Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nyeshet" data-source="post: 3351330" data-attributes="member: 18363">A few oddities, but otherwise good . . .The description states that such staves usually have 2-5 spells, but they give an example with 6 spells. This suggests to me, for instance, that a Cleric of a deity might have a Runestaff of ______ domain, holding all the spells of that domain, allowing them to trade out their own domain spell for the one in the staff - especially useful if they do not have that domain of their deity. But is this really possible (to put up to nine spells in the staff)? The fact that they use the term "Usually" and then go out of their way to show a runestaff that has more than the usual number suggests to me that there might not be an upper limit - the cost of the runestaff simply becoming more and more prohibitive as the number (and level) of the spells within it increase. Also, the example with the sorcerer is . . . odd. It actually describes the sorcerer as preparing his spells in the morning, specifically speaking of the sorcerer trading out a prepared spell to use one of the spells in the runestaff. I think the writer of the article (and I hope this is paraphrased from the book, not an exact excert from the book) does not realize that sorcerers - as spontaneous casters - do not need to prepare the spells or fill their spell slots with specific spells in the morning. Otherwise, I have to admit that I am becoming more interested in this book. Although I didn't buy Spell Compendium (as I tend to use EoM,R or EoM,ME or a variant thereof instead of the core magic system), I am now strongly considering buying this book - for magic item ideas, if nothing else. I will at the very least skim through one in the store a bit, to see what types of new ideas it has, and I may very likely buy it if - in addition to all the old items collected together - it also has a lot of new ideas such as these. However, I suppose we should be glad it didn't add another crafting feat "Craft Runestaff" for this type of item . . . . I rather expected they would have required such for this, and I am surprised they did not.</blockquote>

Verification