Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[I'm A Banana]

If the Staff of the Magi needs an arcane magic user to wield it, what is gained by saying "needs to be a mage" over "needs to be wielded by an arcane magic user"?

The Q&A seems to describe a system that's all about gatekeeping. If it is used with such a light, infrequent touch -- only with "highly specialized" mechanics -- it's more about defining who isn't allowed to do a thing (or get extra out of a thing) than giving a list of items that a given character can use. Rodney pretty much comes out and says it:

These groups are just a tag or label that can be applied to the classes, grouping them by their common elements, so that in the rare case where we need to restrict another game object, we can do so

My main reaction here is why the heck we need to do the restriction at all. Is it going to break the game if my cleric of the god of magic gets her hands on a full-potency staff of the magi? Probably not. It's a magic item -- a purely additive bonus.

If they're being conservative and applying it only in highly specialized ways, it's not even going to be very useful for organization purposes. Just, you know, if your DM rolls a random magic item and it's a staff of the magi or something similar, your party fighter can't use it fully, even if he has an INT of over 9,000 and your party mage, as a sorcerer, is mostly a CHA monkey who used INT as his dump stat?

Bleh. At least if they apply it conservatively, it will be a label I can pretty much ignore, but I'm still with a lot of the people who question how much the game is really gaining from this particular "tech."

 

[JRRNeiklot]

If the Staff of the Magi needs an arcane magic user to wield it, what is gained by saying "needs to be a mage" over "needs to be wielded by an arcane magic user"?

Mechanically? Nothing. But it's a staff of the magi. It should be a wizardly only item. Sorcerors and warlocks should be able to use one, but rangers and bards? They just don't have the know how or the magical oomph. If anyone can use a staff of the magi, the game loses a lot of flavor.

 

[Li Shenron]

Mechanically? Nothing. But it's a staff of the magi. It should be a wizardly only item. Sorcerors and warlocks should be able to use one, but rangers and bards? They just don't have the know how or the magical oomph. If anyone can use a staff of the magi, the game loses a lot of flavor.

"Sorcerors and warlocks should be able to use one" -> Why?

 

[Mistwell]

"Sorcerors and warlocks should be able to use one" -> Why?

They just don't have the know how or the magical oomph.

Seems to me he addressed your question the very paragraph you quoted. They have the magical oomph. The game represents this in multiple ways, not the least of which is full casting ability.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Mechanically? Nothing.

Then why add it? Why not go with "can only be used by arcane magic users" (or "characters capable of casting an arcane spell", or whatever wording you prefer)?

 

[Mistwell]

Then why add it? Why not go with "can only be used by arcane magic users" (or "characters capable of casting an arcane spell", or whatever wording you prefer)?

Why say all that, when all they need to do is say Mage?

They said SAID it's for shorthand use, as a tag. That's why. Shorthand has use in language, and they're using it in the normal manner shorthand is used.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Then why add it? Why not go with "can only be used by arcane magic users" (or "characters capable of casting an arcane spell", or whatever wording you prefer)?

Because then any trickster who can cast dancing lights can use a staff of the magi, otherwise. That may not be unbalancing mechanically, but it's genre breaking.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Why

No offense, but I'll be bowing out of the conversation with you. I hope others gain something productive with your ongoing input in the thread.

Edit: Feel free to continue to reply to my posts in this thread. I likely won't respond, but my posts are fair game to comment on.

Because then any trickster who can cast dancing lights can use a staff of the magi, otherwise. That may not be unbalancing mechanically, but it's genre breaking.

Okay, so "Mage" isn't good enough, because any level 1 Wizard can do it. Why not "anyone capable of casting a Nth level arcane spell"?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Okay, so "Mage" isn't good enough, because any level 1 Wizard can do it. Why not "anyone capable of casting a Nth level arcane spell"?

I'd be happy with that as long as "Nth" is greater than the highest spell level any half or 3/4 caster (like ranger or bard) will ever see.

Edit: That won't work either, as that would set a very high level requirement to use a particular item.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'd be happy with that as long as "Nth" is greater than the highest spell level any half or 3/4 caster (like ranger or bard) will ever see.

Edit: That won't work either, as that would set a very high level requirement to use a particular item.

Okay, so I guess the question is, why shouldn't a Bard or something be able to use a Staff of the Magi, if he's capable of hitting high level arcane spells (at very high level) and is very knowledgeable (he's a bard, so very knowledgeable, and he's also a caster)?

And, another question: what level should a Wizard be able to use the Staff of the Magi? And why? I think answering these honest questions might help me in this conversation. I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusions (Wizards should get to use it, but not Bards or Rangers), so this might help me out.

(Full disclosure: You're way too old school for me to agree with, in the end, I think. But I still think it'd be productive to work out where you're coming from.)