There are some exploits that could be made using a transferred staff with charges.
For example a Staff of Divination could be charge by a caster and transferred to a martial to it make multiple uses of True Strike specially if this staff was prepared with extra charges by a prepared caster (and even more if is a wizard with staff nexus).
Maybe you can say that this is already possible with scrolls and wands but it won't work so well because with these items this martial needs to draw another scroll or wand every time while with the staff it could easily used dozen of times every turn.
Anyway I still think that this interpretation that you can use TMI to use a staff charged by another char falls into TGTBT (Too Good To Be True).
I understand the logic of this interpretation that you are tricking the staff to "think" that you are its original charger but it's too strange and a bit exploit to allow TMI as the only way to allow the usage of a staff charged by others.
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.Why would it be "too good to be true" though? It's really no different from someone with TMI having a bunch of scrolls, but with the added drawback of relying on someone else to charge the staff for you. You still need the TMI checks, your DC or spell attack roll is still going to be horrendous and so on and so forth.
There's no advantage here I can see if the wizard (or sorcerer, or whoever) wants to charge a staff and give it to their rogue (or fighter, or whatever) buddy. It's not like they can charge multiple staves during daily preparations.
Because this doesn't exist outside the TMI usage. In a party with a druid and a cleric for example the druid cannot charge a Staff of Healing and give it to Cleric to cast (and vice versa) no matter if both are able to use the spells in the staff the charges are untransferable even between casters.
So why TMI that's an unorthodox usage of a magic item would break a restriction that even the most legendary spellcasters cannot? TMI is an workaround to allow non-casters or casters of different tradition of the item spell to able to cast spells from items at cost of one extra action and a skill check with a reduced spell DC. Makes little sense that such thing is...
This interpretation does make me consider how the staff could be used to some kind of better effect. Is there a way to my previous interpretation allows a to good to be true situation.
When TMI is used for an ability that requires a save or spell attack I actually think TMI is best when used by those with the casting stat invested and the traditions skill invested for anything they couldn't otherwise activate that has that tradition tag. A wizard or witch can make good use of TMI for spells they dont have on their list but are present on the staff. It takes a successful TMI check for arcane but if the situation calls for the risk they are better suited to try than most.Is TMI a way to attempt to cast higher ranked spells on the staff? Or is that also a restriction that cannot be bypassed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway I still think that this interpretation that you can use TMI to use a staff charged by another char falls into TGTBT (Too Good To Be True).
I understand the logic of this interpretation that you are tricking the staff to "think" that you are its original charger but it's too strange and a bit exploit to allow TMI as the only way to allow the usage of a staff charged by others.
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.Why would it be "too good to be true" though? It's really no different from someone with TMI having a bunch of scrolls, but with the added drawback of relying on someone else to charge the staff for you. You still need the TMI checks, your DC or spell attack roll is still going to be horrendous and so on and so forth.
There's no advantage here I can see if the wizard (or sorcerer, or whoever) wants to charge a staff and give it to their rogue (or fighter, or whatever) buddy. It's not like they can charge multiple staves during daily preparations.
Because this doesn't exist outside the TMI usage. In a party with a druid and a cleric for example the druid cannot charge a Staff of Healing and give it to Cleric to cast (and vice versa) no matter if both are able to use the spells in the staff the charges are untransferable even between casters.
So why TMI that's an unorthodox usage of a magic item would break a restriction that even the most legendary spellcasters cannot? TMI is an workaround to allow non-casters or casters of different tradition of the item spell to able to cast spells from items at cost of one extra action and a skill check with a reduced spell DC. Makes little sense that such thing is...
The most legendary spellcaster ever can't cast spells from a scroll if the spell isn't on their spell list...unless they have TMI, in which case they can.
The most legendary spellcaster ever can't cast spells from a wand if the spell isn't on their spell list...unless they have TMI, in which case they can.
That is the whole point of TMI. You're paying a feat tax, an action tax, a skill-roll tax, and lowering your capabilities (in the form of Spell DC and Spell Attack) significantly in order to use a magic item that you otherwise couldn't. Your example doesn't really work because like...the Cleric could just prepare the staff themselves?
You could have an argument if you said "Well, you could have a Druid prepare a staff and give it to a Wizard who has prepared their own staff, and the Wizard could use TMI to use two staves!" And...yeah, so what? The Wizard's going to be much worse at using the staff than the Druid so unless there's Wild Shape concerns or something else that would prevent the Druid from using the staff the party is just literally worse off. And it wouldn't be any different than the Wizard having a bunch of Druid-spell wands and using those with TMI, which is perfectly valid.
If you take Trip's logic all the way, you'd have to think that TMI also circumvents the requirement of spending charges at all, no? After all, that requirement is mentioned in one breath with the spell list and spell rank requirements.
No.
That is absurd. That would be akin to claiming TMI can cast the once-per-day Spellhearts as many times they trick it.
I have never said nor plan to claim you can cast magic that is not there to begin with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you take Trip's logic all the way, you'd have to think that TMI also circumvents the requirement of spending charges at all, no? After all, that requirement is mentioned in one breath with the spell list and spell rank requirements.
No the logic does not extend to that.
That wouldn't be normal use of a ranked spell from a staff.Charges are a resource not a restriction.
Being the preparer of the staff is a restriction.
You can fool the staff into seeing you as the preparer but you cant cast the spell without the fuel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you take Trip's logic all the way, you'd have to think that TMI also circumvents the requirement of spending charges at all, no? After all, that requirement is mentioned in one breath with the spell list and spell rank requirements.No the logic does not extend to that.
That wouldn't be normal use of a ranked spell from a staff.
Charges are a resource not a restriction.Being the preparer of the staff is a restriction.
You can fool the staff into seeing you as the preparer but you cant cast the spell without the fuel.
It is an incredibly pedantic RAW argument, but it seems valid to me. Even if horribly broken and imbalanced - but that is kinda the point of bringing it up.
This is all one sentence. One that makes no distinction between which are a 'restriction' and which are a 'resource'.
"You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level."
So...
You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if:
* you have that spell on your spell list,
* you are able to cast spells of the appropriate level,
* you expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell's level.
Why are the first two 'requirements' that TMI can bypass, but the third one isn't? The rule doesn't actually say that or make that distinction or categorization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charges are part of activation costs. They are expended upon activation. TMI doesn't allow you to reduce the inputs to activation. It just lets you activate it as normal which includes expending charges.
To be clear, I don't actually think paizo intended to bring back CLW wands, but better; think of it as an argument to absurdity. Finoan laid it out nicely.
I get what you mean and Finoan does a have a good sense for laying out an argument.
My understanding of game rules grows everytime i discuss things here, even if I started out misunderstanding them.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, 'as normal' means they are yours and only yours charges. Sorry, just can't ignore that when you refer to 'normal'.Charges are part of activation costs. They are expended upon activation. TMI doesn't allow you to reduce the inputs to activation. It just lets you activate it as normal which includes expending charges.
This argument is still imbuing staff charges with some unwritten special properties they do not have.
There is no Staff language that says "even when bypassing normal activation restrictions, staff charges..."
________________
What steps of rules could you follow to allow for TMI to perform Wand overcharging,
without allowing TMI to perform staff-slot casting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, 'as normal' means they are yours and only yours charges. Sorry, just can't ignore that when you refer to 'normal'.Charges are part of activation costs. They are expended upon activation. TMI doesn't allow you to reduce the inputs to activation. It just lets you activate it as normal which includes expending charges.
As normal actually does allow exactly the ability to use those charges that are present.
The only normal case for using a staff to cast a ranked spell is the use of existing charges, expending them by the preparer. To use TMI on a staff to cast a ranked spell you need to use TMI for 1 Action, know what the spell does and how the staff works, that it expends charges to cast ranked spells, and succeed on the check appropriate for the spell you want to cast from the staff. Then you can activate the staff as though you could normally do so. That means you use the actions to cast the spell and expend the charges.So where does this process break down if TMI cannot allow it and why?
I am asking the question this way because i think the way i wrote it this time more clearly shows why TMI is only allowing the normal activation of a staff and not anything that isn't normal for a staff.
I get that the argument against so far would be that using charges to cast a ranked spell is not normal use of a staff. This is a part i have issue with.
The idea that you could activate the staff without charges present isnt normal use at all for activation so i think trying to use that example to show how the main argument for using TMI for ranked spells on a staff can be drawn out to absurdity doesnt really fit. TMI allows normal activation upon a successful tradition check.
Use a staff charged by other is not normal too.