Sage Advice's ruling on staves

[Nail]

I'm inclined to believe people deprecate the FAQ here simply to increase their post count.

Oh yes. I do that all the time.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The potion prohibition does not seem subject to interpretation to me. Do you believe that the staff description provides a similar prohibition that is not subject to interpretation?

I think just as the rules for creating potions must take into account that a potion contains a spell with a casting time of less than one minute, despite that rule being found outside the Creating Magic Potions block, so too must the rules for creating staffs take into account that a staff contains several spells, despite that rule being found outside the Creating Magic Staffs block.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

I think just as the rules for creating potions must take into account that a potion contains a spell with a casting time of less than one minute, despite that rule being found outside the Creating Magic Potions block, so too must the rules for creating staffs take into account that a staff contains several spells, despite that rule being found outside the Creating Magic Staffs block.

-Hyp.

That did not actually answer my question.

Can you even see how this issue could reasonably be interpreted otherwise?

 

[mvincent]

Oh yes. I do that all the time.

Fair enough. I sometimes respond to such for the same reason.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That did not actually answer my question.

Can you even see how this issue could reasonably be interpreted otherwise?

I think that when taken in conjunction with the Wand description, the Staff entry is clear. A wand contains a single spell. A staff stores several spells. This is a point of difference between the two.

-Hyp.

 

[Seeten]

I agree with the Sage on this one, and I dont even care about the literal interpretation, the hair is split so fine I am not sure we can even see it. I am with Mistwell, for once, on the interpretation of store. A Staff is still a staff with 1 spell, even if capable of more, its still a staff with less than its full potential, just like a car is still a car with a driver and no passengers, and a passport case is still one of those even with no credit cards.

 

[Mistwell]

No, he's saying that a staff, as an instance of the general type of item, stores several spells.

-Hyp.

Again, clipping what I wrote, out of context.

How about you reply to the whole "staves are wood" part of this debate.

And while you're at it, how about you respond to the "Do you think it is subject to intepretation" question that I and others have posed to you multiple times. We know where you come down on that debate, but we are asking if you think the alternative intepretation has any merit at all and any odds of being a valid intepretation.

I cannot recall a thread you have been more evasive on...what's up Hyp?

 

[Hypersmurf]

How about you reply to the whole "staves are wood" part of this debate.

I think staffs are wood, unless the specific item description states otherwise.

And while you're at it, how about you respond to the "Do you think it is subject to intepretation" question that I and others have posed to you multiple times. We know where you come down on that debate, but we are asking if you think the alternative intepretation has any merit at all and any odds of being a valid intepretation.

I think a staff stores several spells; I think a hypothetical Staff of Fireball would not store several spells, and is thus allowing it would require making a specific exception to the rules on staffs, like making a non-wooden staff or making a wand that contains two spells.

I think that to consider 'a staff stores several spells' to not disallow a staff that does not store several spells (in the absence of a specific exception) is an invalid interpretation.

-Hyp.

 

[nute]

I think that when taken in conjunction with the Wand description, the Staff entry is clear. A wand contains a single spell. A staff stores several spells. This is a point of difference between the two.

-Hyp.

I think a good conclusion could be drawn from this:

- A wand is a spell trigger item that stores one and only one spell of 4th level or lower. No one argues with this very clear interpretation of the rules.

Interpretation One:
- A staff is a spell trigger item that stores several (interpreted as "one or more") spells.

Interpretation Two:
- A staff is a spell trigger item that stores several (interpreted as "more than one") spells.


By Interpretation one, you could have a Staff of Delayed Blast Fireball that contained 50 charges of the spell Delayed Blast Fireball, cast as a caster level of the wielder (minimum of 8th).

By Interpretation two, this would not be permitted. In fact, it would be patently impossible to create a spell trigger item of Delayed Blast Fireball. Absolutely and utterly forbidden, impossible, we don't care if you have the entire pantheon of gods at your beck and call, it can not be done. Even if you're the DM and Rule Zero it.

Which seems better?

 

[Nail]

Which seems better?

Um...Option: Hyperbole?