To compare, lets look at two other similar things. A weapon that has Spell-Storing can hold up to a 3rd level spell and costs a +1 bonus. Not too horrible of a cost for an extra spell, especially if its a healing spell or something to do even more damage. And the later you wait to put it in your weapon. the more it will cost.
A ring of spell storing, major eventually can hold 10 levels of spell. Now thats a lot... but it costs 200,000 gold peices. That will take awhile to get up to... and take up a lot of treasure. I hope that DM's arent just giving out that kind of cash easily.
But now lets look at the Arcane Staff spells. What must a sorceror or wizard do to get these wonderful extra spells. Um... a wizard can take it for one of his spells when he levels. Pretty easy. Or worse case scenario... research it at the Towers. Not very hard. A sorceror could take it as one of his spells to know, which I dont think is so bad, but others may not want to do that. If not for that, then they must research it somehow or get a scroll of it. While tougher than a wizard, still not a hard thing to do if one was dedicated.
Now some may see the carrying of a staff around as an inconveniance, but I'm sure most people can get by that when they eventually could have close to 4 6th level spells(yes I realize that would require you to be high level, but still) and who knows how many other combinations.
This seems like one of those spells where its clearly better than anything else because you can cast it on your "time off" and have instantly more spells.. justf or casting one spell? It doesnt even require a costly material component... which would help. Now if you say "Well you need to get that down time..", I say if you dont *ever* get downtime in order to cast a spell like this.. thats crazy. There has to be something or you are running from adventure to adventure without properly preparing.
I just find something like this annoying because now I have to explain to my players why they arent able to take the spell... if I decide to ban it that is. Its not that its *so* unbalancing and will ruin any game, but I find it annoying that a spell can give a benefit like this without there being any detriment. Its more...annoying.. than anything else.
I was wondering if anyone has had their players use it yet? Any comments appreciated.
There are thousands of ways I could prevent them from getting the spell ever, but why go through all that? I'd ban it before I did something like that. My problem comes from the spell just being a No Brainner. Literally. Why in the world would a wizard/sorceror not use this spell? Anyone else who wanted to do this would be shelling out a massive amount of gold. And this spell just lets a person cast it and have the benefit. Just for the life of me I can't understand how someone didn't think this one through when it came to creating it, editing it, etc.
The main reason I posted this was not to just make a thread that says "this sucks" (although I kind of do =p).. but also trying to see if there was something I missed. Its happened a few times to me..so I like to try to catch stuff =)
.Oh and Sysane, none of my wizards(PC or NPC) has the Syphon Magic Item feat. And that's not because i banned it.
Can't see why. Its clearly a powerful feat. But consider yourself lucky.
I dont like my players getting stuff I dont like and then I sit around thinking of the ways to "get them" and "teach them a lesson". I'd rather just get rid of it. I knew there'd be people who would bring this route up, maybe I should have said something in the original post.
Personally I dont like any version of the spell. It increases a class ability without there being any kind of detriment. I wouldnt let a Fighter use a feat to gain 3 more feats. Etc, etc, etc... My problem is the guy is using a spell... to gain way more spells. What idiot wouldnt do this, without there being any reason why he shouldnt.
As I said in the original post, I dont find the spells "campaign breaking" and the whole world will crash down. My problem is that its too powerful a spell for the reason that it raises your main ability(spells) for no apparant reason and without any detriment. As i said before, its like having a fighter use a feat to gain three more.
You say you have no problem with Arcane Staff, but do you realize that at 9th level when you cast it, that he should at least have somewhere around an extra 13 levels of spells(caster level + probably a +4 modifier). I ring that stores 10 spell levels costs 200,000. Now granted the spell only allows you to store up to 4th level spells. In my opinion that would maybe drop the price in half. So that kind of magical item would be say 100,000? Granted he isnt getting high level spells, but he has an item that he can keep increasing the spell levels that go into it as he levels. And will have more than 10 slots.
I guess some people just dont have a problem with it and thats fine. I just find an ability.. that gives you more of the ability as annoying. Its nice to see input from both sides.
My whole problem stems from being able to cast a spell... and getting a bunch of other spells beyond the original spells power. Now theres a spell somewhere, I think the PHB, that lets you cast a higher level spell in order to get two lower spells or something. And this is fine.. you are giving up your higher level spell in order to get a few lesser for a small period of time.
Casting Arcane Staff costs you a spell, but you gain a whole bunch back. And they are permanent in the staff until discharged. And you can rememorize a spell in the slot you used for the Arcane Staff. To me thats just ridiculous. As I said before, I wouldnt let a Fighter take a feat that gave him 3 more feats. Its redundant and recursive. Its not right.
What idiot would not take this spell and have more spells? Heck even keep the staff packed away and use them only for buff spells, or defensive if you know you're about to go in combat. Or keep other utility spells. Its basically a huge scroll, without any cost and all you have to do is cast a spell, which every wizard and sorceror can do. As I said before, if it was a class feature, I still think it should be toned down a little, but would still work.
One of my players just made up a Blood Magus from the Complete Arcane and they can keep like 6 spells on their skin, but still must pay the cost. They can keep a few potions in their blood also, but they still pay the cost. And it is limited to how many. They get very small, limitied "virtual feats" if you want to call them that. The PrC makes you eventually give up 2 levels of spellcasting also...I see that as a nice tradeoff. That class is interesting to say the least.
Again, my problem comes from being able to cast a spell, and get way more spells in return. Thats just not right. I can't believe someone would even think if they should take the spell.
But SunLancer is right in a way, too. Arcane Spellcasters have average of 2 less hitpoints, 1/5 or so less attack bonus, and 1/4 or 1/5 as good saves, compared to divine spellcasters. Arcane spellcasters therefore need something to balance that. And actualy i hadn't looked at Changestaff much before... but that thing's just, well, ow.
I think that Greater Arcane Staff might be pretty powerfull, but not unbalancingly powerfull.I can see reasons why someone would not want to take one of those, and I also make it exclusive to Wizards of High Sorcery.
My problem is using an ability given to you, to gain more of the same ability! Casting a spell, to gain more spells, and still being able to retain the original spell slot is wrong. Letting a fighter take a feat that gives him 3 more feats.. is wrong. Letting a Rogue take as his Special Ability an ability that gives him 3 more Special Abilities is wrong! Letting a Cleric choose a domain that gives him access to two more domains is wrong.
This is my whole point. I'm sure it didnt come off so clear at first, but I have no problem with people levling and gaining benefits that help them, while not always having a clear detriment. My problem stems from a person using an ability to gain more of that same ability.
A wizard should not be able to cast a spell, gain about 14+ more spell levels, and then fill that slot he just used with another spell. Thereby gaining more spells, for nothing. Its wrong. Why in the world wouldnt a wizard use this "virtual scroll".
or b) fill it with spells that you know will be only moderatley useful
A sorceror.. would have to do the same thing if he made scrolls. He casts Arcane Staff once, and still gets more spells. He gets his slot back when he rests and gains more spells in his staff. Um so what if they have to be ones you decide early on with? Its more spells.. anything is better than nothing. Again i dont see your point.
Personally I think you're just reaching for reasons why there isnt anything wrong with the spell.
If you would like to see my justification, see my last post. I think it sums it up pretty well and I think you might have missed it while you wrote your last one. My last post pretty much says everything that needs to be said. You cannot give an ability that gives more of the same ability. Its redundant and doesnt make much sense.
There are far better issues to discuss than something as minor as this.
Why is this such a problem? This is being way overblown. If it's not in the core rules, it's optional. So make it not an option in your game.
There are far better issues to discuss than something as minor as this.
It's not a problem. It just sounds like an unbalanced spell. But then again maybe it isn't. That's why it would be interesting to hear what the designer behind it was thinking when the spell was written. Aside from that is just a fun discussion.
Who knows.. its only one spell. Most of the other spells are pretty nice. Maybe I should mess with it and see if I can get it to be a good spell.
I'm just curious because it just seems too weird that an ability can give you more of the same ability without there being anything else to go along with it. Heh if nothing more gets added to this, I'll let it die.
I would introduce a limitation similar to Rary's mnemonic enhancer that says spells stored in the staff fade after 24 hours (if not cast). This prevents the wizard from preparing another spell in its place. Also, the key difference between the three spells ought to be the maximum level of spell stored in the staff, rather than the means of determining how many spells can be stored, so I'd probably go with being able to store a number of spell levels into the staff equal to the wizard's Intelligence modifier, limit arcane staff, lesser to 2nd-level spells or lower, arcane staff to 4th-level spells or lower, and arcane staff, greater to 6th-level spells or lower.
Cheers,
Cam
I have no problem with a wizard/sorceror giving up a higher level slot and getting a few lower level spells. Its a "price". And I do like the idea of making it fade after 24 hours just so they do "lose" that spell for the day.
I like the Int modifier thing. It would let you use up a higher slot to get several "lesser" spells.
I think this kind of thing would be perfect for a PrC that uses a Staff to power his spells more. Almost better as a special ability more than just a spell.
Cheers,
Cam
Sessions like that provide alot of info on your group and individual players.I do agree that as is, the spell is unbalanced. Though it can also be fun. It depends on the game and the players. If a player abuses, it quikly becomes a tool for back up blasting spells or other brokeness that my mind cannot fathom. If used in a game where objective isn't " I can kill the dragon in this many rounds", it can be very entertaining. For example, i have a wizard who carries presidigitation ( or something like that) in his staff to entertain the children when he comes back into town. ( shrugs) Just thoughts coming from a mage who doesn't hold all the power in the universe.
Yes you are right, it becomes a problem when people abuse it. But you can say that about anything. Should we not worry about balancing things because "people shouldnt abuse it..." I like to try to keep things as balanced as possible, and then houserule stuff if it comes to that. I dont want everything made any way..and then its my job to see the PC's dont abuse it.
While that is a neat way for your PC to use it, he could easily do it different ways also and still have the same affect. A ring of spell storing would do nicely. Also, scrolls of that spell dont really cost barely anything at all. Even an item that could do it once a day or something really wouldnt cost a lot. No need to use a broken spell(how its written in the ToHS book) in order to get something good.
I like Cam's idea and even talked it over with my players and they all still said they would take it in that form. I think its very fair to give up a higher level spell in order to get a few lower level spells. A max of Int modifier is pretty good, especially since you know most Wizards will have a +4 at least anyways.
Which supplement?
Banshee
The other is that i do not allow the Greater version in my game, but allow Lesser(2 and down) and Standard(4 and down) in my game. My player that plays a wizard has both Lesser and Standard.
*edit* I'm curious as to why some people have said they dont mind Arcane Staff and Lesser Arcane Staff, but ban Greater Arcane Staff. Is it ok to have up to your Int modifier or Spellcasting level in free spell levels and not both at the same time? Or is it because the maximum spell you would ever see in a staff would be a 4th? Is 6th too high?
I guess I could see that you only want to limit it to around 4th level for spells, but not the fact its too many levels. Because honestly there isnt much difference between spellcasting level and spellcasting level+Int modifier. A 20th level person would be able to store 20 free spell levels in a staff instead of maybe 27(depending on if the Int modifier was 7.. which around that level it would be) using only Arcane Staff instead of Greater Arcane Staff.
Personally I really dont see much difference between Arcane Staff and Greater Arcane Staff. Even if you only let someone take Lesser Arcane Staff and kept it the same, its your Int modifier worth of free spell levels. Which is still bogus because as I said.. no one should be able to use an ability to get more of the same ability without any problem.
Oh well.. Just curious why people wouldnt allow the greater, but have no problem with the regular and lesser version. Doesnt every wizard who sees it really want it because basically its just free spells no matter what version you use.
This does not mean it's a BAD spell. It does not mean your campaign is about to suffer for permitting it. Indeed, you may have no problems at all. But it also does not mean that it has no effect - it surely does.
Your wizards are throwing a lot more combat spells in your fights then they were before. Their combat effectiveness during an adventure increases. Period. Full Stop.
That should give you all the clues you need to wonder whether or not this is something appropriate to your campaign.
YMMV.
Some people said they allow Lesser and regular Arcane Staff, but ban Greater Arcane Staff. To me, thats like allowing a feat that gives you two more feats and a feat that gives you three more feats, but banning a feat that gives you four feats because "its too powerful". Its the same concept folks.
As I've said before, I doubt this one spell will collapse your whole world and it will be total annhilation. I just wrote in because I couldnt for the life of me see why a wizard/sorceror *wouldnt* take the spell.
I like Cam's version and will give my players the option of using that. They can "imbue" spell levels up to thier Int or Cha modifierof 2nd, 4th, 6th(depending on the spell) of any spell they have prepared/know(depending on their class) into a mastework staff, that lasts for 24 hours. As my brother pointed out, it would be useless to have to "cast" them into the staff, since it only lasts for 24 hours anyways. So I call it "imbueing". I still think this spell is a very very good spell like this, but reasonable enough it doesnt annoy me anymore.
It's not as if it gives a 5th level Wizard a DC 30 death spell. Or a 20d6 area effect attack, or some other nonsensical munchkin spell we could all easily imagine that would be out of all proportion to the spell level.
THAT would be a BAD spell.
If there was some attempt in D&D to carefully balance character classes inter se, then I might be persuaded to think that Arcane Staff is a Very Bad Thing.
But D&D does not do that; to pretend it does is denying the reality of the game. Crunch wise, it is not a player vs. player game, it's a party vs encounters game.
Accordingly, it is not one of those spells which suddenly permits a Wizard player to start overshadowing his fellow players or allows the player to take on vastly more powerful foes successfully which are otherwise plainly inappropriate in power level to the party.
Arcane Staff may not trouble a DM at all. Its effects are highly dependent on the adventure the players are involved in. Is this a dungeon crawl where no rest is possible? If it is, then the additional spells will have some small effect over the course of the adventure.
Is this an adventure where the PCs tend to fight one lengthy battle, rest a day or three - then go and fight another lengthy one? If it is, then during every battle the Arcane Staff will come into effect and the power distortion caused by the spell is increased.
Play style is important here.
Mostly, its effects for the typical D&D adventure are subtle and easily compensated for in terms of adventure design. The DM can simply up the EL of one of the encounters a *tad* over the course of the evening's adventure and all will be well.
The problem with Arcane Staff is that it DOES increase the power level of the Wizard player who has it and its increase changes depending on play style. If the DM knows the adventure hs is about to run and adjusts accordingly, no big deal.
The problem presented by Arcane Staff, in my opinion, would be in assuming that no adjustment is ever necessary. That would be wrong.
How about the lesser works when your order's moon is full, the middle version works when two moons are ful together, and the greater version only works when it's High Sanction.. once in a life time to cast such a spell.. sure, it can be easy to find, but you may have to wait 60 years to cast it.. :-) have fun
Is the spell permanent once made?? does it make the staff able to hold a certain amount of spell energy over and over ? or does it have to be recast??
tossing in the moon idea above would mean that the casting of the greater version would almost always be done as part of crafting a staff magical item.. that would jack up the cost wouldn't it? Does that make you happy??
Ok, there are a few ideas for you, if you like, fine, if not, fine, but seriously, too much whining for my taste on this thread, move on :P