The fact that there are two differing interpretations means that it is not, in fact, clear.
There is a correct reading, and an incorrect one. It is rather clear what the staff does. It allows you to apply metamagic feats to spells. It uses the charges of the staff to 'fuel' this, instead of higher spell levels used. It can only apply one metamagic feat at a time to any particular casting of a spell (whether that is an already metamagic'd spell or not isn't relevant, nor impacting).
Here is a scary thought, if one can some how hold a rod and the staff and still cast spells you could use both on one spell.
Quickened, intensified, maximized, empowered, dazing fireball out of a 5th level slot. Use a max rod and 4 charges.
Tieflings are popular because of that tail that lets them hold two items.
Not if he uses an SR: No blasting spell...
I'm highly amused at your selective use of RAW in our discussions. You'll argue that RAW says that a GM can't have anything else muck with a wizard using planar binding because that is all the spell says, but are going to argue that 'No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way' is somehow deeply nuanced and applies only to feats applied by the staff?What do you think that bit I bolded means? Really, what does it mean?
I'm pointing it out because to interpret the function of the staff the way you have, you have to ignore that part of the line. Which is curious.
Do you think it means nothing?
I read "cast in this way" as using the staff as part of casting the spell, which allows wizards to spontaneously apply metamagic and sorcerers to apply metamagic without extending the casting time.
With annotations: "No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder (this is a blanket statement that must be clarified) in this way (while using the staff)". Without including "in this way" you end up with broken language that goes against the rules in general.
Now it's possible this is just awkward phrasing by a design guy (it wouldn't be the first guy), but it seems to me that if you intended for this to be a ban against applying multiple feats at once with the staff itself you could find an easier way to say that.
I'd be happy to FAQ a post about it though if you feel strongly.
The fact that there are two differing interpretations means that it is not, in fact, clear.There is a correct reading, and an incorrect one. It is rather clear what the staff does. It allows you to apply metamagic feats to spells. It uses the charges of the staff to 'fuel' this, instead of higher spell levels used. It can only apply one metamagic feat at a time to any particular casting of a spell (whether that is an already metamagic'd spell or not isn't relevant, nor impacting).
You've offered little evidence that did not previously exist to support that your reading is the correct one. In fact, I would say that Anzyr is more compelling, of the two of you supporting this interesting interpretation of the RAW.
And since I disagreed with him...
You've offered little evidence that did not previously exist to support that your reading is the correct one. In fact, I would say that Anzyr is more compelling, of the two of you supporting this interesting interpretation of the RAW.
And since I disagreed with him...
"In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell’s level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat. No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way. Using the staff for this purpose does not increase the casting time of the spell."
Breakdown of language used and meanings:
1) The staff can be used for a purpose other than casting spells.
2) The additional use is that it can apply metamagic feats to spells the wielder casts.
3) To use this additional function, the wielder must know the feat that he intends to apply.
4) This use doesn’t modify the spell’s level.
5) This use consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels normally increased by the feat.
6) No more than one metamagic feat can be applied with this additional use of the staff.
7) This function of the staff doesn’t increase the casting time of the spell.
The entire entry talks about how this additional function… functions. Everything about it discusses the additional use. It doesn’t prohibit or restrict what sorts of spells you can use it on. No mention of any such restriction is present. All it talks about is the ‘additional use’, the additional function the staff serves.
The sentence “No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way.” Doesn’t mean; If you use this ability it can only work on spells so long as no other feats affect that spell no matter what.
That would be absurd. No spell focus, no Spell Penetration, no nothing. There isn’t anything anywhere that even remotely works like that.
But it doesn’t mean that, if you break down the words, in the order and sequence in which they appear. It says “No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way.” Which means; you can only apply one metamagic feat in this way, when you cast a spell with the staff.
No more than one feat. Can be applied. To a spell cast. By the wielder. In this way.
In this way qualifies the entire sentence. Based on where it falls within the structure of the sentence, it is a modifier for the entire sentence.
I didn’t present much of a case earlier, this is true. But mostly because I didn’t want to get, uh, rude. The issue here is reading comprehension… because the sentence in question has only one meaning when examined within the context it appears.
But how do you say that to someone who refuses to reexamine the wording with a fresh look, who isn’t willing to ask themselves if maybe they just didn’t read it correctly? Or worse, try to argue with someone who just isn’t able to read at that level of difficulty? No matter how you go into it, you have to break it down into easier to read and process bits for them.
But, what if they’re combative or defensive? What if they don’t like to be called out on their reading comprehension? Well, then they’re going to take what is an honest effort to educate and enlighten as an insult, and then the whole conversation turns into an ego match.
I don’t care to go there… typically. So yeah, I just said it only has one right reading. Because it does. And your original reading isn’t the right one.
Clear your mind from anything distracting, remove prejudices and preconceived notions. Then read it again while asking yourself what “In this way” means.
You’ll see the right answer.
"No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder (this is a blanket statement that must be clarified) in this way (while using the staff)".
If the reading relies on "in this way" being interpreted as "while using the staff's powers", that seems to me to be a more strained reading than interpreting it as "by using the staff's powers."
"In this way" is a problematic way to say the former, but a fine way to say the latter.
Further more by is the type of interpretation you expect to encounter in these circumstances. Unless they state it in a more straightforward manner, magic items should typically be assumed to be defining the limits of what you can do by using them rather than the limits of what you can do while using them.
That said, I'm gauging clarity as points on a spectrum, not a yes/no condition. I can see where you get your reading, you have some footing. I just think this falls into the rules area (and it is a large one) in between perfect clarity and murky 50-50 toincossery, where there are two answers for which footing can be found, but, absent clarification, the reading for one interpretation is stronger than the other.
With clarification, well, problematic interpretations have been upheld by Paizo before, even if usually it is the other way.
|
"In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell’s level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat. No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way. Using the staff for this purpose does not increase the casting time of the spell."
Obviously there is a debate on how to interpret the power of the staff. I look at the parts of the write up that apply to the usage in question:
"In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell’s level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat."
and
"No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way."
So we have:
Who?: The wielder
What?: can cast spells using any metamagic feats known without increasing the spell's level
When?: consuming charges from the staff.
Which when put together in the limitation sentence you should get.
"No more than one (metamagic) feat (known by the caster)can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder (using the staff without increasing the spell’s level)."
Just my $.02
To the OP:
Dropbox is limiting your account, too much traffic.
Could you link it somewhere else, such as Googledocs?
Here's a link. I copied it into my SkyDrive; that'll let people access it until KBrewer can rehost.
Oh, crap. Didn't see this before I posted.
Umm.. the strongest build is not a wizard and for the God of Half-Elves... Plane Shift *IS* a 5th level spell. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. Also, the build kinda has at-will essentially action free plane shifts... just a heads up.
"In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell’s level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat. No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way. Using the staff for this purpose does not increase the casting time of the spell."
Obviously there is a debate on how to interpret the power of the staff. I look at the parts of the write up that apply to the usage in question:
"In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell’s level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat."
and
"No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way."
So we have:
Who?: The wielder
What?: can cast spells using any metamagic feats known without increasing the spell's level
When?: consuming charges from the staff.
Which when put together in the limitation sentence you should get.
"No more than one (metamagic) feat (known by the caster)can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder (using the staff without increasing the spell’s level)."
Just my $.02
You missed "in this way" which is really pretty critical. It very clearly is applying that limitation to the method of using the staff to reduce the metamagic if you read it. If it did not have that phrase the first two sentence would allow you to use the Staff to spend all its counters on any number of metamagic effects. The one metamagic feat can be added to a spell *in this way* means you can only add one metamagic feat to the spell with the staff, any other way of adding metamagic therefore should be acceptable.
|
|
"In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell’s level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat."
and
"No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way."
So we have:
Who?: The wielder
What?: can cast spells using any metamagic feats known without increasing the spell's level
When?: consuming charges from the staff.
Which when put together in the limitation sentence you should get.
"No more than one (metamagic) feat (known by the caster)can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder (using the staff without increasing the spell’s level)."
Just my $.02
You missed "in this way" which is really pretty critical. It very clearly is applying that limitation to the method of using the staff to reduce the metamagic if you read it. If it did not have that phrase the first two sentence would allow you to use the Staff to spend all its counters on any number of metamagic effects. The one metamagic feat can be added to a spell *in this way* means you can only add one metamagic feat to the spell with the staff, any other way of adding metamagic therefore should be acceptable.
Wow. Your reading comprehension is getting suspect man...
First, re-read what I wrote. The phrase "In this way" is accounted for in the dissection of the sentence. Second, my conclusion on the subject by what I wrote the re-worded sentence as supports the interpretation that the limitation on the application of feats is only in regards to what is applied by the staff.
Perhaps if you weren't coming at things with this notion of your gaming "in the know" superiority nonsense, you would not have missed that.
|
|
Umm.. the strongest build is not a wizard and for the God of Half-Elves... Plane Shift *IS* a 5th level spell. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. Also, the build kinda has at-will essentially action free plane shifts... just a heads up.
I would assume you mean as an Oracle, using a half elf with Paragon Surge and eldritch heritage to grab your arcane spells as needed. Not really looking into it to see what you might constitute as "kinda has at-will essentially action free plane shifts", but I know that a few of the mysteries have astral projection or plane shift powers as spell like as part of their level 20 capstones.
"In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell’s level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat."
and
"No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder in this way."
So we have:
Who?: The wielder
What?: can cast spells using any metamagic feats known without increasing the spell's level
When?: consuming charges from the staff.
Which when put together in the limitation sentence you should get.
"No more than one (metamagic) feat (known by the caster)can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder (using the staff without increasing the spell’s level)."
Just my $.02
You missed "in this way" which is really pretty critical. It very clearly is applying that limitation to the method of using the staff to reduce the metamagic if you read it. If it did not have that phrase the first two sentence would allow you to use the Staff to spend all its counters on any number of metamagic effects. The one metamagic feat can be added to a spell *in this way* means you can only add one metamagic feat to the spell with the staff, any other way of adding metamagic therefore should be acceptable.
Wow. Your reading comprehension is getting suspect man...
First, re-read what I wrote. The phrase "In this way" is accounted for in the dissection of the sentence. Second, my conclusion on the subject by what I wrote the re-worded sentence as supports the interpretation that the limitation on the application of feats is only in regards to what is applied by the staff.
Perhaps if you weren't coming at things with this notion of your gaming "in the know" superiority nonsense, you would not have missed that.
Let's phrase it properly then.
In addition, this staff can be used to cast spells using any metamagic feats known by the wielder without increasing the spell’s level. This consumes a number of charges equal to the number of spell levels increased by the feat. No more than one feat can be applied to a spell cast by the wielder (by expending charges from this staff).
There fixed. That's really the way it reads and does nothing to prevent you from adding metamagic through other methods.
it's pretty clear the most important phrase in the text is "this way" as in you are limited to the staff adding one feat in the way previous decribed in the preceeding two sentences. there is no limitation on more feats in some other manner. I'm still at a loss for the other interpratation as it doesn't really make sense with the actual words written.
This guide is soooo good. Google won't even let you look at it. ;)
I posted a mirror back before the last two pages of bickering about some obscure 3.5 magic item that should be of in a rules question thread instead of cluttering up this one.
It's a PF item I promise. And its not so much bickering as "a few people have a very particular interpretation."
It's a pathfinder item from an obscure OGL (as in pre-CRB, as in written for 3.5) module that the vast majority of people reading a Wizard optimization guide won't have and the entire argument has been completely off-topic.
And from what I've seen it's not "a few people", it's "one person has an unusual take on an item and a few others have spend two pages trying to change his mind. I could be wrong as I've not really been reading the posts, just skimming them to see if anyone has anything to say that's on-topic, like "I can't read the guide and didn't know there's a mirror".
It's a pathfinder item from an obscure OGL (as in pre-CRB, as in written for 3.5) module that the vast majority of people reading a Wizard optimization guide won't have and the entire argument has been completely off-topic.
And from what I've seen it's not "a few people", it's "one person has an unusual take on an item and a few others have spend two pages trying to change his mind. I could be wrong as I've not really been reading the posts, just skimming them to see if anyone has anything to say that's on-topic, like "I can't read the guide and didn't know there's a mirror".
Staff of the Master is in Ultimate Equipment.
Really? Cause last I checked Ultimate Equipment says "Pathfinder". I could be wrong, maybe its not actually on Page 202 before Staff of the Planes. It was brought up since Staff of the Master is way to work around the recent FAQ ruling regarding Metamagic Rods, which is actually *very* important for Blockbuster Wizards. Some people just don't like getting let in on the know, you know?
Edit: Nuuuuuu semi-ninja'd by Scavion. Knew I shouldn't have looked up the page number.
Ah. I was going off the Archive of Nethys' list: Staff of the Master (Necromancy) Didn't notice that there's also a Staff of the Master at twice the price in UE (it looks like the price adjustment was the only change from the 3.5 version).
This guide is soooo good. Google won't even let you look at it. ;)I posted a mirror back before the last two pages of bickering about some obscure 3.5 magic item that should be of in a rules question thread instead of cluttering up this one.
I can see down to the first picture and one line after that, perhaps 3/4 page total and nothing else. ????
-- david
Dunno. The first page ends just after the first picture, so maybe you're only looking at the first page. Are you viewing it with Google docs shitty in-browser viewer? Because it will only display one page at a time of pdfs.
I am looking at it via skydrive.live.com, noting thru google docs.
Then I have no idea. It sounds as though you're only seeing the first page for some reason instead of the entire file. Maybe save it locally and look at it in your pdf viewer? (I asked about Google Docs because on some mobile devices, the mobile browsers will try to open all pdfs using Google Docs' in-browser viewer instead of a proper pdf app.)
Anzyr's interpretation has to be correct, because the sentence does not actually make sense the other way.
If you interpret it as a MM'd spell cannot be further meta'd with the staff...why would he attempt to be casting it with the staff? The sentence clearly confers the fact he is casting using the staff. If there was a limit on MM's applied, he wouldn't be casting using the staff.
So, yes, it means you get to apply ONE MM feat using the staff to the spell. Regardless if the spell already has metas.
I'm not sure Simulacarums can recharge things, under the 'cannot gain power' rules. Pretty sure that recharging a staff is getting more powerful.
===Aelryinth
Simulacrums of a high level caster should be able to recharge a staff since the relevant rule for staves is:
Recharging Staves: 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.
Now obviously Simulacrums of the higher level caster should be able to cast the spells required to charge staves.
The actual line is:
"A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities."
I don't see charging a staff as making the Simulacrum more powerful (unless you want to argue holding a magic item makes it "more powerful"), since I read the second line to indicate what the first means, ie. the simulacrum cannot gain levels or new abilities and thus become powerful.
LazarX: Taking Improved Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) grants access to the New Arcana Ability. When selected it allows you to add:
"...add any one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to your list of spells known. This spell must be of a level that you are capable of casting. You can also add one additional spell at 13th level and 17th level."
Which would allow an Oracle to add Sorcerer/wizard spells to their spell list.
Now the Plane shift thing I won't explain, that's a fun puzzle to work on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is your problem right there. What level of sorcerer/wizard spells is a straight single classed Oracle capable of casting? Answer... NONE.
LazarX: Taking Improved Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) grants access to the New Arcana Ability. When selected it allows you to add:"...add any one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to your list of spells known. This spell must be of a level that you are capable of casting. You can also add one additional spell at 13th level and 17th level."
.
The Oracle doesn't need to be able to cast wizard spells to add fireball. It need to be able to cast 3rd level spells. You must be able to cast spells of the same level than the wizard spell is, not being able to cast the spell itself.
The Oracle doesn't need to be able to cast wizard spells to add fireball. It need to be able to cast 3rd level spells. You must be able to cast spells of the same level than the wizard spell is, not being able to cast the spell itself.There is your problem right there. What level of sorcerer/wizard spells is a straight single classed Oracle capable of casting? Answer... NONE.
LazarX: Taking Improved Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) grants access to the New Arcana Ability. When selected it allows you to add:"...add any one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to your list of spells known. This spell must be of a level that you are capable of casting. You can also add one additional spell at 13th level and 17th level."
.
Ya, this. I didn't think it needed explained any further since it's crystal clear from the text.
Expanded Arcana has nothing to do with this... The effect of New Arcana absolutely allows you add Sorcerer/Wizard spells to your spell list, regardless of what spell list that is (including oracle). All it requires is that you are able to cast spells of a certain level. So Summoners are not going to be able to pick any 7th level spells, but they could mug the Sorcerer/Wizard list for level 6 spells, provided they could cast 6th level spells of course.
Is that not how you're reading it, because if so I'm not sure how else you could draw any other conclusion.
Really? Because there's other ways to add off list spells to a caster, such as Loreseeker as you noted, so taking two feats to get 1-3 Arcane Spells on a divine casters lists seems like something most GMs would actually allow and is almost certainly both RAW and RAI.
The trick here is Paragon Surge granting access to feat, which is both RAW and RAI. While the developers may not have considered its use with Expanded Arcana or Improved Eldritch Heritage, they certainly considered the value of a flexible feat, so while this is very strong it is also RAW and RAI.
Allowing it? Honestly, its just a nice trick until later levels and I mean its perfectly legal in PFS and I haven't seen cries for its removal yet. And honestly PFS is way more restrictive then other campaigns so if it's OK there...
Simulacrums of a high level caster should be able to recharge a staff since the relevant rule for staves is:
Recharging Staves: 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.
Now obviously Simulacrums of the higher level caster should be able to cast the spells required to charge staves.
The actual line is:
"A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities."
I don't see charging a staff as making the Simulacrum more powerful (unless you want to argue holding a magic item makes it "more powerful"), since I read the second line to indicate what the first means, ie. the simulacrum cannot gain levels or new abilities and thus become powerful.
LazarX: Taking Improved Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) grants access to the New Arcana Ability. When selected it allows you to add:
"...add any one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to your list of spells known. This spell must be of a level that you are capable of casting. You can also add one additional spell at 13th level and 17th level."
Which would allow an Oracle to add Sorcerer/wizard spells to their spell list.
Now the Plane shift thing I won't explain, that's a fun puzzle to work on.
It's been ruled that simulacra cannot make magic items, as doing so is a very definite increase in their power.
There is very, very little difference between making a staff and recharging a staff. If you give a simulacrum a staff, and he recharges it, he IS suddenly more powerful then he was before, no question about it.
I would thus rule that no, simulacra, as non-living creatures who cannot grow stronger, can't recharge a staff anymore then an intelligent magic item could.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's been ruled that simulacra cannot make magic items, as doing so is a very definite increase in their power.
There is very, very little difference between making a staff and recharging a staff. If you give a simulacrum a staff, and he recharges it, he IS suddenly more powerful then he was before, no question about it.
I would thus rule that no, simulacra, as non-living creatures who cannot grow cannot grow stronger, can't recharge a staff anymore then an intelligent magic item could.
Recharging a staff don't make them any more powerful than replenishing an empty quiver does. Or accepting the staff, to begin with. Or a old fashioned sharpened sword, too. I'd argue than a simulacrum with a sword is more powerful than a simulacrum without a sword, so with your very very very broad definition of "grow in power", a simulcrum, who is built naked, can't even take weapons or don armor or use items.
No its a RAW vs RAI debate. RAW you guys are absolutely correct, but no GM I know would allow it unless you took that elven archetype that allows oracles to cast sor/wiz spells.
That's not even a RAI debate, it's a "I'm angry you got too much power from that combo so Í'd ban it" debate. Forget the Paragon Surge Spell for a moment. Just look at Eldritch Heritage Feat. What DOES that feat DO? If it were intended to be used only by Wizards and sorcerers, it would say so in the description. It does not. Anyone can take them. Even a Barbarian can take them as long as he has CHA 15 and the Skill Focus. RAI, it's intended to give the bloodline power to your character whatever his class is. So yes, if you are a Dwarf summoner, or gnome bard, or halfling oracle, and you spend a couple feats in improved heritage and its feat taxes, you DO gain a spell added to your list of spells knowns. That's EXACTLY the RAI of that feat.
Now let's go with Paragon Surge. It's a spell that gives you a feat. That's exactly the RAI of the spell, as well as it's RAW. Combine the two. It's exactly RAW, and RAI. It's ludicrously powerful RAI, but it's RAI regardless. It's a "should die in a fire of nerfbats"-RAI, but it's RAI.
Recharging a staff don't make them any more powerful than replenishing an empty quiver does. Or accepting the staff, to begin with. Or a old fashioned sharpened sword, too. I'd argue than a simulacrum with a sword is more powerful than a simulacrum without a sword, so with your very very very broad definition of "grow in power", a simulcrum, who is built naked, can't even take weapons or don armor or use items.It's been ruled that simulacra cannot make magic items, as doing so is a very definite increase in their power.
There is very, very little difference between making a staff and recharging a staff. If you give a simulacrum a staff, and he recharges it, he IS suddenly more powerful then he was before, no question about it.
I would thus rule that no, simulacra, as non-living creatures who cannot grow cannot grow stronger, can't recharge a staff anymore then an intelligent magic item could.
Untrue.
The simulacarum is spending gold to regain arrows, or transforming gold into arrows via a skill check.
IN recharging, he's exerting his own magical power into something to turn that which has no power in that which has power, and it can't just spend gold to acquire that material effect.
Look at it this way: Making a wand is functionally no different then 'recharging' it with 50 charges of spell X. Recharging a staff is basically the same thing, except the container is already made.
==Aelryinth
Recharging a staff don't make them any more powerful than replenishing an empty quiver does. Or accepting the staff, to begin with. Or a old fashioned sharpened sword, too. I'd argue than a simulacrum with a sword is more powerful than a simulacrum without a sword, so with your very very very broad definition of "grow in power", a simulcrum, who is built naked, can't even take weapons or don armor or use items.It's been ruled that simulacra cannot make magic items, as doing so is a very definite increase in their power.
There is very, very little difference between making a staff and recharging a staff. If you give a simulacrum a staff, and he recharges it, he IS suddenly more powerful then he was before, no question about it.
I would thus rule that no, simulacra, as non-living creatures who cannot grow cannot grow stronger, can't recharge a staff anymore then an intelligent magic item could.
Untrue.
The simulacarum is spending gold to regain arrows, or transforming gold into arrows via a skill check.
IN recharging, he's exerting his own magical power into something to turn that which has no power in that which has power, and it can't just spend gold to acquire that material effect.
Look at it this way: Making a wand is functionally no different then 'recharging' it with 50 charges of spell X. Recharging a staff is basically the same thing, except the container is already made.
==Aelryinth
Let's see if I understand: he can buy arrows, because it spends gold. He can't recharge a wand, or build it. But he can buy a wand, right?. I guess that means he can buy new arrows for his quiver, but he couldn't build them with Craft: Fletcher. Did that stop to make any sense to you? Because it did to me.
In case you didn't note, "transform gold into arrows via a skill check" is exactly what he is doing when he builds a wand. He spends gold, make a skill check (Spellcraft, to be precise), and construct a weapon. Saying the simulacrum can't build wands is just a way to say "oh crap, this spell mess the game system so much that it REALLY should dissapear, but we can't, because we like it for NPCs and stuff". It makes 0 sense than the simulacrum can spend gold to build an Adamantine Great Sword with skill checks and time, but he can't spend gold to build a *cheaper* +1 great sword with checks and time. Zero sense.
Simulacrum like wish is very much a GM makes the calls spell. While I believe recharging a staff is probably within the simulacrums abilities developers have made comments saying creating spawn, and crafting magic items fall under the increasing in power rule of the spell. Since what counts as an increase of power isn't directly spelled out using magic items at all could be argued to be an increase in power.