Staff with 1 spell

[Boris the halfling]

Can a character craft a staff just with 1 spell and pay just
[400*spell level*caster level] instead of [400 gp × the level of the highest-level spell × the level of the caster, plus 75% of the value of the next most costly ability (300 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster), plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities (200 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster).]?

[John Murdock]

i would say yes since nowhere it is worded you must put more than one spell it only say the price for more spell and the staff of minor arcana has only 2 spell in it shield (1 charge)and magic missile (2 charges)

[VRMH]

RaW: yes.
RaI: no.

So: ask your GM. Either way, it won't "break" the game any more than crafting already does.

[Val'bryn2]

VRMH wrote:

RaW: yes.

RaI: no.

So: ask your GM. Either way, it won't "break" the game any more than crafting already does.

Why do you say no to RaI? Actual question. It seems okay to me, because you're still getting something very different from a wand, so it makes sense for a wizard with a favored spell to make a staff of just that spell, sacrificing versatility for a solid fall-back strategy.

[VRMH]

Val'bryn2 wrote:

Why do you say no to RaI?

RaI is always a bit of a intuitive, "gut feeling" matter; if anything was spelled out it'd be RaW. But there's no default Staff with just the one spell, and even Staves with just two spells are rare.

So I conclude that Staves with one spell are unintended. Still, it's just an opinion.

Quote:

it makes sense for a wizard with a favored spell to make a staff of just that spell, sacrificing versatility for a solid fall-back strategy.

That makes a lot of sense, but it does relegate Staves to the position of oversized Wands.

[Claxon]

Consider how useless staves generally are to most players (because of their extraordinary price) things that make them more useful aren't necessarily bad.

They're basically nice big spell batteries that you can use occasionally in times of need. But no one thinks of them that way.

[Wultram]

Yeah it is perfectly fine. And as a GM I allow it. Because you would have to be a fool to create a staff with multiple spells or if you find one to not sell it. Paizo really dropped the ball when designing them. They are simply too expensive for what they do. Granted in general magical item prices are not their strong suit.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Claxon wrote:

Consider how useless staves generally are to most players (because of their extraordinary price) things that make them more useful aren't necessarily bad.

They're basically nice big spell batteries that you can use occasionally in times of need. But no one thinks of them that way.

Nobody thinks of them that way simply because other means of having "spell batteries" (wands, scrolls, potions, and other items) are so much cheaper, and in a lot of cases, equally as effective.

They're waaaaay overpriced since you can only ever recharge a single charge per day, by expending slots for spells that usually require more than a single charge to cast from the staff, and GMs are reluctant to give them out as loot both because of their very limited usability, and also because the PCs can just sell it for a giant lump sum of cash to spend on their own items.

[GM Rednal]

In-game, the definition is "A staff is a long shaft that stores several spells." The pricing list gives you a price for the first spell, a price for the second spell, and then "any other" spells that may also be added. I also can't find a single published example of a one-spell staff (although there are several two-spell staves, such as the Staff of Minor Arcana), so I'm pretty sure you must have at least two spells in it.

I actually really like a staff my character uses, but they were sort of built around using it and it's been customized to heck and back to make it more useful. XD Ordinarily, yeah, they're usually better as treasure than something to be bought or made - also a good way of giving the party a lot of cash in an easy-to-carry form.

[Kitty Catoblepas]

Warning: The following is cheese

Note that it's worth it to have two highest-level spells that consume 10 charges per casting. You get the utility of having them as emergency spells and you reduce the cost of the spells you want. This seems to work even if your DM require your "2 highest level spells" be one level higher than your third highest level spell.

***

Example: I want a staff with lightning bolt.

I put in
Wall of Force (10 charges) - 4 x 8 x 40 = 1280
Teleport (10 charges) -------- 4 x 8 x 30 = 960
Lightning Bolt (1 charge) -- 3 x 8 x 200 = 4800

Total = 7040

***

Compare to -- Staff with 1 spell

Lightning Bolt (1 charge) -- 3 x 8 x 4000 = 9600

***

Compare to -- Max-level wand of Lightning Bolt
Lightning bolt (at level 10) -- 10 x 3 x 750 = 22500

[Jeraa]

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

Warning: The following is cheese

Note that it's worth it to have two highest-level spells that consume 10 charges per casting. You get the utility of having them as emergency spells and you reduce the cost of the spells you want. This seems to work even if your DM require your "2 highest level spells" be one level higher than your third highest level spell.

***

Example: I want a staff with lightning bolt.

I put in
Wall of Force (10 charges) - 4 x 8 x 40 = 1280
Teleport (10 charges) -------- 4 x 8 x 30 = 960
Lightning Bolt (1 charge) -- 3 x 8 x 200 = 4800

Total = 7040

***

Compare to -- Staff with 1 spell

Lightning Bolt (1 charge) -- 3 x 8 x 4000 = 9600

***

Compare to -- Max-level wand of Lightning Bolt
Lightning bolt (at level 10) -- 10 x 3 x 750 = 22500

You also require a 4th level spell slot to recharge your first staff, but only a 3rdlevel slot to recharge the lightning bolt-only staff. So in this case the multi-spell staff does have more utility, but also requires a more power spell slot to recharge.

[Kitty Catoblepas]

Very good point, Jeraa.

Technically, of course, you could use 3rd level spells (say, Daylight and Water Breathing) as your "highest-level" spells in this case (costing 6480 and taking a 3rd level spell to recharge), but I'd expect that someone would argue against you doing this.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

Very good point, Jeraa.

Technically, of course, you could use 3rd level spells (say, Daylight and Water Breathing) as your "highest-level" spells in this case (costing 6480 and taking a 3rd level spell to recharge), but I'd expect that someone would argue against you doing this.

Staff of Minor Arcana has two first level spells, meaning it requires a 1st level spell slot to recharge it, so there's really nothing mechanically saying you can't have all of the same level spells on a staff. The only grounds someone would have of not allowing it would be of the cheese factor alone.

[John Murdock]

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

Warning: The following is cheese

Note that it's worth it to have two highest-level spells that consume 10 charges per casting. You get the utility of having them as emergency spells and you reduce the cost of the spells you want. This seems to work even if your DM require your "2 highest level spells" be one level higher than your third highest level spell.

***

Example: I want a staff with lightning bolt.

I put in
Wall of Force (10 charges) - 4 x 8 x 40 = 1280
Teleport (10 charges) -------- 4 x 8 x 30 = 960
Lightning Bolt (1 charge) -- 3 x 8 x 200 = 4800

Total = 7040

***

Compare to -- Staff with 1 spell

Lightning Bolt (1 charge) -- 3 x 8 x 4000 = 9600

***

Compare to -- Max-level wand of Lightning Bolt
Lightning bolt (at level 10) -- 10 x 3 x 750 = 22500

all staff must be made with a caster minimum lvl 9 and all spell must have the same caster lvl and you can't put a spell that is inferior to the caster lvl necessary to cast them, like wall of force is a spell of lvl 5 you must cast them at a minimum of caster lvl 9 (and must be that minimum to put in a staff) teleport the same, and lightning bolt is a spell of lvl 3 and must be of caster lvl 5 minimum but 9 for a staff (and even so must be 9 to be at the same caster lvl of the other spell) so you must recalculate all of your price now they are not good

edit: oups just see its minimum 8 for a staff but still you cannot cast a spell that required a minimum caster lvl higher than the caster lvl you are putting yourself to cast, so a lvl 5 spell still require to be made at caster lvl 9 (same for all the other spell put in a staff)

[Jeraa]

Wall of Force and Teleport are 5th level spells, so the first staff would need to be:

Wall of Force (10 charges) - 5 x 9 x 40 = 1800
Teleport (10 charges) -------- 5 x 9 x 30 = 1350
Lightning Bolt (1 charge) -- 3 x 9 x 200 = 5400

Total = 8550

Using different, 4th level spells would use the numbers in the post however.

[Kitty Catoblepas]

Oops. Looks like I scrolled down into level 5 spells without noticing while writing that example. I thought something was fishy about my choices there.

Good catch, guys.

Interesting that it was still cheaper than a Lightning Bolt only staff at 8550 vs 9600

[Claxon]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Consider how useless staves generally are to most players (because of their extraordinary price) things that make them more useful aren't necessarily bad.

They're basically nice big spell batteries that you can use occasionally in times of need. But no one thinks of them that way.

Nobody thinks of them that way simply because other means of having "spell batteries" (wands, scrolls, potions, and other items) are so much cheaper, and in a lot of cases, equally as effective.

They're waaaaay overpriced since you can only ever recharge a single charge per day, by expending slots for spells that usually require more than a single charge to cast from the staff, and GMs are reluctant to give them out as loot both because of their very limited usability, and also because the PCs can just sell it for a giant lump sum of cash to spend on their own items.

Staves have the advantage of using your caster level and DCs, unlike all those other items.

Yes they're slow to recharge and generally clunky. But if you find yourself in a fight and need some offensive spells, the stave may be exactly what you need.

I agree they're generally too expensive for what they do, but they aren't completely useless. Just generally not worth the cost.