What's to stop someone...

[Evilhalfling]

This thread should be merged with whats the deal with staves ...

 

[Evilhalfling]

As for making a spell in a staff cost 50 charges no. In the staff creation rules it only mentions a spell costing 2 charges. despite the examples (which cap at 5 btw)

If you use 50 charges it becomes cheaper than scrolls
750/50 = 15 * spell lvl*caster lvl

 

[ARandomGod]

If I tell you that it is "a nice day outside", that doesn't mean that it could possibly be nighttime where I am because the word "day" can be indicative of a calendar day. That's what your interpretation of the word "spells" is effectively doing here and it's a fairly weak argument.

But... it *could* be nighttime outside. I don't see why it could never be from that. And I don't see how spells couldn't mean my interpretation. I did list exactly how mine works, I don't actually know what else could be expected.

Actually, its placement makes perfect sense.

It's not meant as an actual feat for use in normal game play. It's meant as an example feat that a DM might want to make available should he be running a campaign set in and around a Wizard's College.

OOh, I remember the debate around that feat.
I agree that it was clearly not meant to be used for getting into PrC's earlier. But they admited that as it was written it indeed would have worked that way, they admited that when they put out a statement saying "this cannot be used to qualify for a PrC".

I think that the real justification there was that the feat did not allow someone to cast second level spell, but allowed a potential to maybe cast the spell, and so they couldn't really DO it. ...
A weak arguement, but understandable. Especially since that indeed was something that they didn't want and would make a real difference in the relative power level of certain PrC's.

But back to staves. While I see a significant power differential between the above theoretical feat allowing early access to a PrC and it not allowing early access... I don't really see how it's overpowered to have a staff with only one spell in it.

As for making a spell in a staff cost 50 charges no. In the staff creation rules it only mentions a spell costing 2 charges. despite the examples (which cap at 5 btw)

If you use 50 charges it becomes cheaper than scrolls
750/50 = 15 * spell lvl*caster lvl

Oooh, excellently evil point, evil halfling.
But wait...
Aren't they cheaper than scrolls already, charge per charge? I mean, that's the entire point, right?

 

[calypso15]

Oooh, excellently evil point, evil halfling.
But wait...
Aren't they cheaper than scrolls already, charge per charge? I mean, that's the entire point, right?

Exactly.

 

[KarinsDad]

Oooh, excellently evil point, evil halfling.
But wait...
Aren't they cheaper than scrolls already, charge per charge? I mean, that's the entire point, right?

Yes, but Wizards do not get the feat for free.

However, using the 2 charge per casting limitation, Staves make excellent mega-scrolls for medium to high level spells since you get to use your caster level, they are cheaper, and they use Spell Trigger.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

How's this:

Staff of Calypso

• Ghost Sound (1 charge) (Sound of steel drums only)
• Magic Mouth (1 charge) (The message is sung rather than spoken)
• Ventriloquism (1 charge) (Your voice seems to sing rather than speak)
• Shout (2 charges) (Emits an ear-splitting burst of music)
• Song of Discord (2 charges) (It's a calypso song, of course)

You forgot Otto's Irresistable Dance!

The Auld Grump - Shake, shake, shake Senora, shake your body line
Shake, shake, shake Senora, shake it all the time
Work, work, work Senora, work your body line
Work, work, work Senora, work it all the time!

My girl's name is Senora
I tell you friends I adore her
When she dances oh, brother
She's a hurricane in all kinds of weather!

Shake, shake, shake Senora, shake your body line
Shake, shake, shake Senora, shake it all the time
Work, work, work Senora, work your body line
Work, work, work Senora, work it all the time!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Aren't they cheaper than scrolls already, charge per charge? I mean, that's the entire point, right?

Yes, but the basis for that is that you buy in bulk. A charge in a wand costs 15, a scroll costs 25... but you have to buy the charges in the wand fifty at a time.

A staff of Maximized Magic Missile, CL 9 (requires 50 charges) and a scroll of Maximized Magic Missile, CL 9 are both items that can be used once... but one is cheaper than the other.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

But... it *could* be nighttime outside. I don't see why it could never be from that.

Nope. Not with that phrase. You have to take the most reasonable interpretation, not a silly one.

And I don't see how spells couldn't mean my interpretation. I did list exactly how mine works, I don't actually know what else could be expected.

"But there is more than one spell in the magic missile only staff. There are 50."

This is the flaw in your logic.

There is only one spell in the Magic Missile Only staff.

There can be 50 castings of that one spell, but there is only one spell.

The casting of a spell does not equate to the number of spells, it equates to the number of castings.


"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."

It does not state that it stores several castings of spells. The second sentence here goes on to further explain what they mean by the word "spells". You do not get a wide variety of spells in Wands EXCEPT with relationship to the many different types of wands (i.e. many different types of spells), one for each spell. Staves, on the other hand, hold specific spells. You do not get a Staff of Abjuration with a Fireball spell in it. The meaning here is clear.

You are taking the word "spells" out of context here. That is the flaw of your logic. Your definition does not mesh with the entire paragraph here. People generally do not shift gears on what they mean with a word from one sentence to the next unless they tell you that they are doing that. There is nothing here to indicate that the designers were doing it this time and in fact, we have evidence to the contrary.

The other sentence:

"Staffs: A staff has a number of different (but often related) spell effects."

supports this as well. How can you have different spell effects if the staff only has one spell and the spell only has one spell effect (btw, the majority of spells have only one spell effect)? The only way to ensure different spell effects is to have more than one spell.

And, all of the Staves in the book have more than one spell in them.


This is crystal clear.


In a context where someone says "he cast several spells", then yes it could mean he cast the same one several times. Not in a section explaining what is found in a staff.

Just reading that one sentence alone by itself, it is possible to interpret it in the English language your way, even though that is not the most reasonable interpretation. When you put that in with the rest of the rules concerning staffs and specifically the context of the paragraph where that sentence is found, it is not even close to a valid or possible interpretation. It's called stretching.

You have no other places in the rules that support your interpretation either.

 

[Nail]

If you use 50 charges it becomes cheaper than scrolls
750/50 = 15 * spell lvl*caster lvl

...except that you *must* use at least caster level 8. That's a downside for low level spells for which caster level does nothing.

Still, it seems reasonable, even "core", to limit the charges per use to a max of 5.

 

[ARandomGod]

"But there is more than one spell in the magic missile only staff. There are 50."

This is the flaw in your logic.

There is only one spell in the Magic Missile Only staff.

There can be 50 castings of that one spell, but there is only one spell.

The casting of a spell does not equate to the number of spells, it equates to the number of castings.

... clipped for space ...

You have no other places in the rules that support your interpretation either.

And your interpretation seems semantically incorrect to me. Under that particular definition there, one could say that there are NO spells in the staff, just 50 castings, 50 potential instances of (more than) one spell... and so no staff is legal, because none of them contain any 'spells'.

I mean, I *understand* what you're saying. I just don't think that's what is meant.