What's to stop someone...

[dcollins]

Re: New items -- "They're not rules, they're only guidelines." Case in point.

 

[glass]

This isn't an arguement, it's just a contradiction!

No it isn't!

Sorry, couldn't resist.


glass.

 

[ARandomGod]

...from buying a Staff of Magic Missiles for 750gp? Or any other low-level spell? And then using it with their own save DCs and caster level, with one HELL of a lot more utility than wands?

I can't resist, so I must answer this:

NOTHING!! Nothing would stop someone from buying a Staff of Magic Missiles for 750 GP (other than lack of gold).

However, the fact that a staff HAS to be caster level 8 will very likely stop anyone from selling one at that price.

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".

I've always read that phrase as meaning several spells, which could be the same spell several times. Several Magic Missile Spells. 50 is definitely several. And, of course, it doesn't have to be exactly 50 (it can have been used, and there are rules for making the spells cost more than one charge).

I don't think that it *can* be completely replaced with the phrase "different spells" without altering it's meaning (if this weren't true, you wouldn't be tempted to try to make the alteration, and thereby change the potential meanings of the phrase). However, I've never been tempted in my interpretation to replace the phrase with 'spell charges', because the number of charges in the staff does not necessarily reflect the number of spells in the staff. Even if it's all one spell.

"A staff is a long shaft of wood that stores several spells."
"Staffs: A staff has a number of different (but often related) spell effects."

Casting multiple Magic Missiles is not casting multiple spell effects (it is casting the same spell effect), nor is a Staff of Magic Missiles a staff that has several spells stored in it (it has many charges, but only a single spell). Charges are not spells.

Casting the same spell several times is casting several spells... those spells are indeed related, very related. But there are several of them. You can tell the difference between there being several and there not being several by how many times the opponent(s) scream.

It's true that charges are not spells. But they power spells. Several of them. In the above referenced case, several magic missile spells.

Given that the rules are already rubbish in this respect, there's nothing to stop you making that ray of frost take all 50 charges from the staff.

Or from making that ray of frost a scorching ray, thus a second level spell, thus the primary power of the staff. Add another 50-charge 2nd level spell to be the secondary power of the staff. Now add in your magic missile.

The magic missile gets a 50% price break, and the first two spells are at some 1/50th of their normal price, leaving your staff cheaper than an equivalent level magic missile staff, which IMHO is just wrong. If we're being really strict, you can always just put two 1st level powers that take 2 charges each alongside the MM, leaving you with a minor price break.

Oh
My
Gawd!
You're right.
I never noticed this because, well, because staves aren't worth it, so I never looked at them THAT closely. However, just for the one GM I know who's said "you can make anything in the rules, but nothing custom at all, no matter how reasonablely priced or well thought out", just for him I'm going to have to make this staff.

That would be what...
375*(spell level) 2 * (Caster level) 8 =6000
375*1*8=3000
So:
6000/50 (Scorching Ray, cost 50 charges to cast)
+ 0.75(6000/50) (Acid Arrow, secondary spell, cost 50 charges to cast)
+ 0.5(3000) (Magic Missile, tertiary spell, cost 1 charge to cast)
= 1,710 gold pieces.

That's not to bad for a staff of magic missiles with 50 charges (but it's really aweful for a staff of Scorching Ray or Acid Arrow with 50 charges, cost to cast 50 charges each).

Allowing "New Magic Items" is a rules variant (DMG p. 214), so please put them in House Rules.
Like the DMG says, "the formulas only provide a starting point".

Every time I see this, I'm reminded that ALL these rules are guidelines, and by your logic we should put every rule question in House Rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

Casting the same spell several times is casting several spells... those spells are indeed related, very related. But there are several of them. You can tell the difference between there being several and there not being several by how many times the opponent(s) scream.

Yes, this definition of the word "spells" has been used as a logical construct in arguments before. It seems to show up every 3 months or so to attempt to skew the meaning of a sentence in the books.

The most recent one I can remember was attempting to use the fact that Spellcasting Prodigy can cast a single second level spell on multiple days to prove that he could cast second level spells in order to meet the arcane casting prerequisite for Mystic Theurge or Cerebremancer and hence could avoid multiple levels of arcane spell caster by taking a feat (that helps him in other ways as well).

This type of logical construct is just as flawed now as it was then. It is a game of semantics in an attempt to sidestep the rules as written. The meaning of the rules are clear, but just because there is a way in English to try to mis-interpret the rules, does not mean that it is reasonable to do so. We all understand how to twist meanings of words and we all understand that it is fun and sometimes even cool sounding to do so, but that does not change the rules.

It's true that charges are not spells. But they power spells. Several of them. In the above referenced case, several magic missile spells.

But again, it does not state what powers the spells. It states spells.

 

[calypso15]

No it isn't!

If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

Calypso

 

[ARandomGod]

Yes, this definition of the word "spells" has been used as a logical construct in arguments before. It seems to show up every 3 months or so to attempt to skew the meaning of a sentence in the books.

The most recent one I can remember was attempting to use the fact that Spellcasting Prodigy can cast a single second level spell on multiple days to prove that he could cast second level spells in order to meet the arcane casting prerequisite for Mystic Theurge or Cerebremancer and hence could avoid multiple levels of arcane spell caster by taking a feat (that helps him in other ways as well).

Wait... does that feat allow you to cast a particular spell level a character level (or more) before you actually can? I didn't know there was anything that did that...

I've either been playing that feat wrong, however, or this is a completely different feat than the one called 'spellcasting prodigy' that I know.

On the other hand, the second you can actually cast second level spells, even if it's only once per day, I'm pretty sure you meet a prerequisite that says 'ability to cast second level spells'.

This type of logical construct is just as flawed now as it was then. It is a game of semantics in an attempt to sidestep the rules as written. The meaning of the rules are clear, but just because there is a way in English to try to mis-interpret the rules, does not mean that it is reasonable to do so. We all understand how to twist meanings of words and we all understand that it is fun and sometimes even cool sounding to do so, but that does not change the rules.

I have to agree with you that I see a flaw in logic being used. However, I see the flaw in your logic... I'm not saying this to attempt any twisting. On the other hand, I say "he who smelt it, dealt it", by which I mean that you're accustion of twisting english to fit a specific definition points to the likelyhood that you tend to do just that (speaking in a purely psychological sense).

But again, it does not state what powers the spells. It states spells.

Yes...
There seems to be a miscommunication there. I was agreeing that it does not refer to charges, or to what powers the spells. I was agreeing that the charges are not being referenced here. The spells were. All of them, and all of them magic missile spells.

It's simple math. In a staff with 50 charges, if it takes one charge to cast magic missile, there are not only 50 charges, but 50 magic missile spells.

In a staff with 50 charges, if it takes 2 charges to cast scorching ray and one to cast magic missile, there are either 25 scorching ray spells, or 50 magic missile spells, or some combination thereof that can be determined using the mathmatics of the charges it takes to cast each spell..

In a staff with 50 charges, where it takes two charges to cast scorching ray, and two charges to cast acid arrow, there are 25 spells, which must be a combination of scorching ray(s) and acid arrow(s)

But there is more than one spell in the magic missile only staff. There are 50.
And there are more than two spells in the scorching ray/magic missile staff, there are between 25 and 50.
And in the staff with scorching ray and acid arrow there are more than two spells. There are 25.

Once some of those spells have been used, there are less than the original number of spells...

 

[KarinsDad]

Wait... does that feat allow you to cast a particular spell level a character level (or more) before you actually can? I didn't know there was anything that did that...

I've either been playing that feat wrong, however, or this is a completely different feat than the one called 'spellcasting prodigy' that I know.

Actually, it might be called Precocious Apprentice or something like that. Without the books in front of me, I get the bizillion feat names confused.

I think you can find it near the back of Complete Arcane, outside of the feat section (which was REAL unintelligent as well, let's put feats in sidebars ).

On the other hand, the second you can actually cast second level spells, even if it's only once per day, I'm pretty sure you meet a prerequisite that says 'ability to cast second level spells'.

Not according to WotC, at least for Precocious Apprentice since he cannot do it consistently.

Course, that's the problem with having a bizillion feats. Sooner or later, ones slip through that are meant to do one thing and end up doing something totally unexpected.

I have to agree with you that I see a flaw in logic being used. However, I see the flaw in your logic... I'm not saying this to attempt any twisting. On the other hand, I say "he who smelt it, dealt it", by which I mean that you're accustion of twisting english to fit a specific definition points to the likelyhood that you tend to do just that (speaking in a purely psychological sense).

If we were only talking one sentence in the book and not two sentences (and a few more not as seriously implied sentences in the DMG which have the same implication, but are not proof) and every Staff in the DMG did not match that, I might agree that it is possible for me to be playing semantic games. But, all of the text matches my interpretation here.

As is, the burden of proof that x means y is on your side of the fence and so far, there hasn't been much in the ways of rules quotes from your side. Just, "No, it can mean this instead because of how the English language works." without evidence to back that up.

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.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, it might be called Precocious Apprentice or something like that. Without the books in front of me, I get the bizillion feat names confused.

I think you can find it near the back of Complete Arcane, outside of the feat section (which was REAL unintelligent as well, let's put feats in sidebars ).

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.

 

[Nail]

In any event, allowing a Staff of Magic Missiles (or whatever) isn't going to break the magic item creation system.

Allowing you to order the spells on a staff according to level, rather than according to cost, will. (Fortunately the rules support ordering the spells by cost, not level.)

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

The problem is that it cannot be found quickly. It could just as easily have been placed in the feats section and referenced as an example feat for a Wizard College.