I -have- to use a staff. There's no other option, short of wielding a sword or a club, both of which feel decidedly un-magely. And then, to top it all off, their enchantments as you level up become MORE POWERFUL than anything the player can create!

So by your logic, I could argue that "All mages in Oblivion must carry staffs to cast spells at peak efficiency! They get enchantments which go above and beyond the highest level of magic one can attain all on their own."

Sure, that makes sense... so long as you're not actually -thinking- about how ludicrous it is to jump to that kind of a conclusion. There are plenty of other, smaller, more nuanced uses for magic.

A game should never shy away from making its systems unique and interesting just because some people don't want to have to use 'x' item to make it work. If they did that, then we'd end up with the same dumbed down fantasy game every time a new game rolled-... oh, wait a minute...

... yeah.

People and their phobia of being perceived as effeminate (and the subsequent challenging of their sixuality, which alas is the cause for much of the argument to be had here) regarding the usage of wands have no place in -my- Arcane University. If they're so damn caught up on things like having the biggest weapon and the most powerful attack, they should have played a Warrior.

Mages require finesse, creativity, and intelligence. There's no room for this macho-bravado crap.

When you take that away, and remove all specializations and creativity... then it's just a Warrior with flashy attacks. And then I'll know that fantasy has died... and I can follow it shortly to the grave.

Exactly, so why do we need wands? Could be handy for the purpose of weight and size, but I don't think that alone is a good enough reason to include them in the game. They should be unique and be somewhat different from the staves, making them really 'needed'. Maybe some of you have come up with some ideas, I haven't read all the posts.

However, I'm not sure if I personally think it would fit in the game, but that's a bit hard to tell before I see it in the game really..

As previously stated, we've got the one handed staff. So, I won't be surprised or disappointed if there are no wands.

A lot of people are saying that wands appear weak, but I think that juxtaposition is exactly what makes them cool. From such a small, seemingly frail twig, enormous amounts of energy erupt. Neato.

It's the same concept as Yoda or the old, frail wizard.

No. Wands are for fairy-tales and Harry Potter. Not for epic medieval games.

I liked the idea of the grimoire. You could summon up some Demons King Solomon style.

I don't want wands. BUT i do want more verity on mage's staffs!!!!! oblivions were lame except for the ice one and the goblin staffs. :poke: :flamethrower:

Wizards use staffs, not wands

https://www.wizard101.com/

Yeah, because there aren't wands In Dungeons and Dragons at ALL!!