If acquired, who might be able to use the spell stored in a druid's spellstaff? Is it a spell completion item like a scroll or a use activated item like a potion? Might the Use Magic Device skill play a role in activating a spellstaff? If so, what would be the check DC?
Bump?
The wording suggests that the spellstaff is treated as any other spell, and that only the caster may benefit from it.
I believe it would be treated as a spell-trigger item just like a wand, but that only the caster can employ it. The UMD check, if the GM allowed one, would probably be quite high since the requirement you have to 'emulate' is a specific identity.
But those are both shots from the hip: as far as I know there is no particular rule that covers your question.
I guess these are the two ways to approach spellstaff: is it an impromptu magic item with only 1 use, or is it a permanent spell until discharged?
I've always treated it as simply an extra spell slot that the druid can only use if he's got the staff handy.
I've always treated it as simply an extra spell slot that the druid can only use if he's got the staff handy.
And because the spell says: "You can cast a spell stored within a staff just as though it were among those you had prepared, but it does not count against your normal allotment for a given day" and you in descriptions of spells always refers to the caster (a horrible custom, in my opinion, but this is would be a rant for another thread or two) you are almost certainly right.
It's really less a spell and more a class feature. Druids get an extra spell/day once they hit 11th level. :p
It'd just seem weird to me that, following a druid's loss of his spellstaff, there's a wooden stick which will radiate magic indefinitely but which no one can in any way use. Even stranger perhaps is that, if a druid has his spellstaff stolen somehow, he's forever screwed because he can't create a new spellstaff until the first one is discharged or destroyed.
Doesn't the D mean it is dismissible and the Druid could just dismiss the spell?
That is correct. Having your staff stolen is a pretty minor setback.
That is correct. Having your staff stolen is a pretty minor setback.
Ah. I stand corrected.
and you in descriptions of spells always refers to the caster (a horrible custom, in my opinion, but this is would be a rant for another thread or two)
I feel that "you" is as clear or clearer than "the caster." You're reading the spell, the spell is written as if you are the caster, and the target is either you (Target you) or some other creature (Target one creature) which could be you or someone else. Any reference in the spell to "you" is clearly intended to mean "the caster" and not "someone else."
Sean, since you stopped by, might you be able to answer the original question: can anyone besides the caster somehow make use of a staff under the effect of a spellstaff spell?
Sean, since you stopped by, might you be able to answer the original question: can anyone besides the caster somehow make use of a staff under the effect of a spellstaff spell?
I think he just did. Only the druid who cast the spell can use the stored spell.
I would say ONLY the Druid can use the spell that's stored...
(Which has been stated... I know)
However- ... that does give me an idea for a Campaign Hook..
Toss a Spellstaff out there for a bunch of 1st levels to try and figure out what it is/does ... Make them jump through a ton of hoops- to learn it was just a druids spellstaff :P
I think he just did. Only the druid who cast the spell can use the stored spell.
Ah. I guess that could be what he meant to say. I thought he was simply addressing the issue of syntax in spell descriptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he just did. Only the druid who cast the spell can use the stored spell.Ah. I guess that could be what he meant to say. I thought he was simply addressing the issue of syntax in spell descriptions.
Answering the second gives the answer to the first.
and you in descriptions of spells always refers to the caster (a horrible custom, in my opinion, but this is would be a rant for another thread or two)I feel that "you" is as clear or clearer than "the caster."
I disagree that it could be clearer than using "the caster" form. The caster is elegant and simple.
You're reading the spell, the spell is written as if you are the caster
Which is exactly what I think is wrong with that method - the reader does not have to be someone who is the caster - the reader might be someone who makes a Spellcraft check to identify spell but usually it is GM who is reading the spell which means that the whole attempt to refer to reader-as-caster is often completly misaimed.
, and the target is either you (Target you) or some other creature (Target one creature) which could be you or someone else. Any reference in the spell to "you" is clearly intended to mean "the caster" and not "someone else."
I know many other systems that do not refer to player directly in their spell description and there is absolutely no confusion in such matters.
Hopefully, when the next edition will be writtent it will be dropped (from both spells and feats) and replaced with the third person consistent with the description of class abilities.
Which is exactly what I think is wrong with that method - the reader does not have to be someone who is the caster - the reader might be someone who makes a Spellcraft check to identify spell but usually it is GM who is reading the spell which means that the whole attempt to refer to reader-as-caster is often completly misaimed.
One, 99% of the time, the person reading the spell is controlling the creature that is casting the spell (player controlling PC, GM controlling NPC or monster).
Two, even with that 1% chance, this is the situation:
Bob: I made my Spellcraft check, what is that spell that Lavmordo cast, and what does it do?
GM, skimming the text: You cast it, and it surrounds you in a protective shield that does fire damage to whoever hits you.
Bob understands the "you" refers to Lavmordo in this context. The GM understands this also. If Bob or the GM doesn't understand this, Bob or the GM is dumb.
Hopefully, when the next edition will be writtent it will be dropped (from both spells and feats) and replaced with the third person consistent with the description of class abilities.
And it's my preference to change to a "you" presentation for every PC ability in the book. We'd be doing that for the APG, UM, and UC if we didn't already have the kooky, inconsistent presentation we have now (i.e., all of the cleric refers to "the cleric" except for domains which refer to "you," all of the oracle says "the oracle" except for the curses and revelations which say "you," likewise for druids except for animal companions, likewise for sorcerers except for bloodlines, likewise for wizards except for schools).
I mean, really, is it so hard to recognize that "you" equals "the person casting the spell"? It also means we don't have to worry about gender pronouns, don't have to worry about confusion for pronouns regarding the caster and the target ("the caster casts this spell on a target, and he chooses what creature she turns into"... does that mean the male caster makes the female target take a shape of his choice, or does the male target decides what shape the male caster takes?)
One, 99% of the time, the person reading the spell is controlling the creature that is casting the spell (player controlling PC, GM controlling NPC or monster).
Actually, about 25-50% of time I as the GM am reading spell that is to be used by players to check what they can do and what they can't.
Two, even with that 1% chance, this is the situation:
Bob: I made my Spellcraft check, what is that spell that Lavmordo cast, and what does it do?
GM, skimming the text: You cast it, and it surrounds you in a protective shield that does fire damage to whoever hits you.Bob understands the "you" refers to Lavmordo in this context. The GM understands this also. If Bob or the GM doesn't understand this, Bob or the GM is dumb.
(...)
I mean, really, is it so hard to recognize that "you" equals "the person casting the spell"?
You missed my point*. It's not about hardness of understanding - I can recognize it just fine, thank you - it's about keeping certain form of presentation. And I would like to keep a standard that rules are generally written in third person and not irritating reference in second person.
*When you said:
I feel that "you" is as clear or clearer than "the caster."
I responded that "you" just isn't clearer than "the caster" not that "you" is unclear.
Actually, about 25-50% of time I as the GM am reading spell that is to be used by players to check what they can do and what they can't.
Then your game is unusual, because in all my years of playing 3E (which, mind you, is +2 years compared to most people in the world), I've only had the "what spell is he casting?" question come up a couple of times.
You missed my point*. It's not about hardness of understanding - I can recognize it just fine, thank you - it's about keeping certain form of presentation.
See, as a person actually writing those rules, and who has to deal with customer questions about the rules, I prefer that they're easy to understand. That's my priority. :)
And I would like to keep a standard that rules are generally written in third person and not irritating reference in second person.
You are the first person I know of who has said "the use of first-person in game rules is irritating."
I responded that "you" just isn't clearer than "the caster" not that "you" is unclear.
If you think "you" is unclear, it appears that you're in the minority.
You have a preference, that's fine.
And it's my preference to change to a "you" presentation for every PC ability in the book.
Thank you! The second-person usage saves word count, eliminates the rather contrived convention of gender-specificity based on iconic characters*, and is just otherwise a clearer and more efficient means of presentation.
*
Actually, about 25-50% of time I as the GM am reading spell that is to be used by players to check what they can do and what they can't.Then your game is unusual, because in all my years of playing 3E (which, mind you, is +2 years compared to most people in the world), I've only had the "what spell is he casting?" question come up a couple of times.
When planning a session, you never happened to check minutiae of workings of spells that players have available just to tailor the encounter specifically to their abilities? Or to make sure that they have a chance of overcoming some obstacle?
See, as a person actually writing those rules, and who has to deal with customer questions about the rules, I prefer that they're easy to understand. That's my priority. :)
Good. We can certainly agree on this. I just disagree with the notion that using "you" is the right way of achieving that noble goal. Not because "you" could be unclear but because it is false assumption to equate reader with the character casting spell.
And I would like to keep a standard that rules are generally written in third person and not irritating reference in second person.You are the first person I know of who has said "the use of first-person in game rules is irritating."
Wouldn't "you" be second-person? Or does the English language count it differently? First-person is good in narratives and flavor parts but writing game rules in first person would be awfuly New Wave-ish. Not that some games could not use first person desription of rules but I doubt that it would well with D&D, Pathfinder.
I responded that "you" just isn't clearer than "the caster" not that "you" is unclear.If you think "you" is unclear, it appears that you're in the minority.
Sorry, reread my sentence once again. There is nothing in it that tells that I think that "you" is unclear. I just think that your opinion that "you" is clearer than "the caster" is wrong.
Claiming that A is not clearer than B does not equate with claiming that A is unclear.You have a preference, that's fine.
Yes I have. Due to two reasons: on logical level using "you" falsely equates the reader with the character that will use spell (or feat or feature, and so on) and on social level it improperly informal.
I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, or arguing semantics. I have no problem looking at a spell from the perspective of a PC, an NPC, and a monster all in the context of a single encounter, without getting confused. "You" is the person casting the spell. I don't think you're confused by it, either.
Yes, I meant to say second-person, not first-person.
You also have to understand that I am dealing with the legacy of TSR scrubbing all references to demons and devils from the game, and all language that had any risk of blurring the line between the player and the character, in order to prevent accusations of brainwashing and identifying yourself as your character. 3E's choice to abandon that hysterical worry is a good thing, and addresses game issues in the way that's comfortable to players: by explaining what "you" do in the context of the game.
Anyway, no point in discussing this further.
I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, or arguing semantics.
Semantics are important as without them there cannot be understanding. I wasn't trying to argue but to reach understanding after there was some misunderstanding. I apologize if my insistence on getting it straight appeared as attempt to argue for the sake of arguing.
Yes, I meant to say second-person, not first-person.
Now I am thinking how a game rules written in first-person would be readable. It could be interesting exercise as a small project. But probably it should be done by John Wick.
You also have to understand that I am dealing with the legacy of TSR scrubbing all references to demons and devils from the game, and all language that had any risk of blurring the line between the player and the character, in order to prevent accusations of brainwashing and identifying yourself as your character. 3E's choice to abandon that hysterical worry is a good thing, and addresses game issues in the way that's comfortable to players: by explaining what "you" do in the context of the game.
If we ever (however it is unlikely) happen to met in person we could possible sit and speak about it. I wasn't thinking in that categories, as I prefer games with moderate to high amount of immersion in character (even if in-character immersion isn't my strongest suit) but I reserve this for actual game and distance myself from immersion when it comes to game mechanics.
Anyway, no point in discussing this further.
Roger that.