What's to stop someone...

[KarinsDad]

Of course it can.

"A staff is a long shaft of wood that stores several spells."

This sentence indicates that staves require a minimum of three spells in them (three generally being the minimum definition of the word "several").

Now, this does not mean that a staff might not only be capable of casting a single spell (e.g. in the case that one spell needs one charge and the other spells need two charges and there is only one charge remaining), but the staff still has a minimum of three different spells in it (regardless of whether they can still be cast).


Now, having said that, someone could loosely define "several" as allowing two, but definitely not one. It is apparent that WotC did this with the Staves of Charming and Life, each of which only has two spells in them.

So, it seems that WotC meant a minimum of two spells per staff because they used the phrase "that stores several spells" and gave examples of staves with two spells in them.

 

[Deset Gled]

"A staff is a long shaft of wood that stores several spells."

I think "several" could easily be refering to the number of spell castings (charges) being stored in a staff, instead of the number of types of spells the staff can cast. YMMV.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think "several" could easily be refering to the number of spell castings (charges) being stored in a staff, instead of the number of types of spells the staff can cast. YMMV.

As opposed to, say, a scroll, which stores 1. I could buy that argument.

 

[werk]

This begs the question of whether a staff can have only one spell in it. I have been wondering this for some time, and would like to know if anyone here allows it or has seen it...?

Well, a staff is a lot bigger than a wand, but pretty similar if you think about it...
My guess would be that wands are single spell items and staves are multi-spell items (as they are theoretically several wands put together).

 

[KarinsDad]

I think "several" could easily be refering to the number of spell castings (charges) being stored in a staff, instead of the number of types of spells the staff can cast. YMMV.

That's really stretching. I doubt anyone not familiar with this discussion would read that sentence for the first time and get that interpretation out of it.

Several is not a word usually used to mean 50.

Plus, you have to take the sentence in context:

"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."

The use of the word "spells" in the other two uses in this paragraph can be replaced with the phrase "different spells", they cannot be replaced with the phrase "spell charges".


Finally, the definition of wands implies this as well:

"A wand is a thin baton that contains a single spell of 4th level or lower."

Replacing "spell" with "spell charge" makes no sense in this sentence either.


Just because you can interpret something in a different way does not mean that such an interpretation is a reasonable one.

 

[Thanee]

There's absolutely no rule limiting staffs to having a minimum of three (or two) spells.

It is absolutely within the boundaries of the rules to create a staff with only one spell.

Hence, it is possible to create a staff with only one spell.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Len]

This sentence indicates that staves require a minimum of three spells in them (three generally being the minimum definition of the word "several").

That interpretation doesn't work. If the minimum is three then some staves in the DMG are not valid.

(Besides, according to a couple of dictionaries, "several" means more than two or three, so the minimum would be four. Which would rule out even more standard staves.)

 

[werk]

That interpretation doesn't work. If the minimum is three then some staves in the DMG are not valid.

(Besides, according to a couple of dictionaries, "several" means more than two or three, so the minimum would be four. Which would rule out even more standard staves.)

The system that I use for this is:

Single = 1
Couple = 2
Few = 3
Several = 4+
Dozen = 12
Score = 20
Gross = 144

 

[KarinsDad]

There's absolutely no rule limiting staffs to having a minimum of three (or two) spells.

There is a rule that prevents them from having one.

"A staff is a long shaft of wood that stores several spells."

Now you can pretend that this means something else or that it is not a rule, but that's not RAW.

It is absolutely within the boundaries of the rules to create a staff with only one spell.

Hence, it is possible to create a staff with only one spell.

With Rule 0, cottages could fly on a normal basis as well in a given game.

Nothing wrong with a DM allowing one spell per staff, but that is a house rule.

 

[Deset Gled]

There is a rule that prevents them from having one.

"A staff is a long shaft of wood that stores several spells."

Now you can pretend that this means something else or that it is not a rule, but that's not RAW.

I've already stated an alternate interpretation of this line. You shrugged it off by saying "Just because you can interpret something in a different way does not mean that such an interpretation is a reasonable one." In that sentance, you yourself admit that its a valid interpretation, you just don't consider it becuase you feel it's unreasonable. But last time I checked, Rules as Writen and Rules as Reasonable were not the same thing. Rules as KarinsDad Interprets Them is another thing entirely.

Nothing wrong with a DM allowing one spell per staff, but that is a house rule.

Allowing a player to create any custom staff is a house rule.