Sage Advice's ruling on staves

[nute]

Um...Option: Hyperbole?

For a reason. The rules-as-written are unclear, because of the vagueness of the word "several" not seeming to fit with simple logic, and making it impossible to accomplish a low-level task while stating the possibility of a more complex task (Staff of Fireball v. Staff of Fireball+Magic Missile).

In this case, a DM should choose which interpretation he prefers to use in his campaign. If you're playing strictly rules-as-written with no variation, you're going to run into a LOT of contradictions and vagueness.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm a bit amazed that folks are arguing that "several" means anything less than "more than one" here.

 

[GeorgeFields]

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).

Which seems better?

#1 is USA
#2 in New Zealand?

 

[Mistwell]

I'm a bit amazed that folks are arguing that "several" means anything less than "more than one" here.

And I am a bit amazed that people are taking a general description paragraph, one which also says "staves are wood" right along with "staves store several spells" as if it's a firm rule as opposed to a generalized description, despite the staves NOT being of only wood, and despite the staves not being of 3 or more spells all the time (even though several is almost always defined as more than 2). I mean, the context to me screams that the paragraph in question is not meant to be taken as a literal rule, but y'all are taking it that way anyway and kinda ignoring all the context that says otherwise.

If all staves are wood, then why are so many staves not wood? If staves all store "several" spells, then why do some staves store only two spells? If the specific staves are just "exceptions" then why are they not labelled as such, as given how few staves there are isn't it telling that around 20% or more of staves hold to this "exception"?

It's even more stunning to me that people don't acknowledge that there are even two serious reasonable intepretations at work here. When folks dismiss the opposition as basically an impossible or unreasonable intepretation, it shifts from debate to obstinance. We have a vague rule here. Taking a side is fine. Telling the other side they are being unreasonable for not agreeing with you 100% about a vague rule seems unproductive at best (and that is what you are saying when you say there are not two reasonable intepretations to this issue).

 

[Mistwell]

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

If a player makes a staff made of metal that stores fireball and magic missle, would it be invalid because it has to be made of wood?

 

[jasin]

I have to ask, is there any problem in allowing staves with only one spell?

I understand the semantic argument about "several" vs. "one or more" vs. "more than one" but from a playability standpoint, does anyone consider staves with only one spell especially, game-breakingly powerful?

 

[Delta]

...does anyone consider staves with only one spell especially, game-breakingly powerful?

Game-breakingly powerful? Probably not.
Flavor-breakingly asynchronous? Probably so.

And to some people, the latter is actually more important. (The original description, intent, and pattern is clearly that staffs should be a complicated set of related magics.)

 

[Legildur]

Each of those were also answered in the FAQ (a supplement with is supposed to help settle arguments). I'm inclined to believe people deprecate the FAQ here simply to increase their post count.

So I take it you are dismissing other peoples' perfectly legitimate views on the FAQ as self-serving behaviour? Gee, thanks for that. Maybe you should go back and have a quick read over some of those threads criticising parts of the FAQ (and it is only parts) and review the evidence as to why they may hold that view.

 

[Mistwell]

Game-breakingly powerful? Probably not.
Flavor-breakingly asynchronous? Probably so.

And to some people, the latter is actually more important. (The original description, intent, and pattern is clearly that staffs should be a complicated set of related magics.)

The flavor seems to be "powerful high-level magic device with a theme". The fact that it can cast more than one spell seems fairly secondary to that flavor. Indeed, two spells that involved fire doesn't seem all that much more "thematic" than one spell that involves fire.

 

[Mistwell]

So I take it you are dismissing other peoples' perfectly legitimate views on the FAQ as self-serving behaviour? Gee, thanks for that. Maybe you should go back and have a quick read over some of those threads criticising parts of the FAQ (and it is only parts) and review the evidence as to why they may hold that view.

I believe mvincent was referring to people who dismiss the entire FAQ, wholesale. Not just parts. There seem to be quite a number of people who toss out the entire FAQ as worthless, and who use fairly strong words in describing just how worthless the entire thing is.