Wand of True Strike + Spell combat


Round 3: Revised Magus Discussion


I was creatiing a Magus for play and decided I liked Wand wielder for the ability to cast and not drain my own memorized spells. So I selected it for my 3rd level Magus Arcana and took Craft Wand as my 5th level feat.

Now, being that I'm dealing with wands, I went looking for spells that have no save and realized True Strike would be perfect. At the lower levels the cost of a wand would make me hesitate to use this as often as I would like... but I'm wondering about the higher levels where I'm far more likely to have gold to finance 3 or 4 or more of these per adventure. It's a 1st level spell so even if I don't make it myself I don't imagine my DM will make it hard for me to find.

My DM is considering allowing me to play the Test version of the Magus until the real-deal is released but I'm afraid he will see this possible combo and thrown it out because the almost-auto-hit once per round is too nice.

I'd like to be able to explain why, if I'm understanding how these abilities work to gether correctly, this isn't too powerful and doesn't make me better than the fighter... Can anyone offer any suggestions on why this isn't too powerful?

I really like the Magus and really want to play it and if necessary I'd be willing to promise him not to use this combo... but before I do I'm hoping one of you can deflate my opinion of the combo.

Thanks in advance
Oscar


Sunder, Disarm, and Grapple would work pretty good, I imagine, against such a character.

Plus, casting anything other than True Strike with the wand might be a pain since both hands are full.


What's the real damage capability here though? Sure you get to hit once a round, but how hard? Without using Spell Combat on damage spells, I don't think the Magus hits hard....at all. So you'll be trading damage for accuracy. I don't see a problem with it.

The fighter will be pounding out way higher damage than you, though he may miss more often. Also, he'll survive better too. Magi have real trouble with AC at lower levels where you'd be doing this. Running up in there and hitting every round is nice, but when you get hit it's gonna hurt, further balancing things with fighter.


Best Case for a TS Wand Wielder (at 5th lvl):

+1 Scimitar, 1d6+1
Dervish Dance (with 18 Dex) +4
Cat's Grace as a buff +2
elemental damage +1d6 (from Arcane Pool)
Keen (from Arcane Pool)

DPR (ignoring 1's on attack roll) 14 pts.
With critical (30% chance) +3.15 pts damage
Total DPR = 17.65 pts.
Call it 18 pts of damage per round.

Useful, but not really all that much for 5th level.

True Strike is best used as a buff before attempting a spell strike in hopes of getting a critical on the spell damage (RD's objections, notwithstanding).

Edit: Corrected Math


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Yrtalien wrote:

I'd like to be able to explain why, if I'm understanding how these abilities work to gether correctly, this isn't too powerful and doesn't make me better than the fighter... Can anyone offer any suggestions on why this isn't too powerful?

I really like the Magus and really want to play it and if necessary I'd be willing to promise him not to use this combo... but before I do I'm hoping one of you can deflate my opinion of the combo.

Thanks in advance
Oscar

That's easy. Even a moderately well built fighter's first attack will almost always hit. Between high bonuses from Strength (or Dexterity), Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, magical weapon enhancements, Weapon Training bonuses, and frequent conditional bonuses (ally casting haste, charging, flanking) a fighter is pretty much guaranteed to beat the AC of anything his CR or lower on his opening attack each round. That's why fighters and similar martial character (smiting paladins, rangers vs favored enemies) LOVE things like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Deadly Aim--because they have more attack bonus than they need and can channel it into other areas (such as damage or AC). A magus can't do that in the same way with anything even remotely resembling the same amount of effectiveness.

A magus with a wand of true strike MUST use that wand in the conventional fashion (taking two rounds), OR spend a full round action with spell combat. After investing in a wand, narrowing his choice of class abilities, and foregoing a more powerful spell, he's only managed to match what a true fighter could already do (and still not hit as hard).

Think about it. the fighter is 10 points ahead of any 3/4 BAB character (base attack bonus +5, greater weapon focus +1, weapon training +4),

A magus with a wand of true strike is not that powerful. If he starts using it with combat maneuvers, he might even be useful. Tell your GM that.

Shadow Lodge

Sylvanite wrote:

What's the real damage capability here though? Sure you get to hit once a round, but how hard? Without using Spell Combat on damage spells, I don't think the Magus hits hard....at all. So you'll be trading damage for accuracy. I don't see a problem with it.

The fighter will be pounding out way higher damage than you, though he may miss more often. Also, he'll survive better too. Magi have real trouble with AC at lower levels where you'd be doing this. Running up in there and hitting every round is nice, but when you get hit it's gonna hurt, further balancing things with fighter.

From what I've seen the fighter rarely has trouble hitting with his first shot so he's hitting nearly as often as the true-strike magus anyhow.

True strike might be problematic if the magus could use it on his second or third attack per round.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
0gre wrote:
Sylvanite wrote:

What's the real damage capability here though? Sure you get to hit once a round, but how hard? Without using Spell Combat on damage spells, I don't think the Magus hits hard....at all. So you'll be trading damage for accuracy. I don't see a problem with it.

The fighter will be pounding out way higher damage than you, though he may miss more often. Also, he'll survive better too. Magi have real trouble with AC at lower levels where you'd be doing this. Running up in there and hitting every round is nice, but when you get hit it's gonna hurt, further balancing things with fighter.

From what I've seen the fighter rarely has trouble hitting with his first shot so he's hitting nearly as often as the true-strike magus anyhow.

True strike might be problematic if the magus could use it on his second or third attack per round.

Which he can't as the spell specifically states that it only applies on your next attack.


True Strike would be a useful and inexpensive wand to have around. Depending how your GM interprets the wording of Quick Draw & Efficient Quiver, a wand focused magus could be a lot of fun.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Blueluck wrote:
True Strike would be a useful and inexpensive wand to have around. Depending how your GM interprets the wording of Quick Draw & Efficient Quiver, a wand focused magus could be a lot of fun.

You can't quick draw wands in Pathfinder.


Another problem is that if you have a touch spell ready for delivery with spell strike you'll lose it upon activating the wand.


To really be an annoying Magus, take wand wielder at 3rd, invest 1/4 of your WBL in a wand of color spray. Then Spell Combat each and every rd with color spray and weapon attack. Even with a DC11, many combatants will still be in danger of failing.

bonus annoyance points for ignoring your comrades when they are in the AoE.


True Strike isn't spammable because, as said, with spell combat it's only usable on the attack you are most sure to hit anyway. Best leave it for quickened spells and for shooting arrows with messages on people 10 range increments away.

Jake's idea is one of the clearer ones. Good ones are slow, vampiric touch, searing light and the like.


Cool, I feel alot better about taking this now. I guess even if it is a guaranteed hit it's not all that game breaking.

Thanks for helping me out guys. I'm sure that I can talk to my DM now and can point out some ways in which this combo isn't the be all : )

Thanks again !

Oscar


Yrtalien wrote:

Cool, I feel alot better about taking this now. I guess even if it is a guaranteed hit it's not all that game breaking.

Thanks for helping me out guys. I'm sure that I can talk to my DM now and can point out some ways in which this combo isn't the be all : )

Thanks again !

Oscar

Oh and just to mention it, since you get -2 on all attacks when you use spell combat the spell effectively only gives +18.


Ravingdork wrote:
You can't quick draw wands in Pathfinder.

You're correct that the Quick Draw feat doesn't apply to wands.

The Efficient Quiver, "can contain up to 60 objects of the same general size and shape as an arrow" which generally includes wands. The larger pockets are sized about right for rods and staves.

I've seen more than one GM interpret, "the quiver can quickly produce any item she wishes that is within the quiver, as if from a regular quiver or scabbard." to mean that any item in the quiver can be drawn, "As if drawing an arrow from a quiver or a weapon from a scabbard."

The item is written a little vaguely, so I can see a ruling going either way. If you know of a ruling or FAQ that specifically addresses the efficient quiver, I'd love to see it.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Blueluck wrote:
The item is written a little vaguely, so I can see a ruling going either way. If you know of a ruling or FAQ that specifically addresses the efficient quiver, I'd love to see it.

I'm afraid I don't, but I'll keep my eyes open.


Blueluck wrote:


I've seen more than one GM interpret, "the quiver can quickly produce any item she wishes that is within the quiver, as if from a regular quiver or scabbard." to mean that any item in the quiver can be drawn, "As if drawing an arrow from a quiver or a weapon from a scabbard."

The item is written a little vaguely, so I can see a ruling going either way. If you know of a ruling or FAQ that specifically addresses the efficient quiver, I'd love to see it.

How would the efficient quiver change things here?

Why not use a normal quiver and put lots of wands there? Certainly a *real normal quiver* is going to act as a regular quiver!

If you can't do it there, I don't see how the efficient quiver is going to change anything beyond what's in the quiver.

-James


So um... here's what I did to get pass the "you can't quick draw wands" issue...

I took catch off guard and quick draw feats. Then I quick draw the wand -- when I'm told I can't quick draw a wand I say, "I'm not quick drawing a wand, I'm quick drawing a pointy stick that I threaten with and deal a 1d3 piercing damage with (per the GM)."

Then I use the wand normally.


Abraham spalding wrote:

So um... here's what I did to get pass the "you can't quick draw wands" issue...

I took catch off guard and quick draw feats. Then I quick draw the wand -- when I'm told I can't quick draw a wand I say, "I'm not quick drawing a wand, I'm quick drawing a pointy stick that I threaten with and deal a 1d3 piercing damage with (per the GM)."

Then I use the wand normally.

I agree its a silly restriction.

But then again I'd allow quickdrawing potions and alchemicals, so I'm kinda skewed on this issue.

-James

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yrtalien wrote:

Cool, I feel alot better about taking this now. I guess even if it is a guaranteed hit it's not all that game breaking.

Just remember... even with True Strike... you still miss on a die roll of 1.


Synapse wrote:


Jake's idea is one of the clearer ones. Good ones are slow, vampiric touch, searing light and the like.

This is either a compliment or one of the most subtle insults I've ever read.


I'm agreeing with you :x Didn't think they could be interpreted as something other than synonyms.

Shadow Lodge

Synapse wrote:
I'm agreeing with you :x Didn't think they could be interpreted as something other than synonyms.

This is the internet, anything is possible :)

Sovereign Court

Ravingdork wrote:
Blueluck wrote:
True Strike would be a useful and inexpensive wand to have around. Depending how your GM interprets the wording of Quick Draw & Efficient Quiver, a wand focused magus could be a lot of fun.
You can't quick draw wands in Pathfinder.

page 186 of the core rulebook:

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or
putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a
move action. This action also applies to weapon-like
objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your
weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or
otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving
a stored item.

--> nothing in the wording of quick draw feat indicates that the feat cannot be used on weapon-like objects, as per page 186.

Shadow Lodge

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:


--> nothing in the wording of quick draw feat indicates that the feat cannot be used on weapon-like objects, as per page 186.

As part of the feat wording for quick draw:

Core Rulebook pg 132 wrote:
Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat

So as silly as it seems, and as vague as the term weapon-like object is, by clear wording in the feat itself wands cannot be quickly drawn, even if they are weapon-like. I don't necessarily agree with it, but its pretty clear.


Kabump wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:


--> nothing in the wording of quick draw feat indicates that the feat cannot be used on weapon-like objects, as per page 186.

As part of the feat wording for quick draw:

Core Rulebook pg 132 wrote:
Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat
So as silly as it seems, and as vague as the term weapon-like object is, by clear wording in the feat itself wands cannot be quickly drawn, even if they are weapon-like. I don't necessarily agree with it, but its pretty clear.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Blueluck wrote:
True Strike would be a useful and inexpensive wand to have around. Depending how your GM interprets the wording of Quick Draw & Efficient Quiver, a wand focused magus could be a lot of fun.
You can't quick draw wands in Pathfinder.

page 186 of the core rulebook:

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or
putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a
move action. This action also applies to weapon-like
objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your
weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or
otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving
a stored item.

--> nothing in the wording of quick draw feat indicates that the feat cannot be used on weapon-like objects, as per page 186.

It's pretty clear indeed, just misplaced. Wands and anything the dm deems "weaponlike" fit quick drawing.

Shadow Lodge

Synapse wrote:


It's pretty clear indeed, just misplaced. Wands and anything the dm deems "weaponlike" fit quick drawing.

Thats how its played at our table as well. Just as long as you realize your in house-rules by doing so though.


I find it odd calling what you get directly from the book "house-rules".


Synapse wrote:
I find it odd calling what you get directly from the book "house-rules".

How is completely ignoring a line of text explicitly, with no room for interpretation, excepting wands from the Quickdraw feat not a house-rule.

The rule on drawing or sheathing a weapon says you can draw a wand as a move action. If you have a Bab of +1 or more you can even draw it as a free action as part of a move. Wands may be "weapon-like", as vague as that term is, but the Quickdraw feat doesn't use the term "weapon-like" even once.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Synapse wrote:
I find it odd calling what you get directly from the book "house-rules".

How is completely ignoring a line of text explicitly, with no room for interpretation, excepting wands from the Quickdraw feat not a house-rule.

The rule on drawing or sheathing a weapon says you can draw a wand as a move action. If you have a Bab of +1 or more you can even draw it as a free action as part of a move. Wands may be "weapon-like", as vague as that term is, but the Quickdraw feat doesn't use the term "weapon-like" even once.

Because the wand is weaponlike for purposes of drawing weapons, anything that modifies drawing weapons and doesn't explicitly exclude "weaponlike not-weapons" will apply to them.

Shadow Lodge

Synapse wrote:


How is completely ignoring a line of text explicitly, with no room for interpretation, excepting wands from the Quickdraw feat not a house-rule.

Again, you are IGNORING the clearly stated line in the feat that CLEARLY states you CANNOT draw a wand out as part of the feat. I AM taking the rule direct from the book. You are quoting a general case, I am quoting a specific case. Specific overrides general.


Bah, I missed that clause. So it's a houserule, end of story.

Shadow Lodge

Kabump wrote:
Synapse wrote:


How is completely ignoring a line of text explicitly, with no room for interpretation, excepting wands from the Quickdraw feat not a house-rule.

Bah I fail at quoting, BTW. Did not quote the correct text I wanted to respond to heh.

To Synapse: Yeah, its an easy line to glance over, I know I did for the longest time until it was pointed out to me. I dont see it being to much to allow a wand, or even potion, to be drawn with this feat. I know the current group im in just straight allows both to be drawn with Quick Draw, and a former group made a new feat to cover the items specifically excluded in Quick Draw.

Sovereign Court

Synapse wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Synapse wrote:
I find it odd calling what you get directly from the book "house-rules".

How is completely ignoring a line of text explicitly, with no room for interpretation, excepting wands from the Quickdraw feat not a house-rule.

The rule on drawing or sheathing a weapon says you can draw a wand as a move action. If you have a Bab of +1 or more you can even draw it as a free action as part of a move. Wands may be "weapon-like", as vague as that term is, but the Quickdraw feat doesn't use the term "weapon-like" even once.

Because the wand is weaponlike for purposes of drawing weapons, anything that modifies drawing weapons and doesn't explicitly exclude "weaponlike not-weapons" will apply to them.

Bingo. What she said. This is clearly the logical conclusion resulting from ever creating the "weapon-like" term in the first place.

The list of exclusions within the Quick Draw feat seems to be a mistake and a lapse in rules logic.

Edit: the list seems out of place especially since the Magus v.2.0 playtest now has two new wand wielder powers (one of which allows you to fire a wand as part of a full attack weapon routine; i.e. effectively fire a want as a swift action) --> if it is possible to have a char build to fire a wand as a free action, it seems ridiculous that a char with Quick Draw cannot pull the said wand in time to use it that round UNLESS he takes a move action first. Hilarity ensues if one tries to comprehend how a high level archer can draw and shoot four arrows per round yet his knife throwing buddy with QUICK DRAW cannot pull out a wand as a free action (i.e. four arrows, four free actions; one wand with Quick Draw feat, one move action???)


I'm not sure I understand your wand/action comparison. Using the wand through wand wielder-spell combat is akin to casting as a free action, not a swift action: You don't consume any action other than the full-round action (the same used by the full attack) to cast with it.

However, mind you, if you are wielding a weapon and a wand(and this is currently illegal for reasons I have described on other posts), you don't have any free hand left to cast a swift spell that has somatic components.

Or, to be more specific, the current way wand wielder (should) work makes casting spells with somatic components impossible.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:


The list of exclusions within the Quick Draw feat seems to be a mistake and a lapse in rules logic.

I find more amusing that via quick draw a PC can draw a STAFF as a free action but not a WAND.

In 3.0 wands were explicitly allowed (via a footnote of all things..gotta love WotC) but it didn't sit well with people. The PF change reflected that, but imho didn't take everything into consideration.

Personally I think that quick draw should be expanded in scope as a feat. Defining items as accessible vs inaccessible/secured would be helpful in this. Basically if you want to be able to quick draw a potion I'd allow it, but the potion would have to be accessible which would be it would be out in the open and easily sundered, stolen, etc.

-James


james maissen wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

So um... here's what I did to get pass the "you can't quick draw wands" issue...

I took catch off guard and quick draw feats. Then I quick draw the wand -- when I'm told I can't quick draw a wand I say, "I'm not quick drawing a wand, I'm quick drawing a pointy stick that I threaten with and deal a 1d3 piercing damage with (per the GM)."

Then I use the wand normally.

I agree its a silly restriction.

But then again I'd allow quickdrawing potions and alchemicals, so I'm kinda skewed on this issue.

-James

oooo a way to make a wand a weapon i never thought about!!

Sovereign Court

Pendagast wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

So um... here's what I did to get pass the "you can't quick draw wands" issue...

I took catch off guard and quick draw feats. Then I quick draw the wand -- when I'm told I can't quick draw a wand I say, "I'm not quick drawing a wand, I'm quick drawing a pointy stick that I threaten with and deal a 1d3 piercing damage with (per the GM)."

Then I use the wand normally.

I agree its a silly restriction.

But then again I'd allow quickdrawing potions and alchemicals, so I'm kinda skewed on this issue.

-James

oooo a way to make a wand a weapon i never thought about!!

Yep, that's legal. Although I prefer James view that the scope of Quick Draw should be expanded. Two feats to draw a wand as a free action seems ridiculous, especially since Complete Mage splatbook in 3.5 had wand bracers allowing you to spring load 5 wands per wrist...

PS: I wonder if the armory companion has a wand-friendly bandoleer or something like that... hmmm.. or some equipment trick... hmmm... (checking.... loading.... checking.........)

Sovereign Court

BINGO! PROBLEM SOLVED!

(adventurer's armory page 9)

Wrist Sheath, Spring Loaded: This item
works like a standard wrist sheath, but releasing
an item from it is an immediate action. Preparing
the sheath for this use requires cranking the
sheath’s tiny gears and springs into place (a fullround
action that provokes an attack of opportunity).

Wrist Sheath: This is a sheath designed to be
strapped to your forearm and hidden under a long
sleeve. The sheath can hold one light weapon,
ranged weapon, or wand that weighs less than 1
pound. Alternatively, you may store up to 1
pound of ammunition in a wrist sheath. As
a move action, you can bend your wrist to
cause some or all of these items to drop into
your hand. You have a +2 bonus on Sleight of
Hand checks made to oppose the Perception
check of someone observing or frisking you
regarding items in the sheath. You can only
wear one wrist sheath per arm.

Sovereign Court

more wand-related goodness:

===========

(adventurer's armory page 22)

Capture Weapon (Improved Disarm): When you
successfully disarm an opponent’s manufactured
weapon, as a free action you may flip the disarmed
weapon into your scabbard so long as the weapon
would fit there. If you are not holding the scabbard
in hand and attempt this, you have a –4 penalty on
the disarm check. At the GM’s discretion, you can also
use this trick on any item the opponent is holding as long
as it would fit in your scabbard (such as a wand). You can
only use this trick if you are wearing or holding your
empty scabbard.

===========

(APG page 82)

Wand Mastery (Ex): At 10th level, when a magician uses
a wand containing a spell on his spell list, he uses his
Charisma bonus to set the wand’s save DC. At 16th level,
when using such a wand, he uses his caster level in place of
the wand’s caster level. This ability replaces jack of all trades.

===========

(APG page 202)

Arcane Concordance
School evocation; Level bard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a spent wand)
Range personal
Target you
Area 10-ft.-radius emanation centered on you
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
A shimmering, blue and gold radiance surrounds you, enhancing
arcane spells cast by your allies within its area. Any arcane spell
cast by a creature within the area gains a +1 enhancement bonus
to the DC of any saving throws against the spell, and can be cast as
if one of the following metamagic feats was applied to it (without
increasing the spell level or casting time): Enlarge Spell, Extend
Spell, Silent Spell, or Still Spell (you choose the metamagic feat
when you cast arcane concordance).

===========

(Pathfinder Campaign Setting page 202)

Wand Dancer
An ancient tradition of Garundi courtesans and court-mages
combines a supple mobility with delicate rhythms in a deadly
exotic dance of wand and staff.
Prerequisite: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, Perform (dance) 1
rank, Tumble 1 rank, caster level 5th.
Benef it: When using a spell trigger item, you can move
both before and after triggering the item, as long as
the total distance moved is not greater than your speed.
Choose one creature potentially affected by your spell
trigger item. Your movement does not provoke attacks of
opportunity from that creature (only). You must move at
least 5 feet before and after using your spell trigger item
to utilize this feat.

===========

Shadow Lodge

I wouldn't allow a wand to be quick drawn from the feat no matter what the argument. Think about it, if you use the wand with a true strike spell you take the -2 for spell combat in this case, a -4 for fighting defensively. minuses for power attack and combat expertise say -2 each and still have +10 left over for the attack. If you have three ranks of acrobatics you would add five to your AC each round you spell combat. Doing the most damage a round with a good chance to hit. I like it before eighth level. At eighth level and on I would only take negatives for either power attack or combat expertise. Eventually, I am getting the trip feats.


ShadowDax wrote:
I wouldn't allow a wand to be quick drawn from the feat no matter what the argument. Think about it,

But you'd of course allow a staff to be quick drawn (it's a weapon after all).

Think about it.

-James

Shadow Lodge

If all staffs are considered weapons then sure. If some are not melee weapons then not all. Not with wands anyway.


ShadowDax wrote:
If all staffs are considered weapons then sure. If some are not melee weapons then not all. Not with wands anyway.

All staves are considered weapons. You could rule that staves built as magic items aren't if you are really that concerned. Personally I'm not really worried about Magus's spamming truestrike wands. Every round they're casting true strike they're not casting better spells.


TarkXT wrote:

All staves are considered weapons.

I don't believe this to be true. Staff and quarterstaff are not synonymous.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mynameisjake wrote:
TarkXT wrote:

All staves are considered weapons.

I don't believe this to be true. Staff and quarterstaff are not synonymous.

Yes. It is far more accurate to say staves CAN be quarterstaves. Unless stated as such, however, the default assumption is that they are not.


Ravingdork wrote:
Yes. It is far more accurate to say staves CAN be quarterstaves. Unless stated as such, however, the default assumption is that they are not.

Gandalf the white would like a word with you.


Sure sure, but the rules do point that staves are "like walking sticks, quarterstaves or cudgels". Not only are they not required to be a weapon, different staves can also be different weapons.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Synapse wrote:
Sure sure, but the rules do point that staves are "like walking sticks, quarterstaves or cudgels". Not only are they not required to be a weapon, different staves can also be different weapons.

I once had a staff called "the staff of vengeance." It allowed for intensified fireball, intensified lightning bolt, and cone of cold. It was also a +3 shortspear.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Magic Playtest / Round 3: Revised Magus Discussion / Wand of True Strike + Spell combat All Messageboards
Recent threads in Round 3: Revised Magus Discussion