I just want to make sure I understand the rules correctly:
I am making a 15th-level wizard who specializes in creating constructs. As such, I want him to have a magical staff that allows him to cast animate objects and make whole.
He has +23 use magic device modifier, so he can use animate objects even though it is a divine spell that does not on his spell list. Since a wizard spell, make whole, is also on the staff, my wizard can freely recharge the staff one charge at a time each morning by emptying out a 6th-level spell slot (the level of animate object).
When casting either spell from the staff, my wizard uses his caster level (15) and his own ability score (28 Intelligence) where appropriate.
Is that right?
By the core rules I believe this would work as you've described. However, the use of such a staff in this manner isn't specifically covered in the core rules. You'll need to discuss this with your GM, as there are numerous concerns that every GM should, at the very least, consider. A few off the top of my head:
Ultimately, as with any item not specifically described within the rules, the core book can only be used as a guideline; you're going to have to okay everything with the GM, and be prepared to be denied the item, either in part or entirely, regardless of what you or anyone on these boards feel core rules indicate. I wish you the best.
By the core rules I believe this would work as you've described. However, the use of such a staff in this manner isn't specifically covered in the core rules. You'll need to discuss this with your GM, as there are numerous concerns that every GM should, at the very least, consider. A few off the top of my head:
This staff is technically going to be a divine staff. Should an arcane caster be able to cast any of its spells normally?
Can an arcane caster recharge the staff normally, as the spells are divine? Along the same line of thought, since the highest-level spell contained within the item is not available to a wizard in any form, can a wizard recharge the item normally?
As it's a divine magic item, does a wizard use his Intelligence or his Wisdom modifier when casting spells from it. Likewise, can he use his arcane caster level, or should he be restricted to the caster level of the staff itself.
Staves are not magical items that are traditionally mass produced; how was a divine item of this magnitude obtained by the wizard?
* Staves are neither arcane or divine. Scrolls are the only magic items that really carry this distinction, in that the user of the scroll must be able to cast spells of the appropriate type. No other magic item has this requirement.
For instance, a cleric with the fire domain can use a wand of fireball with no problem, requiring no checks of any kind, since it appears on his spell list. It doesn't matter whether the wand was crafted by a wizard or another fire domain cleric. The same applies to staves.
* Any creature that can cast the appropriate level spell can recharge any staff. It doesn't matter whether the creature casts arcane or divine spells, or the item has either arcane or divine spells, or what type of spell the highest level spell in the staff is.
* The rules on staves are clear, the user uses his caster level if its higher than the staff's and uses his relevant ability modifier. For casters this is their casting stat.
I'll grant that its not always clear when using magic items how the ability modifiers should work--particularly with scrolls which require that the user have an ability score of a level able to actually cast the spell. Does a rogue with 12 Int and 16 Cha need to make a separate UMD check to use a scroll of Chain Lightning? Does it matter if the scroll was made by a wizard or a sorcerer?
* This is fantasy, so there can be an easily designed story to account for the creation of said staff. Actually a lot of stories could work. But there are plenty of staves already listed in the CRB that include high level divine spells, or a mix of arcane and divine spells. The difficulty in acquiring said staff--as with all things--is represented by its market price.
As I said, as written it should function fine. However, it is a non-standard use of a unique stave; every GM is going to look at this differently. And none of the different perspectives would be correct or incorrect. For example:
* Staves are neither arcane or divine...
I disagree with this. Just because the description fails to state there's a distinction doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. In addition, differences in cost and caster level for wands, for example, based on the creator's class and the level at which a particular class obtains a given spell, indicates things are not so simple.
* Any creature that can cast the appropriate level spell can recharge any staff...
Once again, just because the description fails to state otherwise doesn't mean this is necessarily the case. I personally don't know how I would look at this one, but I can easily see a GM deciding that as divine items are crafted using power granted by a deity or divine source, only the same type of magic can recharge them.
* The rules on staves are clear, the user uses his caster level if its higher than the staff's and uses his relevant ability modifier...
Once again, this would usually boil down to a matter of if the GM sees a difference between divine and arcane magic. There's precedence in the rules for recognizing the caster level of different spellcasting classes separately. By that logic it would be very reasonable for a GM to decide that only a divine caster level could be used to modify the spells cast using such an item.
* This is fantasy, so there can be an easily designed story to account for the creation of said staff...
Granted, but there are GMs, like myself, who would still like an explanation as how the acquisition of such an item came about. A staff that contains a a high-level divine spell is not something that is common for a wizard to carry around. For that matter, staves in general are somewhat rare. The difficulty may be represented in the price, sure, but I would still want to know the story behind the item before I allowed it in a game.
With all due respect, you are reading a ton of stuff into the rules. If thats the way you want to play the game that is fine. But you shouldn't post on here as if that is what the rules actually SAY, because its not. And particularly because the rules on staves are basically unchanged (except for the recharge/number of charges thing) from previous incarnations of this game and they had been well stated and understood for a number of years now.
Also, I'm pretty sure RavingDork is the DM in his game and is making this an NPC wizard.
With all due respect, you are reading a ton of stuff into the rules...
As are you. As should every GM.
But you shouldn't post on here as if that is what the rules actually SAY, because its not.
Once again, I'll reiterate; I agree that the rules as written support everything described in the original post. This is the third time I've posted this.
If you read my original post, I clearly state the points I made are examples of what a GM may consider when deciding to allow a situation in his or her game. In my second post I specify which of my points are how I personally interpret things, as well as which are examples of how other GMs may look at them.
You should also be wary of presenting your own opinions as what the rules state. You indicate things that the rules tend to imply, but that are neither stated nor refuted; what rules imply is very different from what they state, and such matters are supposed to be left up to the GM to decide.
Also, I'm pretty sure RavingDork is the DM in his game and is making this an NPC wizard.
If that's the case, then this staff is a non-issue. The rules surrounding the item should be interpreted in a manner that best fits the game.
Towards the other poster, I'm sorry you are confusing spell-trigger with spell-completion devices. Scrolls are demarcated as arcane or divine, but wands and staves are not.
For example a cleric can use any wand of cure light wounds, as can a bard or a paladin. In the later case even paladins that are not high enough level to cast spells. There's no such thing as an arcane wand or as a divine wand, there are only wands of spells.
For me it's not a matter of spell-trigger versus spell-completion; I don't see that difference as a factor in this matter. I've just always felt that arcane magic is different than and separate from divine magic, and that the two types don't mix. How they interact is never stated, I think on purpose, and this is simply how I've decided to handle the matter in my games.
Is my opinion right? Yes, for my games it is. Are opposing opinions correct? Yes, for the games run by those GMs they are completely correct. There's nothing wrong with viewing things in either manner.
I just want to make sure I understand the rules correctly:
I am making a 15th-level wizard who specializes in creating constructs. As such, I want him to have a magical staff that allows him to cast animate objects and make whole.
He has +23 use magic device modifier, so he can use animate objects even though it is a divine spell that does not on his spell list. Since a wizard spell, make whole, is also on the staff, my wizard can freely recharge the staff one charge at a time each morning by emptying out a 6th-level spell slot (the level of animate object).
When casting either spell from the staff, my wizard uses his caster level (15) and his own ability score (28 Intelligence) where appropriate.
Is that right?
You've got it about exactly right. Though the UMD is to use any spell not on your spell list (it has nothing to do with arcane or divine, in fact the staff doesn't recognize that). You will need to be able to cast 'make whole' in order to recharge the staff (if for example you were a sorcerer you would need it as a spell known) though you indeed give up a 6th level slot at the start of the day to recharge it. Furthermore (towards use) if the spells in question had saves you could even apply feats and abilities that improved them (i.e. spell focus, bloodlines, etc).
As towards the cost of the staff you might wish to play around with the staff pricing rules, as they are, imho, badly done. If you are concerned with in-game verisimilitude and strictly going by core rules, no one would make a staff as you describe it as you could make a cheaper version that accomplishes the same (and more). Btw is the only use for make whole there to recharge the staff? Depending upon your goals here for the item (or the goals of the item's creator in your history for it) you may wish to alter it a bit here.
Towards the other poster, I'm sorry you are confusing spell-trigger with spell-completion devices. Scrolls are demarcated as...
A sorcerer does not need to know a spell to be able to use it in a staff (or even to recharge it). The spell merely needs to be on the sorcerer's class spell list, same as a wizard (where the spell doesn't necessarily need to be in his spellbook).
Also, I'm not the GM, but a player. Since my wizard frequently utilizes construct minions, I added make whole to the staff to function as a "construct healing" spell. It makes a good combo with animate objects as I can instantly create minions, and then keep them in the fight. (More than likely though, I will be using animate objects outside of combat along with Craft Construct to make permanent animated objects that can't be dispelled.)
Just to clarify for my own understanding...
You have the Use Magic Device skill, must make a skill check DC of 20 (to use a wand, staff, or other spell trigger item), and then can cast Animate Objects at your own caster level. Is that right? There is no special requirement to emulate an ability score (INT 16)? Seems quite nice if that's the case!
Spell Trigger items:
"Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity."
Spell Completion items:
"Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on). To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can't already cast the spell, there's a chance he'll make a mistake. Activating a spell completion item is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does."
Staves:
"Activation: Staves use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a staff is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 standard action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a staff.) To activate a staff, a character must hold it forth in at least one hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures)."
This means you need to have the spell on your spell list, or use the "use magic device" skill to activate the staff. You can recharge the staff as per the normal staff rules.
There is no such thing as a "divine" or "arcane" staff as per the Spell trigger method rules.
Only spell completion items are divine or arcane.
Staves are not spell completion, they are spell trigger, so class and the whoel "divine or arcane" doesn't matter. In fact you don't even have to be able to cast the spell yet, you just have to have it on your spell list.
Heaven's Agent
While I respect how you might house rule things at your table this forum is supposed to be about the rules as they actually are in the book -- not how you want them to read. While I enjoy reading your opinion (and would abide by it in your campaigns) it isn't inline with the rules as they are in the book, therefore doesn't really have bearing on the OP's question of what the rules allow as per the book.
I just want to make sure I understand the rules correctly:
I am making a 15th-level wizard who specializes in creating constructs. As such, I want him to have a magical staff that allows him to cast animate objects and make whole.
He has +23 use magic device modifier, so he can use animate objects even though it is a divine spell that does not on his spell list. Since a wizard spell, make whole, is also on the staff, my wizard can freely recharge the staff one charge at a time each morning by emptying out a 6th-level spell slot (the level of animate object).
When casting either spell from the staff, my wizard uses his caster level (15) and his own ability score (28 Intelligence) where appropriate.
Is that right?
Ignoring the mess of back and forth above... No, not quite. Close though.
First, recharging:
You must be able to actually cast some spell that is on the staff to be able to recharge it. That means spell known, or in your spellbook (or on your list for divine/full-list casters). If you can do that, you may recharge the staff each morning by expending a slot equal to the highest spell in the staff. So you need to actually know make whole to recharge the staff.
Using:
The staff will use your caster level, ability mod, etc., when you use the staff as normal - as in for make whole. When activating the staff via UMD however, for the animate objects, you would use the staff's caster level (8th minimum for staves, 11th minimum for animate objects), and minimum casting stat.
Using:
The staff will use your caster level, ability mod, etc., when you use the staff as normal - as in for Make Whole. When activating the staff via UMD however, for the animate objects, you would use the staff's caster level (8th minimum for staves, 11th minimum for animate objects), and minimum casting stat.
That's what I was wondering about. For my rogue, it would be the staff's caster level for sure. But for a wizard using the staff to cast a cleric/bard spell, it was a little unclear to me.
Under UMD: Use a wand, staff, or other spell trigger item...
This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list.
This makes me wonder if you wouldn't use your caster level (for a wizard, say)?
Majuba some quick points from the UMD skill listing:
Emulate an Ability Score: Ability score equals your UMD check -15, if you already possess an ability score high enough then you don't need to make the check.
Use a Wand, Staff, or other spell trigger item: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. DC 20.
Note that while it refers to wands in the text staves and other spell trigger items are on the list.
So he needs a DC 20 check and then the spell is treated as if it is already on his list. Since it would be on his list he would use his caster level.
(page reference: 109)
EDIT: Ninja'd by dosgamer.
For me it's not a matter of spell-trigger versus spell-completion; I don't see that difference as a factor in this matter. I've just always felt that arcane magic is different than and separate from divine magic, and that the two types don't mix.
There is even a staff right in the book that combines arcane-only and divine-only spells. Staff of Defense. I think it would be a pretty hard case to make, then, that the option to combine arcane and divine magic in one stave isn't rules as intended as well as RAW.
While I respect how you might house rule things at your table this forum is supposed to be about the rules as they actually are in the book -- not how you want them to read. While I enjoy reading your opinion (and would abide by it in your campaigns) it isn't inline with the rules as they are in the book, therefore doesn't really have bearing on the OP's question of what the rules allow as per the book.
I believe it does. Whether arcane and divine magic is the same or different is never addressed. Its an accepted gray area; some may say magic is magic, whatever the source, and other may say the two types are entirely different.
I personally favor the latter, and with that in mind divine and arcane variants of a single spell would in fact be separate spells. For example a divine cure light wounds, cast by a cleric, would not the same as a spell of the same name cast by a bard. By the rules as written for spell trigger items, if a GM holds that divine and arcane magics are different, then the type of magic that was used to create such an item becomes very relevant.
I hope this helps explain where I'm coming from a little better. Both perspectives follow the rules as written, but how those rules are defined depends on the how each individual GM approaches a specific gray area.
Actually your opinion does NOT follow the rules. It says "On your spell list." Not "From the same class levels" like spell completion does. It doesn't offer, "Divine wand of cure light wounds." In fact this is something that has been gone over with JB and JJ multiple times since the beta.
In fact it wasn't the way you are saying even in 3.5.
It's actually completely wrong. There isn't a difference for spell trigger items. It doesn't care who made them the only question is, "Do you have the spell on your spell list." If it's a yes you can use the item.
Actually your opinion does NOT follow the rules. It says "On your spell list." Not "From the same class levels" like spell completion does. It doesn't offer, "Divine wand of cure light wounds." In fact this is something that has been gone over with JB and JJ multiple times since the beta.
In fact it wasn't the way you are saying even in 3.5.
It's actually completely wrong. There isn't a difference for spell trigger items. It doesn't care who made them the only question is, "Do you have the spell on your spell list." If it's a yes you can use the item.
It does follow the rules as written. If arcane and divine magic are different from one another, then divine cure light wounds and arcane cure light wounds are different spells. As such, divine cure light wounds is not the spell list of any arcane caster. Similarly, arcane cure light wounds is not on the spell list of any divine spellcaster.
I'm not saying the rules for spell-trigger items are in doubt. They're very clear and simple. I'm simply pointing out that the interaction of divine and arcane magics are a gray area, and how one approaches the topic can result in different interpretations of the rules. You mention this has been resolved before; please, if there is a definitive statement to the fact that arcane and divine magics are interchangeable, point me in that direction. I love being proven wrong, as it is often the best way to learn. That said, I've not encountered such a statement, and in fact several times have seen statements to the contrary, that there is no definitive answer.
Actually there are definitive answers:
That's not what I was looking for; I've already stated that, as written, the original post follows the rules. I noted that in my first reply. But I'm also pointing out that those same rules can legitimately be defined differently based on a GM's perspective on arcane vs divine magic; neither post says anything about arcane magic being the same as divine magic, and that's what I'm saying is not defined by the rules.
Actually there are definitive answers:That's not what I was looking for; I've already stated that, as written, the original post follows the rules. I noted that in my first reply. But I'm also pointing out that those same rules can legitimately be defined differently based on a GM's perspective on arcane vs divine magic; neither post says anything about arcane magic being the same as divine magic, and that's what I'm saying is not defined by the rules.
You are wrong. You keep trying to muddy the waters in when there is a clear answer. There is no grey area. Yes a DM could decide that paladins have to wear silly hats, THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN A RULES DISCUSSION! Stop it.
You are wrong. You keep trying to muddy the waters in when there is a clear answer. There is no grey area. Yes a DM could decide that paladins have to wear silly hats, THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN A RULES DISCUSSION! Stop it.
The original question has been answered and I'm now asking a rules question that came of it: is there any definitive statements that arcane magic and divine magic should be treated equally? Has there been any statements made that that they are the same thing, or different? As far as I can tell the rules don't state things either way, and indicate both cases in different places.
I'm inclined to agree with Abraham and Meatrace on the matter. It just seems like you're reaching H.A.
You are wrong. You keep trying to muddy the waters in when there is a clear answer. There is no grey area. Yes a DM could decide that paladins have to wear silly hats, THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN A RULES DISCUSSION! Stop it.The original question has been answered and I'm now asking a rules question that came of it: is there any definitive statements that arcane magic and divine magic should be treated equally? Has there been any statements made that that they are the same thing, or different? As far as I can tell the rules don't state things either way, and indicate both cases in different places.
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Arcane magic and divine magic are different. HOWEVER spell trigger items are neither divine nor arcane, they just have spells. If a bard has CLW on his spell list, he can use it from a staff or wand even if it was made by a cleric. A spell is a spell. A paladin can use a scroll of CLW even if it was made by a Cleric because it is divine.
Where is the confusion? Is up still up?
The confusion is on my part, I believe. I offered a rules solution, but also mentioned how it might be reasonably interpreted differently by one's GM; to neglect the latter has always seemed like half an answer to me.
Then it seemed as if folks were saying the latter wasn't a possibility, that it was accounted for by the rules. I can't seem to find that anywhere. Abraham's links helped somewhat, but they still don't explain why folks seem to be saying the different interpretations that I originally mentioned aren't possible. Am I missing a sentence somewhere in the text that states the two types of magic should be treated as the same thing?
The original question has been answered and I'm now asking a rules question that came of it: is there any definitive statements that arcane magic and divine magic should be treated equally?
How about the staff of defense I mentioned above?
The confusion is on my part, I believe. I offered a rules solution, but also mentioned how it might be reasonably interpreted differently by one's GM; to neglect the latter has always seemed like half an answer to me.
Then it seemed as if folks were saying the latter wasn't a possibility, that it was accounted for by the rules. I can't seem to find that anywhere. Abraham's links helped somewhat, but they still don't explain why folks seem to be saying the different interpretations that I originally mentioned aren't possible. Am I missing a sentence somewhere in the text that states the two types of magic should be treated as the same thing?
Again I have no idea what you're asking. The source of a spell is pretty much just a flavor thing. CLW is CLW from a bard or a cleric, saying it's being channeled from a god is purely fluff, mechanically the same thing is happening; they're casting the same spell. The only time this distinction is mechanically important is in scrolls, and the rules on scrolls and wands (i.e. spell completion vs. spell trigger) has already been linked.
What exactly are you asking?
ADDENDUM: I do agree with H.A. in that determining the difference between whether or not the spell is divine or arcane in nature can potentially be an important distinction.
Take a staff with the control weather spell for example. Whether or not the spell is divine or arcane (or more specifically, whether or not it is a druid spell) can mean the difference between a 2-mile spell radius and a 3-mile spell radius.
Should it simply be based on whomever is wielding the staff at the time of casting perhaps?
ADDENDUM: I do agree with H.A. in that determining the difference between whether or not the spell is divine or arcane in nature can potentially be an important distinction.
Take a staff with the control weather spell for example. Whether or not the spell is divine or arcane (or more specifically, whether or not it is a druid spell) can mean the difference between a 2-mile spell radius and a 3-mile spell radius.
Should it simply be based on whomever is wielding the staff at the time of casting perhaps?
How so? Regardless of who created the staff the person who is using it is considered the 'caster' for level dependent benefits. Therefore if a non-druid used it they wouldn't get the benefits of a druidic casting. Control Weather is a druid, cleric, sorcerer and wizard spell so any of those classes are equally capable of using it.
How so? Regardless of who created the staff the person who is using it is considered the 'caster' for level dependent benefits. Therefore if a non-druid used it they wouldn't get the benefits of a druidic casting. Control Weather is a druid, cleric, sorcerer and wizard spell so any of those classes are equally capable of using it.ADDENDUM: I do agree with H.A. in that determining the difference between whether or not the spell is divine or arcane in nature can potentially be an important distinction.
Take a staff with the control weather spell for example. Whether or not the spell is divine or arcane (or more specifically, whether or not it is a druid spell) can mean the difference between a 2-mile spell radius and a 3-mile spell radius.
Should it simply be based on whomever is wielding the staff at the time of casting perhaps?
Good point. The effect is dependent upon the "caster," isn't it?
thanks for all of the helpful replies, this has been illuminating.
just to double check my understanding: a successful UMD check means that a caster treats the spell in question as being on their list and they use their main casting stat and caster level. For a non-caster, they use the minimum stat and caster level with a successful check?
also, going back to the point made by Ravingdork about the potential importance of the source of the spell. take poison for example, this is cleric 4 and druid 3, which would affect cost of manufacture (and the purchase price), no? In the case of a non-caster, would the choose which spell list to emulate, or be forced to choose the least advantageous?
just to double check my understanding: a successful UMD check means that a caster treats the spell in question as being on their list and they use their main casting stat and caster level. For a non-caster, they use the minimum stat and caster level with a successful check?
That's a good question. What ability score does a non-caster use?
also, going back to the point made by Ravingdork about the potential importance of the source of the spell. take poison for example, this is cleric 4 and druid 3, which would affect cost of manufacture (and the purchase price), no? In the case of a non-caster, would the choose which spell list to emulate, or be forced to choose the least advantageous?
If I am not mistaken, the creation cost would be effected by the class in which the spell derives, but the market price would not.
That's a good question. What ability score does a non-caster use?
I believe that they would use the ability score of the crafter of the item, normally, the minimum to cast the highest level spell. For example: if the highest level spell on a staff was 5th level, then the creator must have had at least a 15 in the relevant ability. I am not SURE that this is true as I do not currently have access to my book. If anything is unclear please let me know and I will try to clarify better.
Another Question: When creating staves that are also weapons, do I have to use the weapon's caster level when calculating the staff's cost if it is higher?
In other words, let's say I want to make a homebrew "staff of vengeance" which is also a +5 magical spear. The staff of vengeance, using the minimum caster level allowed, costs 10,800gp to create, as shown below.
Aura moderate conjuration and evocation; CL 8th
Slot none; Price 21,600gp; Weight 5 lbs.
This smooth oak staff allows use of the following spells:
• Fireball (1 charge)
• Lightning bolt (1 charge)
• Sleet storm (1 charge)
Many staffs of vengeance also double as magical spears. Add the costs of the magical spear and the staff of vengeance together and use the spear’s weight value when using this variant.
Requirements Craft Staff, fireball, lightning bolt, sleet storm (requirements may vary for variant); Cost 10,800gp
Now, a +5 spear costs 25,302gp to create, but must have a CL of at least 15 (3 x enhancement bonus).
If my spear and my staff are created as a single item, is the final cost/market price 36,102gp/71,902gp (simply adding the numbers together) or is it 45,552gp/90,802gp (recalculating the staff numbers to account for the CL 15 of the spear, and then adding them together)?
If I am forced to take into account the CL 15 of the weapon in the staff calculations, than the otherwise cheap price of the staff component will sky rocket to 40,500gp (instead of 21,600gp).
The added cost seems excessive. If you simply add the costs together without recalculating them, however, than it seems like you are getting an increased caster level on your staff powers for free.
The only other alternative is to have a magic item with two caster levels. CL 15 for the weapon half, and CL 8 for when a low-level character tries to use its spells.
So which is it?
A "spear of vengeance" with a market price of 36,103gp?
A "spear of vengeance" with a market price of 45,552gp?
A "spear of vengeance" that is somehow both CL 8 and 15 (and worth 36,103gp)?
|
The confusion is on my part, I believe. I offered a rules solution, but also mentioned how it might be reasonably interpreted differently by one's GM; to neglect the latter has always seemed like half an answer to me.
Then it seemed as if folks were saying the latter wasn't a possibility, that it was accounted for by the rules. I can't seem to find that anywhere. Abraham's links helped somewhat, but they still don't explain why folks seem to be saying the different interpretations that I originally mentioned aren't possible. Am I missing a sentence somewhere in the text that states the two types of magic should be treated as the same thing?
Yes, most GMs make sure that Arcane and Divine magic work and feel different from each other in the game, for example by flavorful descriptions. I also know a few GMs who don't allow divine PCs to use Spellcraft on arcane spells (and vice versa), unless they invest ranks both in Spellcraft (Arcane) and Spellcraft (Divine). I find it a bit too harsh, personally.
However, as Abe and Meatrace have said, mechanically the effects of a Cure X spell from a Bard or a Cleric is the same. Ergo, if the spell is on your list -- regardless of whether you're a Bard, a Witch, a Summoner or a Cleric -- you can use the item in question; how the spell works depends on your class.
A "spear of vengeance" with a market price of 36,103gp?
A "spear of vengeance" with a market price of 45,552gp?
A "spear of vengeance" that is somehow both CL 8 and 15 (and worth 36,103gp)?
I believe the last one would be accurate. For the purpose of dispelling, and minimum caster level to create, the "spear of vengance" as a +5 spear would hit CL 15. But for creation, I can think of no reason to have a staff created using anything but the minimum caster level needed, unless the staff was deliberately created for non-casters to use through UMD.
The caster level on spells cast from staves pull from the caster level of the user, not the item, if I have read the rules correctly.