Would you use this weapon?

[Twowolves]

I was tinkering around with the cursed items rules for 3.5, and came up with this item:

A quarterstaff where each end is +1 Spell Storing, BUT it was cursed so that A) it could only be used by a spellcaster and B) the wielder can't cast spells while in possesion of it!

Is this an interesting and unique item, or a hunk of junk no one would ever use? Also, the uncursed version is worth around 16,600 gp, what would the cursed version be worth? I am assuming that a spellcaster could store a spell in it without holding it physically, otherwise yeah, it is a doorstop.

 

[sukael]

I wouldn't use it--at least, not unless that effect only happened while I was wielding it.. and I had gloves of storing or similar.

 

[DanMcS]

The way that cursed items normally work, "possession" of the item can only be lost with a remove curse spell. So you've basically made a magical item that lets you cast two spells into it, and then nothing else, until you unleash them from the spell-storing and cast something else into it. Setting it down to cast spells would be either impossible (you can't set it down) or ineffective (setting it down still doesn't let you cast spells unless you get a remove curse). For instance, "Once the curse is activated, the gloves can be removed only by means of a remove curse spell, a wish, or a miracle."

So, totally and completely worthless, and actively damaging to any caster.

 

[Sejs]

I wouldn't use it.

If I'm a spellcaster, then spellcasting is what I do. This stick prevents that for as long as it's in my possession, and in return it grants me ... what? Not much. Certainly not worth the hassle of losing access to the primary focus of my abilities.

I might hand it off to someone who is technically a spellcaster but does very little actually spellcasting, such as a lower level ranger or paladin, maybe.

Other than that it's really not worth it.

 

[Herobizkit]

I wouldn't use it myself, BUT...

Suppose your staff converts any spell cast into it into one particular spell, and THEN the caster could only use said spell...

In kind of turns the caster into a spontaneous caster, but only with one spell.

Thoughts?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I would run. not walk, run to the nearest cleric and get the cursed item removed.

No way would I use it.

The Auld Grump

 

[Hussar]

Reading this, my first thought was, "Good God NO!"

 

[Twowolves]

Well, first off, it is not an item that requires a Remove Curse to be rid of. Very few curesed items do anymore. It is a "cursed" item with a couple of drawbacks.

Also, keep in mind that it's worth without the drawbacks is around 16,600 gp, and so would not be any more of an option for any other character with access to, say, a couple of daggers +2. Mid-level parties might find a use for it, espcially someone who was looking at Spellsword or other martial spellcasting classes.

Just an idea.

 

[Kurotowa]

Sure I'd use it! My Warlock would love a staff like that. A high UMD plus Skill Mastery means I'd have no trouble scamming the Spells class feature to activate it, and since a Warlock's Invocations don't count as spells there'd be no drawback. I know a lot of Rogue would be nearly as happy to get their hands on it too.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I was tinkering around with the cursed items rules for 3.5, and came up with this item:

A quarterstaff where each end is +1 Spell Storing, BUT it was cursed so that A) it could only be used by a spellcaster and B) the wielder can't cast spells while in possesion of it!

Is this an interesting and unique item, or a hunk of junk no one would ever use? Also, the uncursed version is worth around 16,600 gp, what would the cursed version be worth? I am assuming that a spellcaster could store a spell in it without holding it physically, otherwise yeah, it is a doorstop.

Junk. Well, are you allowed to actually put it down?

I still think it's junk. I'd rather cast the spell from a safe distance, without having to consult the DMG to see which save DC I have to use...