Sage Advice's ruling on staves

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, it's stealth errata. That said, the original rules were stupid. Players could only make certain staffs? Why? No other magic item has that sort of restriction.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Notably, staves are much much better than wands. If you allow a player-crafted staff with only one spell, you get away with letting them pay essentially nothing for the advantages of a staff (getting to use your own CL and casting stat if higher is huge). At the very least, and I usually consider this abusive, I force the players to pay to add in a semi-related cantrip to the staff (For instance, Staff of Acid-Substituted Empowered Fireball and...Acid Splash!).

 

[Mouseferatu]

Does this rub anyone else the wrong way?

Nope. I always assumed it was legal, and saw--and still see--no reason why it should not be.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Nope. I always assumed it was legal, and saw--and still see--no reason why it should not be.

What's your take on 'several spells' and 'certain kinds of staff'?

-Hyp.

 

[Mouseferatu]

What's your take on 'several spells' and 'certain kinds of staff'?

My take is that I'm more than happy to interpret flavor text as flavor, and I'm willing to make guesses based on what I think is a reasonable interpretation of author's intent.

(It's why I don't tend to engage in long discussions in the rules forum.)

More specifically:

By the rules for creating magic items, which are very specifically spelled out, there is nothing mandating that a staff contain more than one spell. And as far as the specific lines you quoted, the creation of any magic item not already in the DMG is up to the discretion of the DM. Those specific lines of description are not given in the section on magic item creation, so I consider those pieces of text to be descriptive of the staffs that are listed in the section in which those lines appear, not restrictive in terms of what can possibly be created.

 

[Mistwell]

Notably, staves are much much better than wands. If you allow a player-crafted staff with only one spell, you get away with letting them pay essentially nothing for the advantages of a staff (getting to use your own CL and casting stat if higher is huge).

A staff must be created at a minimum caster level of 8, and to obtain the feat you must be a minium caster level of 12. These are significant differences, and often translate into significant cost increases. A staff of magic missle costs a minimum of 3000 gp, and a 12th level caster, to create for example.

At the very least, and I usually consider this abusive, I force the players to pay to add in a semi-related cantrip to the staff (For instance, Staff of Acid-Substituted Empowered Fireball and...Acid Splash!).

What's abusive about it? I'm just not seeing what they are "getting away" with.

 

[Rystil Arden]

A staff must be created at a minimum caster level of 8, and to obtain the feat you must be a minium caster level of 12. These are significant differences, and often translate into significant cost increases. A staff of magic missle costs a minimum of 3000 gp, and a 12th level caster, to create for example.



What's abusive about it? I'm just not seeing what they are "getting away" with.

They're paying the wand price (and sometimes lower!) for the staff--it's as simple as that. Why would any high-level caster looking for a support wand in case of running out of spells ever buy a Wand of Fireball (10th caster level to get the most out of damage) for 22500 when she can just buy a Staff of Fireball (8th caster level, but she's 10th+ anyway so it doesn't matter) for 18000 and get around +4 or +5 to the DC?

Assuming that wands are correctly priced for their utility (and maybe that assumption is wrong, but I believe in it), single-spell staves are underpriced and manipulative of the rules.

 

[Musrum]

What is abusive is encouraging them to create Wands of Fireball at 12th level, which are mostly useless.

 

[Legildur]

What is abusive is encouraging them to create Wands of Fireball at 12th level, which are mostly useless.

Given that there would be no advantage in making it higher than 10th level (no increase in damage, saving throw, or spell penetration?) then I don't think that caster ever would make it.

However, why would a wizard make a single spell staff to get the price benefits when he could make a wand instead, which is much easier to carry..... Think about. Your high level wizard has his favourite Staff of Power etc he can't exactly carry two staves!

If it was his sole staff, then I wouldn't see a problem with a single spell, even if it isn't precisely RAW (as Hyp rightly points out).

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, it's stealth errata. That said, the original rules were stupid. Players could only make certain staffs? Why? No other magic item has that sort of restriction.

Wondrous items do. Rings do. Rods do.

However, why would a wizard make a single spell staff to get the price benefits when he could make a wand instead, which is much easier to carry..... Think about. Your high level wizard has his favourite Staff of Power etc he can't exactly carry two staves!

Quiver of Ehlonna. Carry a staff for every occasion.