| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I've been following this thread and in my logical mind I think, of course they can use staves. So I go and read the specifics, and I can fully understand why someone would throw a flag up and question it.
Seems to be check boxes:
Animal Staff Item 4+
Cantrip Know Direction
1st Level Magic Fang and Summon AnimalSummoner Level 16 (Assume this person decided to not pick a single feat that would add spells to their list)
Available Spell Slots: 2 7th and 2 8th and 5 CantripsHave the Spell in your list/repertoire? Sure
Prepare the Staff? Yes! 8 Charges I believe
Can cast spells of appropriate level? Fuzzy. I can cast that spell heightened but I can't cast that spell at level 1. Personally I check this as a Yes. Why? Because it is in my list, and I am allowed to cast it. You can get stuck on the appropriate level but I don't. I can cast it, and I have it in my list as level 1.
Casting a spell from the Staff at Level 1 expends 1 of my 8 charges.
To me everything else is over thinking it. I seriously agree it is poorly worded, but the Staff just requires the check boxes checked for me, and having the spell and the ability to cast it is all that is needed. It's a level check, not an open spell slot.
The counter argument in my head is this. You cast all of your level 1 spells and have no spell slots open then by that logic you no longer have the ability to cast the spell of the appropriate level and cannot discharge the staff. But that obviously isn't the intent, so my initial logic works for me.
"Appropriate level" can mean "equal or higher." But nothing in the rules says that is precisely what it means, so suggesting we can ignore it because a certain interpretation makes it possible is as plausible as the other interpretation saying we can't. Or a "Your word against mine" if this was taken into real-life court. Not good enough.
Nor were staves created when classes with selective spell slots were proposed, meaning a situation like this was not one that the staff rules were designed to cover. Until FAQ, Errata, or some other clarifications come through, this is as ambiguous as determining how Battle Medicine works. (P.S. It's GM FIAT.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Darksol
yup I totally understand why it gets fuzzy. My interpretation is just an explaination that I see it as a spell check. Because the "Cast a spell of the appropriate level" if taken literally means as soon as you are out of spell slots for that level you technically can no longer cast a spell of that level. Thus once you expend all your spell slots for that level by the letter of the law you could no longer discharge the staff. I get wanting clarification, makes sense. But I feel comfortable with it being a check box for the ability to cast the spell, not losing the ability to discharge the staff charges once you no longer have a spell slot available.
But again, I get wanting errata, I just feel comfortable that for my tables this would be the ruling. It doesn't make sense that a higher level summoner would be worse at using a staff than a lower level summoner. Highly doubt that is what is intended. And mind you, I am one of the people who feel that Dwarf Wizards should be able to use their clan dagger, but at the same time I get the explanation that they were too busy in the books to have bothered juggling knives.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't you folks love this edition?
Remember P1E with its fiddly rules, convoluted and complex interactions and exceptions that turned mechanics into riddles rather than vehicles for intended play experience? And all because the developers were hamstrung by having to build upon the faulty foundation of D&D 3.5.
I'm so glad we're beyond that.
Yeah, you can now just slap an 'ask your DM' statement in there and 'fix' it all. :P
|
Yeah, you can now just slap an 'ask your DM' statement in there and 'fix' it all. :PDon't you folks love this edition?
Remember P1E with its fiddly rules, convoluted and complex interactions and exceptions that turned mechanics into riddles rather than vehicles for intended play experience? And all because the developers were hamstrung by having to build upon the faulty foundation of D&D 3.5.
I'm so glad we're beyond that.
Ugh, don't open old wounds.
Ugh, don't open old wounds.Yeah, you can now just slap an 'ask your DM' statement in there and 'fix' it all. :PDon't you folks love this edition?
Remember P1E with its fiddly rules, convoluted and complex interactions and exceptions that turned mechanics into riddles rather than vehicles for intended play experience? And all because the developers were hamstrung by having to build upon the faulty foundation of D&D 3.5.
I'm so glad we're beyond that.
Misery loves company. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys jest, but unlike 1E, 2E doesn't seem to have big gray areas in the main rules. Most of the important, commonly used stuff is pretty cut and dry. Any unclear areas that do exist seem to be isolated corner cases, or coming out of new content by authors who might not be wholly aware of the new paradigm of established 2E formatting guidelines.
Have we gotten a firm answer as to whether Staves can be casted from while in a different form?
You guys jest, but unlike 1E, 2E doesn't seem to have big gray areas in the main rules.
Ah.......... Yeah.......
I can drive a truck through some of the intentional grey areas in the main rules. There are times when I move to a new DM and it feels like a different version of the game [like D&D 3.0 to pathfinder] and both are running without houserules. There isn't even a clear cut answer to what you should get from Recall checks or how many hands my battle magic uses or... [I can keep going for a LONG time here] :P
It's my biggest gripe with the system: the lack of continuity between tables.
You guys jest, but unlike 1E, 2E doesn't seem to have big gray areas in the main rules.Ah.......... Yeah.......
I can drive a truck through some of the intentional grey areas in the main rules. There are times when I move to a new DM and it feels like a different version of the game [like D&D 3.0 to pathfinder] and both are running without houserules. There isn't even a clear cut answer to what you should get from Recall checks or how many hands my battle magic uses or... [I can keep going for a LONG time here] :P
It's my biggest gripe with the system: the lack of continuity between tables.
This is because PF2 puts much more emphasis on GM FIAT than PF1 did, which, surprise surprise, will change as you play at different tables with different GMs, or even the same GMs. Who knows, maybe they will retcon a ruling they made in the past because reasons. It happens.
This is because PF2 puts much more emphasis on GM FIAT than PF1 did, which, surprise surprise, will change as you play at different tables with different GMs, or even the same GMs. Who knows, maybe they will retcon a ruling they made in the past because reasons. It happens.You guys jest, but unlike 1E, 2E doesn't seem to have big gray areas in the main rules.Ah.......... Yeah.......
I can drive a truck through some of the intentional grey areas in the main rules. There are times when I move to a new DM and it feels like a different version of the game [like D&D 3.0 to pathfinder] and both are running without houserules. There isn't even a clear cut answer to what you should get from Recall checks or how many hands my battle magic uses or... [I can keep going for a LONG time here] :P
It's my biggest gripe with the system: the lack of continuity between tables.
Oh, I understand that 100% which is why a comment on LESS grey areas that PF1 seem nonsensical to me: grey areas is what the foundation of this game is built on and it permeates the whole system top to bottom.
|
|
This is because PF2 puts much more emphasis on GM FIAT than PF1 did, which, surprise surprise, will change as you play at different tables with different GMs, or even the same GMs. Who knows, maybe they will retcon a ruling they made in the past because reasons. It happens.You guys jest, but unlike 1E, 2E doesn't seem to have big gray areas in the main rules.Ah.......... Yeah.......
I can drive a truck through some of the intentional grey areas in the main rules. There are times when I move to a new DM and it feels like a different version of the game [like D&D 3.0 to pathfinder] and both are running without houserules. There isn't even a clear cut answer to what you should get from Recall checks or how many hands my battle magic uses or... [I can keep going for a LONG time here] :P
It's my biggest gripe with the system: the lack of continuity between tables.
And, surprise surprise, that's something that sucks with the system.
And, surprise surprise, that's something that sucks with the system.This is because PF2 puts much more emphasis on GM FIAT than PF1 did, which, surprise surprise, will change as you play at different tables with different GMs, or even the same GMs. Who knows, maybe they will retcon a ruling they made in the past because reasons. It happens.You guys jest, but unlike 1E, 2E doesn't seem to have big gray areas in the main rules.Ah.......... Yeah.......
I can drive a truck through some of the intentional grey areas in the main rules. There are times when I move to a new DM and it feels like a different version of the game [like D&D 3.0 to pathfinder] and both are running without houserules. There isn't even a clear cut answer to what you should get from Recall checks or how many hands my battle magic uses or... [I can keep going for a LONG time here] :P
It's my biggest gripe with the system: the lack of continuity between tables.
It only sucks if your GM is a strict jerk and doesn't allow for creative solutions. It's not so bad if you have a lenient GM who takes the rule of cool approach when the opportunity is given.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It only sucks if your GM is a strict jerk and doesn't allow for creative solutions.
Even a strict GM is manageable. It sucks when you're in a situation like graystone talks about a lot, though. If you're changing GMs a lot, it doesn't matter whether they're a good or bad GM, because everyone has their own baseline.
You've been on the forums enough I think to know that lots of reasonable people can still have wildly different interpretations on what's acceptable and what's a problem, or what a vague rule happens to mean. That means an idea can be valid at one table and invalid at another, simply because there are so many nebulous moving parts.
Misery loves company. ;)Ugh, don't open old wounds.Yeah, you can now just slap an 'ask your DM' statement in there and 'fix' it all. :PDon't you folks love this edition?
Remember P1E with its fiddly rules, convoluted and complex interactions and exceptions that turned mechanics into riddles rather than vehicles for intended play experience? And all because the developers were hamstrung by having to build upon the faulty foundation of D&D 3.5.
I'm so glad we're beyond that.
That really explains your entire posting history. ;) huhuhu
It only sucks if your GM is a strict jerk and doesn't allow for creative solutions.Even a strict GM is manageable. It sucks when you're in a situation like graystone talks about a lot, though. If you're changing GMs a lot, it doesn't matter whether they're a good or bad GM, because everyone has their own baseline.
You've been on the forums enough I think to know that lots of reasonable people can still have wildly different interpretations on what's acceptable and what's a problem, or what a vague rule happens to mean. That means an idea can be valid at one table and invalid at another, simply because there are so many nebulous moving parts.
The important thing to remember is that Vid's always right... at worst eventually.
What, am I reading that PF1 didn't have grey areas in the rules? Really?
What, am I reading that PF1 didn't have grey areas in the rules? Really?
How many where intentionally left there instead of being an ambiguity?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
still no dev chiming in? weird, he is over talking up the summoner but nobody here, seems like a small thing to give a little yes/no answer.
|
still no dev chiming in? weird, he is over talking up the summoner but nobody here, seems like a small thing to give a little yes/no answer.
Give them time, the playtest review is already fully underway and I'm under the impression that Paizo pretty much JUST created a brand new position to help with CS work, moderation, FAQ/Errata duties, and other community adjudication tasks.
It's frustrating indeed but I am hopeful we will have a much more comprehensive and impactful system to clear these things up in the months ahead which is far superior to one game dev or another going out on social media and chiming in with their 2c. If my suspicion is correct then I applaud the Golem for taking this aspect of product management seriously and listening to their fans since we've been asking for this for a while now.
This one has ramifications outside of the playtest material, so they have to be careful talking about what rules content in the CRB says. With the playtest stuff they can tell us whatever they want cause that is all in flux.
But one does hope they could answer if the magus and the summoner are supposed to be able to use the staff, regardless of how it needs to be worded in the classes to do so.