Sage Advice's ruling on staves

[Hypersmurf]

I'm not following this. The only restrictions I'm seeing on the spells are:
3rd level max (bless weapon and shillelagh are both 1st level)
no range = personal (neither bless weapon nor shillelagh are personal range)
no nonsensical results as with shield other (neither bless weapon nor shillelagh involve that)

So I'm not seeing the problem. The feat may say that you can make a potion of a spell that targets one or more creatures, but since the feat also references the DMG for rules on potions, and the potions section of the magic items explicitly includes references to non-creature targets and oils, I don't think there's a problem.

The feat says you can brew a potion of a spell that targets one or more creatures.

The DMG says oils are like potions, but applied externally.

An Oil of Bless Weapon doesn't target one or more creatures; thus, you can't use the Brew Potion feat to create it.

But if we assume that, for some reason, Brew Potion also allows you to create oils of spells that target one or more objects, can you create Oil of Secret Page?

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

They're paying the wand price (and sometimes lower!) for the staff--it's as simple as that.

Or they are paying significantly MORE than the wand price. Why did you leave that out of your analysis, if you are really looking to really discuss it?

If you minimum caster level for the staff is 8th level, a lot of "wands" would be cheaper than the staff for the exact same thing. And it's true that when the staff contains higher level spells, or high caster levels, the costs changes over to sometimes being cheaper for the staff. But what is bad about that? Wands are good for low level spells and low caster levels, and staves are good for high level spell and high caster levels.

And that makes sense, doesn't it? One type of item for the lower level guys, and another type for the higher level ones?

 

[Mistwell]

Rystil Arden nailed it. There must be some reason, somehow, that a staff is more expensive than an "equivalent" wand. (because they aren't equivalent)

As a house rule, I might allow single-spell staves (of any spell level) to be created by someone with both Craft Staff and Craft Wand, but that is certainly not RAW, and neither is the Sage's poor advice.

But hey, that's the nature of free advice.

Wait, you have certainty about the rule, when we all acknowledge the "several" phrase is at best vague?

Some staves are more expensive, and some staves are less expensive, than the equivelent wand, and it depends on the spell level and the caster level. If you took Rystil's argument at face value, where he left off the occassions when the staff is actually more expensive than the equivelent wand with the same spell and same effect based on caster level, then you indeed fell for the very thing I was complaing about - Rystil didn't give you the full picture, but only half of it.

We should nail this down so nobody else makes the mistake. Staves MUST be created at no lower a caster level than level 8. That means, if the equivlent wand would have a caster level lower than 8 because of the way the spell works (like if it maxes out damage at level 7, or you wanted to create a cheaper one with a lower caster level or something like that), the staff is MORE expensive than the wand. On the other hand, if the spell is higher level or the caster level is higher level, then the staff is cheaper. The cost or benefits vary depending on those two factors, and there is no easy "Staff is cheaper" or "Staff is more expensive" answer that covers all possible types of single-spell staves.

 

[RigaMortus2]

And that makes sense, doesn't it? One type of item for the lower level guys, and another type for the higher level ones?

I think it makes better sense to have 1 item for lower guys and the same item for higher ones (just with higher level spells/abilities). Alas, D&D magic item system isn't set up like that.

IOW: I don't see a problem with allowing a level 3 character using a staff to cast spells so long as they aren't super high level. That makes sense to me. But like I said, D&D isn't set up like that.

 

[Mistwell]

There's a rule saying "you can't make up more wondrous items by taking a masterwork item and shoving a spell on it, along with the appropriate feat?" Because that's what the current staff magic item description suggests.

Heck, versatility is explicitly thrown wide open for some of the creation feats, like Brew Potion, which results in some potions in 3.5 that I never would have imagined in previous editions.

The wand/rod/staff division was created to maintain a sacred cow that didn't need maintaining, IMO, and did it imperfectly: The wand of wonder was changed to a rod of wonder, which mostly sounds like a D&D gay porno.

The entire set-up should be scrapped and there should be a single set of balanced rules that work for wands, rods and staffs that are all balanced against one another in utility and cost. Personally, my inclination is to just throw out old school staffs altogether and go with just runestaffs when MIC comes out.

Monte cook already came up with the answer in Arcana Evolved, and it's the one I suspect 4e will go with. Rules for single use items. Rules for charged items. Rules for items that can be used a specific number of times a day. And rules for continuous or at-will effect items. That's it. That's all the rules you need to cover any kind of magic item. The form of the item shouldn't be relevant. A ring that casts cure light wounds one time and then becomes inert metal is the same as a potion of cure light wounds that you drink. A glove that has 50 charges of magic missle is the same as a wand of magic missles. The form shouldn't matter, and creativity increases when you remove the form from the magic item type.

 

[mvincent]

But if we assume that, for some reason, Brew Potion also allows you to create oils of spells that target one or more objects, can you create Oil of Secret Page?

The brew potion feat allows you to create potions (from spells that target creatures) and oils (from spells that target objects). RAW is not as clear about this as it should be (i.e. it is only discerned/inferred by reviewing the list of potions), and so a DM doesn't technically have to allow the creation of oils (since the details are missing).

However, if you infer that the brew potion feat intended to say "You can create a potion of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures <or oils that target objects>." then (off-hand) an oil of secret page seems within the designer's intent and I would allow it.

Why?

also: would it be possible to clarify your thinking when asking oblique questions (rather than later)? It would aid my understanding of your viewpoint (rather than making it seem that you might be asking a leading question in order to 'trick' people).

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, if you infer that the brew potion feat intended to say "You can create a potion of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures <or oils that target objects>." then (off-hand) an oil of secret page seems within the designer's intent and I would allow it.

Why?

Because the casting time of Secret Page is not less than one minute.

The description of potions says that they can contain spells with a casting time of less than one minute. The section on Creating Magic Items doesn't mention this. Does that mean you can create an Oil of Secret Page, despite the casting time, just because the Creation section doesn't mention the restriction? Or does the restriction on potions, found in the potions description, apply to potions you create?

Obviously, the parallel I'm drawing is with the restriction found in the Staffs description - a staff contains several spells - which is not found in the Creation section.

-Hyp.

 

[Bad Paper]

Staves MUST be created at no lower a caster level than level 8.

Why? If we throw out the definition of "several," then we should be able to throw out this absurd minimum caster level. Why not just make Craft Wand and Craft Staff feats that you get at different levels?

the answer being, i suspect, that Craft Wand will disappear

A staff contains multiple ("several") spells. The Sage's ruling is stealth errata.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A staff contains multiple ("several") spells.

So what's your definition of 'several'?

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

Because the casting time of Secret Page is not less than one minute.

The description of potions says that they can contain spells with a casting time of less than one minute.

See now: that would have been nice information to provide when first asking the question.

The rule saying "A potion or oil can be used only once. It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute" seems like a specific rule that rescinds the general potion creation blanket for a specific group of spells (i.e. ones that take more than a minute to cast). I would apply this rule (now that I know about it).

Is there something this specific for staves? (this was the same question I asked earlier).

The general staff description doesn't appear intended to apply such limitations:
"A staff is a long shaft of wood that stores several spells. Unlike wands, which can contain a wide variety of spells, each staff is of a certain kind and holds specific spells."

I'm surprised others feel it does, but I suppose then (at worst) the matter is subject to interpretation (which is what the Sage is good for resolving). Or are there other passages that substantiate their viewpoint?