Staves hold a maximum of 10 charges. Each spell cast from a staff consumes one or more charges. When a staff runs out of charges, it cannot be used until it is recharged. Each morning, when a spellcaster prepares spells or regains spell slots, he can also imbue one staff with a portion of his power so long as one or more of the spells cast by the staff is on his spell list and he is capable of casting at least one of the spells. Imbuing a staff with this power restores one charge to the staff, but the caster must forgo one prepared spell or spell slot of a level equal to the highest-level spell cast by the staff. For example, a 9th-level wizard with a staff of fire could imbue the staff with one charge per day by using up one of his 4th-level spells. A staff cannot gain more than one charge per day and a caster cannot imbue more than one staff per day.
I used to think one of the spells merely needed to be on your class spell list, but per the bold section it seems you must actually be able to cast one of the spells as well. For a wizard that means it must be in your spellbook, for a sorcerer or bard, it must be known, etc.
Is recharging a staff really meant to be so hard? It seems like an unnecessary nerf against spontaneous casters, who would normally have more of a reason to be using staves than wizards in order to expand their limited spell capabilities.
I think it refers not to actually knowing the spell but having access to appropriate spell level and having ability score to be able to cast it.
|
It makes perfect sense. If you are charging a staff of fire, you must put energy from one of the fire spells you know to put more back in the staff, not just generic magic. Staves are best at supplementing spells types you have, not expanding your abilities. You won't be charging a staff of healing with a sorcerer or wizard or a cleric charging up a staff of power.
Staves are pretty much one of the most needlessly complicated magic items in the game, anyway.
Why do you have often spells from completely different classes in a staff? Can casters who don't have those spells on their list cast them out of the staff? As which type of magic do they manifest?
If there is an official ruling/opinion about those little questions, I have yet to find it.
Why do you have often spells from completely different classes in a staff?
I don't know how "often" this occurs. In the Core Rulebook there are no examples of this, the closest being the staff of defense, which contains 3 standard cleric spells and shield, which is the first level domain spell for the Defense domain.
Can casters who don't have those spells on their list cast them out of the staff?
Answer:
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).
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.
As which type of magic do they manifest?
I have always assumed that if the wielder is able to activate the spell out of the staff, it manifests as whatever type of magic it would be if the wielder cast it from his spell list.
Why do you have often spells from completely different classes in a staff?I don't know how "often" this occurs. In the Core Rulebook there are no examples of this, the closest being the staff of defense, which contains 3 standard cleric spells and shield, which is the first level domain spell for the Defense domain.
Off the cuff I can think of the Staff of Swarming Insects. But I think you mean "this staff is excellent for one exact class", while I think "This staff is only excellent for one specific class, but only semi-useful for a lot of others".
Answer:
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).
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.
All right, that clears that up.
I have always assumed that if the wielder is able to activate the spell out of the staff, it manifests as whatever type of magic it would be if the wielder cast it from his spell list.Sound reasonable, yet is not spelled out very well, IMO. But then again, the same applies to wands. You get a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, yet a Bard should be theoretically be able to use it, even if it was created by a Cleric, right?
To reduce blue boxes, I'm just numbering the points :)
1. All of the spells in a staff of swarming insects are druid spells. I agree that purchasing a staff that includes spells not on your spell list is a waste of money. They are also less useful for spontaneous casters. However, with most primary casters I have played above 10th level (I tend towards clerics and wizards) I have purchased staves because they are a great way expand your spell diversity by keeping certain spells handy without having to prepare them or suffer a caster level loss on them.
3. I agree this is not spelled out very well, or even at all. Yes, bards can use a wand of cure light wounds just as deftly as a cleric. I use the mentioned assumption because it's easier bookkeeping-wise than counting the type of the staff's creator or even the type of whomever last charged up the staff. I don't think the type of magic that staves (and wands) cast as, arcane or divine, has ever come up for me in-game. From a rules perspective I think instances of it mattering would be marginal at best, though from a story/setting perspective I can certainly see it coming up.
I'm not a huge fan of staffs be because of a few of the annoying mechanics, charging being one of them. If they self recharged or something else I might see the point of using them. Otherwise they're extremely specalized items. So much so that they're almost useless.
Ravingdork, as for your original question, I'm also of the opinion that one needs only to have the spell on their spell list to charge the staff, just as they do to activate it. By a literal reading, one could keep a scroll of one of the spells handy to technically be capable of casting it, but I don't believe that's the intent.
I just have staffs and wands all in my camoaign created using the charges per day rules - the whole issue is sidestepped this way
I just have staffs and wands all in my camoaign created using the charges per day rules - the whole issue is sidestepped this way
I would Greaately prefer that for my campaign. I'll probably talk to My DM about it.
Only slightly off topic-
How do you feel about minimum caster levels for staffs? Would you ever be open to "lesser staffs" with lower level spells or do you think this is part of game balance?
The problem with Pathfinder staves is that you can't use them to enhance your power, only your versatility. Because you have to charge it with the energy of the highest level spell in the staff, you can't ever recharge a staff that has a higher level spell than you're capable of using. And because you can't activate any spells that aren't on your list (inherent in being a spell trigger item), it doesn't even let you branch out. A stack of scrolls would be far cheaper and more useful (except for the DCs)
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The least expensive staff in the CRB is worth about 18000 gp, for a balanced approach you shouldn't have an item so expensive until level 9 (not because the item breaks the game, just because you also need other magic items).
There're less expensive staves in the APG, but I don't like the selections of spells.
Actually, the prices for the CRB staves are all in error, with many being twice the price they should be (according to the staff pricing formula rules). For example, the cheapest one (staff of charming) is listed at 17,600gp market price and 8,800gp cost when it should be 8,800gp market price and 4,400gp cost.
That sound more reasonable to you?
Is recharging a staff really meant to be so hard? It seems like an unnecessary nerf against spontaneous casters, who would normally have more of a reason to be using staves than wizards in order to expand their limited spell capabilities.
Spontaneous casters are supposed to be limited in selection, so anything that does expand spell selection SHOULD be less useful to them in some manner.
It is good to see the game devs did their jobs. While the Devs did not hate sorcerers as detractors often claim, the 3e designers DID value the flexibility of a small spell list immediately available VERY highly. And looking at what pathfinder kept in the revision, the Paizo Devs still do.
To reduce blue boxes, I'm just numbering the points :)
1. All of the spells in a staff of swarming insects are druid spells. I agree that purchasing a staff that includes spells not on your spell list is a waste of money. They are also less useful for spontaneous casters. However, with most primary casters I have played above 10th level (I tend towards clerics and wizards) I have purchased staves because they are a great way expand your spell diversity by keeping certain spells handy without having to prepare them or suffer a caster level loss on them.
I guess as a DM I am mostly aggrieved that a staff being in the loot list ( I have used Paizo AP's for the last years ) is in most cases a 95% sure thing that it will just be sold. The particular staff in discussion was part of the loot my group got recently... and of course no Druid was there to make use of it.
The situation is different when players decide to buy one of them, but mostly they are more concerned with getting the core six items and can only think about more esoteric stuff at the very high levels of play.
3. I agree this is not spelled out very well, or even at all. Yes, bards can use a wand of cure light wounds just as deftly as a cleric. I use the mentioned assumption because it's easier bookkeeping-wise than counting the type of the staff's creator or even the type of whomever last charged up the staff. I don't think the type of magic that staves (and wands) cast as, arcane or divine, has ever come up for me in-game. From a rules perspective I think instances of it mattering would be marginal at best, though from a story/setting perspective I can certainly see it coming up.
I also handwave it in my games, but it has been a big question mark of mine for years.
The least expensive staff in the CRB is worth about 18000 gp, for a balanced approach you shouldn't have an item so expensive until level 9 (not because the item breaks the game, just because you also need other magic items).
There're less expensive staves in the APG, but I don't like the selections of spells.Actually, the prices for the CRB staves are all in error, with many being twice the price they should be (according to the staff pricing formula rules). For example, the cheapest one (staff of charming) is listed at 17,600gp market price and 8,800gp cost when it should be 8,800gp market price and 4,400gp cost.
That sound more reasonable to you?
The cost listed in the Creating Staves section is the crafting cost, not the market price, as it is in the Creating Potions, Scrolls and Wands sections. The "base price" in Table 15-29 refers to the market price.
The listed price for the Staff of Charming (and I suspect other staves) are right on.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The cost listed in the Creating Staves section is the crafting cost, not the market price, as it is in the Creating Potions, Scrolls and Wands sections. The "base price" in Table 15-29 refers to the market price.
See the Staff Pricing thread.
Basically either the CRB staves cost double what they should or the APG and other books staves cost half what they should.
The cost listed in the Creating Staves section is the crafting cost, not the market price, as it is in the Creating Potions, Scrolls and Wands sections. The "base price" in Table 15-29 refers to the market price.See the Staff Pricing thread.
Basically either the CRB staves cost double what they should or the APG and other books staves cost half what they should.
Interesting. It would seem that most of the APG staves are indeed under priced. Apparently, whoever priced them made the same mistake RD made.
I have never used a staff, just always seemed that such a large chunk of money could be better spent on something else.
I have never used a staff, just always seemed that such a large chunk of money could be better spent on something else.
That
|
|
I have never used a staff, just always seemed that such a large chunk of money could be better spent on something else.
Yup. Apart from very high level home campaigns where you can build custom staves.
However they are one of the very few items that allow caster scalable additional spells. Pearls of Power and Rings of Wizardry being the other obvious candidates.
They wouldn't be that bad if they used APG pricing _and_ had a useful spell selection - or allowed staves of single spells as standard.
Of course if staves were too cheap then we would see spell slot bloat happening and Handy Haversacks with multiple staves.
The least expensive staff in the CRB is worth about 18000 gp, for a balanced approach you shouldn't have an item so expensive until level 9 (not because the item breaks the game, just because you also need other magic items).
There're less expensive staves in the APG, but I don't like the selections of spells.Actually, the prices for the CRB staves are all in error, with many being twice the price they should be (according to the staff pricing formula rules). For example, the cheapest one (staff of charming) is listed at 17,600gp market price and 8,800gp cost when it should be 8,800gp market price and 4,400gp cost.
That sound more reasonable to you?
The cost listed in the Creating Staves section is the crafting cost, not the market price, as it is in the Creating Potions, Scrolls and Wands sections. The "base price" in Table 15-29 refers to the market price.
The listed price for the Staff of Charming (and I suspect other staves) are right on.
I just noticed that it is more confusing than it needs to be because all the tables in the magic item creation section are incorrectly labeled "Base Costs" in their titles when their table body actually lists item market prices instead. The body text below each table generally gives the formula for determining the creation costs.
It's no wonder people are getting them mixed up. The tables should be listed as "Base Prices" or "Market Price."
If you are just looking at the section as a quick reference, then you might see the table, see "Base Cost" and end up doubling the pricing of your stuff. If you skip the table and go straight to the text underneath it, however, then you end up with the right formula.
If you are looking to buy a staff, rather than create it, you might end up with the opposite problem from reading the incorrect table labels.
DAGNABBIT!
This means that all my staff cost/price breakdowns that I did above and in the other thread ARE completely wrong, and that all the Core Rulebook staves ARE indeed correct. I have SO many staff using characters I need to fix now. :(
Yeah, this needs official clarification. Soon.
FAQ the other thread guys! Make Paizo aware that they need to fix their blunder or else make a change!
I think staves are priced just fine. Since in my campaigns, you're going to find them, not buy them.
Just because you run your games differently doesn't mean that it isn't a problem for everyone else.
IF I were to ever use a staff, it would be custom and it would probably just be filled with haste anyway.
I just have staffs and wands all in my camoaign created using the charges per day rules - the whole issue is sidestepped this way
Where are these rules? Are they in the Core Rulebook?
|
|
I have never used a staff, just always seemed that such a large chunk of money could be better spent on something else.
The most use I have seen for staves in games was giving them to a rogue or someone else with a high UMD. Sure, a caster may have to charge it, but having some extra spells is not bad. (My rogue had a staff of fire that I put to good use a couple of times. Sometimes the answer is "I hit it with lots of fire!")
I always thought staves were overpriced. In all years of gaming I have never seen one in a game. For what they cost they should have 50 charges and be rechargeable.
I always thought staves were overpriced. In all years of gaming I have never seen one in a game. For what they cost they should have 50 charges and be rechargeable.
I think they would be fine as is, PROVIDED they follow the APG pricing, not the core book pricing.
The situation is different when players decide to buy one of them, but mostly they are more concerned with getting the core six items and can only think about more esoteric stuff at the very high levels of play.
What are the six core items?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are the six core items?
They are the things you need to stay competitive against all those nasties in the Bestiaries.
Amulet of Natural Armor
Cloak of Resistance
Magical Armor
Magical Headband or Belt of [Ability Increase]
Magical Weapon
Ring of Protection
I think it refers not to actually knowing the spell but having access to appropriate spell level and having ability score to be able to cast it.
This is pretty much how I've always considered it to work. "Capable of casting it" shouldn't mean having to actually cast it. That's normally spelled out directly when it's required (such as when crafting magic items that require certain spells).
Otherwise, what happens if a Sorcerer has a scroll of the spell.. would that count as being capable of casting? Feels kind of like reading too much into the words in the book.
The situation is different when players decide to buy one of them, but mostly they are more concerned with getting the core six items and can only think about more esoteric stuff at the very high levels of play.What are the six core items?
Ahh the core six, the big six, the christmas tree.
Weapon
Armor
Cloak of resistance
Bag of never having to worry about encumberance again
Thingy of Stat booting (belt for martial, headband for casters)
Boots of getting the hell out of here.
--
Casters swap out weapon for ring of deflection.
It doesn't help that these are both the most useful AND the most reasonably priced things for your Wealthy by level. If the DM is keeping track of wealth by level as an indication of power the cooler items like the aparatus of the crab and flying carpets are so ridiculously overpriced that you wind up with far, far less usable treasure than you're otherwise expected to have.
It would almost be viable to use them if the requirements for crafting them weren't so stiff. Not to mention the months it is going to take to actually craft such an item.
I used to think one of the spells merely needed to be on your class spell list, but per the bold section it seems you must actually be able to cast one of the spells as well. For a wizard that means it must be in your spellbook, for a sorcerer or bard, it must be known, etc.
As a tiny house-rule fix, simply add Detect Magic or some other common cantrip/orison to every staff.
Sure, it's not RAW. But perhaps it is RAI and it barely changes the item's usefulness.
I really like Ashiel's adjustment to staves that was posted last time staves got brought up (like a week ago). She suggested that staves get changed to X times per day where things that used multiple charges used up multiple uses of the staff and that the standard staff pricing scheme is based off of a 5/day.
Staves are expensive, but then, wands (and scrolls) are expensive for high level spells. A 4th level wand costs a whopping 21,000gp. A 4th level staff is only slightly more than that.
In fact staves, in general, are only slightly more than wands. A wand costs 375gpxLvxCL to craft, a staff costs 400xLvxCL to craft.
As which type of magic do they manifest?I have always assumed that if the wielder is able to activate the spell out of the staff, it manifests as whatever type of magic it would be if the wielder cast it from his spell list.
Spell-trigger items do not require arcane/divine/etc, they simply store the spells (unlike scrolls).
"Capable of casting" means: 1) Have spell slots of sufficiently high level, 2) Have ability score capable of casting spells of that level, and 3) Have access to the spell to cast it (not read a scroll of it).
For a Wizard, that means it's in your spell book. For a Bard/Sorcerer, it must be a spell known. For a Cleric/Druid/Ranger/Paladin, that means it being on your class (or domain) spell list, at a level you can cast.
It's a very simple phrase, that means exactly what it sounds like. It doesn't use "Know" the spell, because that's specific to Bards and Sorcerers.
I think staves are well priced. As LazarX mentioned, you're more likely to find or make a staff than to buy one. I recall a staff I found in Rise of the Runelords was incredibly useful, even though I could only cast two of the spells on it.