In the 2024 Player's Handbook, the table below the description for Arcane Focus (p. 224) makes it clear that a Staff is also a Quarterstaff. An Enspelled Weapon is, at minimum, of Uncommon rarity and worth several hundred gold pieces.
Quibbling over 3 seems a tad foolish.
I am not sure what you mean by "Quibbling over 3".
Multiple places make it clear that a staff also acts as a quarterstaff. Your 5 GP Staff that you bought as an Arcane Focus could therefore be enchanted as a +1 Quarterstaff. I don't think anyone is disputing that. However, being able to Replicate Uncommon Weapons at level does not give you the ability to replicate Uncommon Staffs. They are a different category of magic items.
you are assuming that categories must be exclusive, that is not said anywhere. Its also proven wrong by the fact that a staff is in 2024, discribed as a simple melee weapon.
i have trouble how you can hold to be true that a staff can be enchanted with recipes that say they make weapons, features that ask for weapons
but some how its not a weapon when we are talking about magic replication.
what logical basis justifies this?
ti be clear, they didnt even say something like you can create items with the tag weapon. They just said weapon, so you cant even argue that it is a weapon, but it doesnt have a weapon tag (though you cant prove that either, and it does describe it as a simple melee weapon) All the magic replication thing says, is you can create uncommon weapons. if its a weapon, and its uncommon or common you cant even argue create it.
if there is a specific staff which is not considered a weapon due to its specific text, you wouldnt be able replicate that staff, but any staff that is also a quarterstaff, or says simple melee, wouod be craftable via magic replication.
Also as far as some items being better than others, that is the nature of items, and the nature of artificer. Its also true of feats and spells. Thats not a proof of intent. You can make weapon of warning before you can make helm of awareness. Items with rarities generally have a range of power levels within the same rarity
Oddly, it looks like an Artificer can't use Replicate Magic Item to create any rods or staffs of Uncommon or higher rarity.
They CAN create common rods or staffs (like a Rod of the Pact Keeper, or ... a Staff of Birdcalls, I guess) because the Level +2 table doesn't place any restrictions on magic item categories other than no potions/scrolls/cursed items). However, for the Level 6+, 10+ and 14+ tables, the only categories that aren't covered are rods and staffs (staves?).
Does this seem like a deliberate choice for some reason? Or just an oversight?
Or... am I missing something?
Rod of the Pact Keeper +1 is an uncommon magic item, so an artificer can't make these either, at any level (which makes no sense to me). Personally, I think it should be added to the level 2 crafting list, alongside Wand of the War Mage +1.
Multiple places make it clear that a staff also acts as a quarterstaff. Your 5 GP Staff that you bought as an Arcane Focus could therefore be enchanted as a +1 Quarterstaff. I don't think anyone is disputing that. However, being able to Replicate Uncommon Weapons at level does not give you the ability to replicate Uncommon Staffs. They are a different category of magic items.
you are assuming that categories must be exclusive, that is not said anywhere. Its also proven wrong by the fact that a staff is in 2024, discribed as a simple melee weapon.
I can't drop 50 feet below the ground because the rules don't say I can't. It has to be said that they can be multiple categories.
Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus.
Yes, a Staff can be used as a quarterstaff, nowhere does it say that a staff is a quarterstaff. Nowhere does it say that a quarterstaff is a Staff or can be used as one. The Arcane Focus table and Druidic Focus tables potentially allow a quarterstaff to be used as an Arcane Focus or a Druidic Focus, but that is not the same as saying a quarterstaff is a Staff. It's not.
The Replicate Magic Item description calls out specific Magic Item Categories and if a magic item is not in one of those categories, it can't be replicated. All common magic items are fair game except for potions, scrolls, and cursed items. Uncommon and Rare items can only include Armor, Rings, Wands, Weapons, and Wondrous Items. No Potions, Rods, Scrolls, or Staffs. You can replicate a Staff using a Weapon Enchantment, but not a Staff one. A Wizard or Druid could then use it as an arcane or druidic focus.
i have trouble how you can hold to be true that a staff can be enchanted with recipes that say they make weapons, features that ask for weapons
but some how its not a weapon when we are talking about magic replication.
what logical basis justifies this?
I believe a staff can be replicated with a Weapon Enchantment. You can make +1 Staff, a Vicious Staff, or a Slumbering Dragon's Wrath Staff, for example. You just can't replicate the Staff category of magic items.
Since a Staff is not actually a quarterstaff, it is not technically a weapon and others might understandably rule against choosing staff as the weapon type for a weapon enchantment. It's something to be mindful of, but that is not my interpretation.
ti be clear, they didnt even say something like you can create items with the tag weapon. They just said weapon, so you cant even argue that it is a weapon, but it doesnt have a weapon tag (though you cant prove that either, and it does describe it as a simple melee weapon) All the magic replication thing says, is you can create uncommon weapons. if its a weapon, and its uncommon or common you cant even argue create it.
A Staff can be used as a weapon. However, read the Staff section again. "Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagicalQuarterstaff and an Arcane Focus." Replicate Magic Item only replicates magic items. The Artificer gets the ability to replicate uncommon and rare magic weapons and Staffs, as a category of magic items, are not magic weapons and no interpretation of replicate Uncommon or Rare Weapons allows for replicating magic Staffs. They are a different category and either need a blanket allowance (like all common magic items except potions and scrolls at level 2) or they need an explicit inclusion of Uncommon or Rare Staffs.
if there is a specific staff which is not considered a weapon due to its specific text, you wouldnt be able replicate that staff, but any staff that is also a quarterstaff, or says simple melee, wouod be craftable via magic replication.
Being able to be used as weapon is not the same as being a weapon. I won't dispute applying weapon enhancements on a Staff, but it is not technically ever a weapon. A staff is not in the Simple or Martial Category, a quarterstaff is. A staff can be used as a quarterstaff, but it is not one.
Edit: Cleaning up random extra line breaks added by D&D Beyond after posting.
Forgive, but my wife has the DMG squirreled away and the tables aren't in the free rules. I think there is an Armaments table that has weapons and armor and Enspelled Weapon is on that table. Meanwhile, Enspelled Staff is on an Arcana table. The tables should be on pages 326 through 330. There are also Relics and Implements tables, but I don't remember what those have so there may be overlap there.
Are Enspelled Staffs overpowered compared to Enspelled Weapons of the same spell level? No. However, Artificers can't replicate Staff magic items above common rarity, just Armor, Rings, Wands, Weapons, and Wondrous Items.
Would I object to the ability being opened up to all magic items? Also no. :D However, as far as what does the UA Replicate Magic Item ability do, RAW, it doesn't do the magic item category of Staffs, including Enspelled Staffs.
You are implying that the basic assumption that categories are exclusive is a logically more natural than categories not being exclusive.
that is not true.
if i tell you there are 5 major categories in my game: circle, triangle, square, rectangle, hexagon
should you make any assumption about whether these categories are exclsuive? No you should not. logically the exclusivity of these categories can not be assumed
if i then say
squares also function as rectangles.
have i broken any rule? no because i never told you these categories were exclusive.
You say these categories are exclsuive until you tell me otherwise. I Never told you they were exclusive.
the existance of a spell attack, and a melee weapon attack does not imply exclusivity. So when true strike ends up being both it has broken no rules/
to state either as a fact, the rules would have to say so, or in the case of dnd, sometimes you use real world as the basis, like we assume gravity exists in dnd.because thats the normal
in this case there is no "normal" poisition. categories being exclsuive and not being exclusive are both common normal realities, so you should assume nothing about its exclusivity
the difference between me and you is that im not stating one or the other based on my gut feeling of what is the natural position, im saying, the rules dont explicitly tell us one way or the other, so i assume neither UNTIL something says otherwise
Staff is the UNTIL
the other game rules created a staff, which is also a weapon, by the words of the head designer, by the equipment table on arcane focuses, by the fact that they function as quarterstaffs and are weapons and by the description of most staffs in the dmg which define them as simple melee.
all signs point to them being both weapons, and staffs, no signs point to those categories being exclusive. You have created an illogical construct of it being not a weapon, but being a special case of a weapon like thing, that the rules never defined, or required you to create, in order to justify category exclusivity that was never claimed anywhere.
so you might say, why would they create categories that are not exclusive? because they have certain rules that apply to staffs, but not all weapons, or because flavor is important or any number of other reasons.
a staff by definition also functions as a quarterstaff, a quarterstaff by definition functions as a weapon.
by the transitive property (a logically proven axiom) a staff functions as a weapon.
logic, the head designer, the phb 2024 arcane focus equipmemt table all say its a weapon.
also magic replication can create uncommon armor, weapon or wand that isnt cursed. a staff of the python is a weapon, it is uncommon i can therefore craft it. its magicalness when used as a quarterstaff is irrelevant to it being an uncommon weapon. you can create an uncommon nonmagical quarterstaff, if such a thing existed with magic replication
also not all staffs are non magical quarterstaffs, some are magical quarterstaffs.
now perhaps they will change this, and make it clear that magic replication does not apply to staffs.
but right now a staff is an arcane focus and quarterstaff. thats the definition of it.
it makes as much sense to say its not a quarterstaff as it makes to say its not an arcane focus which is to say, it doesnt make sense.
so yes it is a weapon, it is staff, and it is an arcane focus. it fits all 3 categories.
Forgive, but my wife has the DMG squirreled away and the tables aren't in the free rules. I think there is an Armaments table that has weapons and armor and Enspelled Weapon is on that table. Meanwhile, Enspelled Staff is on an Arcana table. The tables should be on pages 326 through 330. There are also Relics and Implements tables, but I don't remember what those have so there may be overlap there.
Are Enspelled Staffs overpowered compared to Enspelled Weapons of the same spell level? No. However, Artificers can't replicate Staff magic items above common rarity, just Armor, Rings, Wands, Weapons, and Wondrous Items.
Would I object to the ability being opened up to all magic items? Also no. :D However, as far as what does the UA Replicate Magic Item ability do, RAW, it doesn't do the magic item category of Staffs, including Enspelled Staffs.
staff is by definition also quarterstaff.
it fits into both categories of magic item.
the magic item plans table does not say uncommon. magic weapons. it just says uncommon weapons, wands and rings
the only one where it specifies magic, is for common items, it goes out of the way to say common magic items.
the specific reason is likely that they dont want you to be able to create non magical common items via magic replication. A staff of healing is an uncommon weapon, regardless of whether it is magical as a quarterstaff
and not all the staffs are nonmagical quarterstaffs anyway.
like any +1 staff would be a magical quarterstaff, staff of woodland creatures, and staff of withering is are magical quarterstaff, striking, power, etc.
not that it matters because as mentioned before, the level 6 and 10 magic plans features dont require the item to be magical, all they care about is its rarity.
Oddly, it looks like an Artificer can't use Replicate Magic Item to create any rods or staffs of Uncommon or higher rarity.
They CAN create common rods or staffs (like a Rod of the Pact Keeper, or ... a Staff of Birdcalls, I guess) because the Level +2 table doesn't place any restrictions on magic item categories other than no potions/scrolls/cursed items). However, for the Level 6+, 10+ and 14+ tables, the only categories that aren't covered are rods and staffs (staves?).
Does this seem like a deliberate choice for some reason? Or just an oversight?
Or... am I missing something?
Rod of the Pact Keeper +1 is an uncommon magic item, so an artificer can't make these either, at any level (which makes no sense to me). Personally, I think it should be added to the level 2 crafting list, alongside Wand of the War Mage +1.
Yeah, not sure why I read the Rod of the Pact Keeper as a Common item. Oops.
Adding it as a specific/named item on the Level 2+ list makes sense.
I'd say that in general, Rods should be added to the "Uncommon" item categories mentioned at Level 6+. Staffs should then similarly be added at Level 10+, and then Rare versions of either item type should be included at Level 14+.
I'd love to know if/why these two item categories were specifically excluded from the types Artificers can replicate.
So I'm fairly certain the purpose of putting the "(also a Quarterstaff)" parenthesis to the "Staff" entry of the Arcane Focuses table was to provide general guidance for how to rule "The wizard bonks you on the head with his staff," i.e. treat it like an attack with a quarterstaff, not as an improvised weapon. I don't think it's intended to say "A staff and quarterstaff are the same in all contexts." However, my only actual evidence of this is that a Quarterstaff is not defined as (also a Staff), my basis for that interpretation is based on 2014 5e and my own impression of common sense.
So, can an artificer replicate an Enspelled Staff?
RAW: An exhausting argument might get you to an acquiescent "maybe." RAI: Most likely not.
Is it overpowered? Not any more powerful than Enspelled weapon or Enspelled armor already are.
Can an artificer replicate other staffs of Uncommon or Higher Rarity?
RAW: An exhausting argument might get you to an acquiescent "maybe." RAI: Most definitely not. Otherwise they would have included "Staffs" in the Replicate Magic Item categories.
You are implying that the basic assumption that categories are exclusive is a logically more natural than categories not being exclusive.
that is not true.
if i tell you there are 5 major categories in my game: circle, triangle, square, rectangle, hexagon
should you make any assumption about whether these categories are exclsuive? No you should not. logically the exclusivity of these categories can not be assumed
if i then say
squares also function as rectangles.
have i broken any rule? no because i never told you these categories were exclusive.
You say these categories are exclsuive until you tell me otherwise. I Never told you they were exclusive.
the existance of a spell attack, and a melee weapon attack does not imply exclusivity. So when true strike ends up being both it has broken no rules/
I think you shot your argument in the foot, here.
Technically, all squares are also rectangles. Squares are also diamonds, kites, parallelograms, rhombuses, and trapezoids. But not all rectangles are squares.
Meaning, while all staves can be treated as quarterstaves, not all quarterstaves are necessarily staves. A staff is a quarterstaff with something "extra" that meets some other need or requirement.
And if that is what this is about, then that changes things from at least my perspective. The playtest artificer can only use Replicate Magic Item to replicate a magic item that is Uncommon or Rare if it's a suit of Armor, a Ring, a Wand, or a Weapon. Notably, a Staff is absent; despite the fact an Artillerist can use one as their Arcane Firearm and Spellcasting Focus. That may not seem important to you, but there is a table on page 221 of the DMG'24 which draws this distinction.
Woth noting: in the DMG, chapter 7 (where they go over general magic item rules), there are 9 categories (Armor, Potions, Rings, Rods, Scrolls, Staffs, Wands, Weapons, and Wonderous Items). They are very, very likely just referring to these categories, and not trying to cover "any that could be used to hit someone" with "Weapons."
And yes, the text for "Staffs" includes "Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus." The PHB tables merely acknowledge that.
So I'm fairly certain the purpose of putting the "(also a Quarterstaff)" parenthesis to the "Staff" entry of the Arcane Focuses table was to provide general guidance for how to rule "The wizard bonks you on the head with his staff," i.e. treat it like an attack with a quarterstaff, not as an improvised weapon. I don't think it's intended to say "A staff and quarterstaff are the same in all contexts." However, my only actual evidence of this is that a Quarterstaff is not defined as (also a Staff), my basis for that interpretation is based on 2014 5e and my own impression of common sense.
So, can an artificer replicate an Enspelled Staff?
RAW: An exhausting argument might get you to an acquiescent "maybe." RAI: Most likely not.
Is it overpowered? Not any more powerful than Enspelled weapon or Enspelled armor already are.
Can an artificer replicate other staffs of Uncommon or Higher Rarity?
RAW: An exhausting argument might get you to an acquiescent "maybe." RAI: Most definitely not. Otherwise they would have included "Staffs" in the Replicate Magic Item categories.
Would that be overpowered? Potentially, maybe.
the purpose of them telling you its also a quarterstaff, is so that whenever a rule calls for a weapon, or would apply to a quarterstaff, you know you could use the staff.
like, blade cantrips, summons, spells that target weapons. its actually very important that staffs are weapons for many usecases. Its not just about bonks on head, its about how it interacts with rules.
rules like magic replication.
As for RAi:
Dont assume Rai by saying, oh if they wanted it to apply, they would have gone out their way to make it more clear even though its redundant. Thats not very common in how they explain things, especially in 2024. if they say something applies to ability checks, they dont redefine ability checks, or say the multiple types of ability checks. When they did the new light property, it enabled a bunch of weapon swapping, people assumed this was in error because it was a less obvious interpretation of tye rules. It was totally intended.On one side this makes things less obvious on the other side it makes the game more consistent, brings the raw and the rai closer. Specifically in the UAs of the last few years many times people thought things were not RAI that were eventually confirmed to be RAI.
making such strong assumptions of rai makes no sense, you have nothing leading you to believe its not rai in this case, other than your gut feeling.
To be clear, what some were saying is a staff is a quarterstaff, but quarterstaff is not a staff. essentially, a staff is a square and a quarterstaff is a rectangle. This would be reason enough to create a seperate category. Most noticeably a staff is a quarterstaff AND and arcane focus. But that doesnt need to be the only reason, it could also be that they have rules that they want to effect all staffs, but not all weapons.
Raw is raw. there is no other logical interpretation in this case. if i said is a staff an arcane focus, you would say yes definitely, but if i say is a staff a quarterstaff, you say uhh maybe? they both use the exact same language, why is quartestaff a maybe? Your version of raw requires creating a dichotomy between weapons, and things with the weapon category, that nothing in the text suggests exist. In fact the weapon entry says the opposite. They acknowledge there are things that are weapons other than what they explicitly defined as weapons. This is important, because it allows staffs for example to work in the many contexts of weapon. And if the big bad is using a weapon, that has no stat block, you can apply all the rules that use weapon.
They had to do this because 5e pulls on many sources, involves created concepts, and judgement calls. They arent going to make rules that are based on being clearly tagged, because many things will not always be clearly tagged.
So here is the thing, by the rules, staffs are weapons, RAI in an unearthed arcana should generally be assumed to be RAW, because its a test, and the true intent is not always clear, but also they need feedback that is consistent, and feedback based on percieved RAI is going to give you warped feedback, because RAI is different to every person. John hates this change because i played it by Johns idea of RAI, and another one loves it because their perception of RAI was different.
its tottally fair to say the RAW is unclear to me, and yall should change that. But in UA, you should definitely give feedback based on raw. And they can then change it if that RAW didnt align with RAI and created a bad/undesired result.
You are implying that the basic assumption that categories are exclusive is a logically more natural than categories not being exclusive.
that is not true.
if i tell you there are 5 major categories in my game: circle, triangle, square, rectangle, hexagon
should you make any assumption about whether these categories are exclsuive? No you should not. logically the exclusivity of these categories can not be assumed
if i then say
squares also function as rectangles.
have i broken any rule? no because i never told you these categories were exclusive.
You say these categories are exclsuive until you tell me otherwise. I Never told you they were exclusive.
the existance of a spell attack, and a melee weapon attack does not imply exclusivity. So when true strike ends up being both it has broken no rules/
I think you shot your argument in the foot, here.
Technically, all squares are also rectangles. Squares are also diamonds, kites, parallelograms, rhombuses, and trapezoids. But not all rectangles are squares.
Meaning, while all staves can be treated as quarterstaves, not all quarterstaves are necessarily staves. A staff is a quarterstaff with something "extra" that meets some other need or requirement.
And if that is what this is about, then that changes things from at least my perspective. The playtest artificer can only use Replicate Magic Item to replicate a magic item that is Uncommon or Rare if it's a suit of Armor, a Ring, a Wand, or a Weapon. Notably, a Staff is absent; despite the fact an Artillerist can use one as their Arcane Firearm and Spellcasting Focus. That may not seem important to you, but there is a table on page 221 of the DMG'24 which draws this distinction.
what this is about right now is whether a staff is a weapon.
so the important point of realizing that logically, a square is a rectangle, that means all properties and uses of rectangles apply to squares.
this means if say rectangles have 90 degree angles, then squares hae 90 degree angles
it means if a person says you can give me any rectangle and i will give you 100 points, then you can give them a square and get 100 points.
it means if i say magic replication allows you to create rectangles, it means you can legally create squares with magic replication.
that is not really debatable it is how logic works.
the idea of, if they meant squares they would have said squares, is not a logical interpretation, because a square is by definition a rectangle with extra.
What people are contending is that a staff is not a quarterstaff with something extra, it is a special case that is not a weapon, but is sometimes a weapon in undefined circumstances.
Woth noting: in the DMG, chapter 7 (where they go over general magic item rules), there are 9 categories (Armor, Potions, Rings, Rods, Scrolls, Staffs, Wands, Weapons, and Wonderous Items). They are very, very likely just referring to these categories, and not trying to cover "any that could be used to hit someone" with "Weapons."
And yes, the text for "Staffs" includes "Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus." The PHB tables merely acknowledge that.
the categories are defined for a reason, not all items have clearly labeled categories, they are still meant to interact with the rules. A staff is defined as being a quarterstaff and an arcane focus. Ignoring the definition of the staff category, means you arent actually using it properly.
if for some reason they wanted a rule to refer to the meta concept of a category, and not what the category defines, they would have to go out of their way to say so. However it would be really bad in terms of rules, and logic to have categories with definitions, and ignore those definitions for making rules.
You would basically be Creating broken rules.
The point of defining categories, is so that you can organize things by the traits of the thing, even if you dont always have the category, and you can determine the traits of a thing if you know the category.
by creating a category that doesnt align with that you create an illogical, often broken system.
Say you Said Group B are girls who like red or green.
then you say Group B get on the bus.
a girl who likes green goes to the bus, and you refuse her, because what you meant was people who you have a paper that said group B.
thats a broken illogical system, it you intended group B to be people with the piece paper, you should have said girls who like red and green who have a group B paper.
So I'm fairly certain the purpose of putting the "(also a Quarterstaff)" parenthesis to the "Staff" entry of the Arcane Focuses table was to provide general guidance for how to rule "The wizard bonks you on the head with his staff," i.e. treat it like an attack with a quarterstaff, not as an improvised weapon. I don't think it's intended to say "A staff and quarterstaff are the same in all contexts." However, my only actual evidence of this is that a Quarterstaff is not defined as (also a Staff), my basis for that interpretation is based on 2014 5e and my own impression of common sense.
So, can an artificer replicate an Enspelled Staff?
RAW: An exhausting argument might get you to an acquiescent "maybe." RAI: Most likely not.
Is it overpowered? Not any more powerful than Enspelled weapon or Enspelled armor already are.
Can an artificer replicate other staffs of Uncommon or Higher Rarity?
RAW: An exhausting argument might get you to an acquiescent "maybe." RAI: Most definitely not. Otherwise they would have included "Staffs" in the Replicate Magic Item categories.
Would that be overpowered? Potentially, maybe.
the purpose of them telling you its also a quarterstaff, is so that whenever a rule calls for a weapon, or would apply to a quarterstaff, you know you could use the staff.
like, blade cantrips, summons, spells that target weapons. its actually very important that staffs are weapons for many usecases. Its not just about bonks on head, its about how it interacts with rules.
rules like magic replication.
As for RAi:
Dont assume Rai by saying, oh if they wanted it to apply, they would have gone out their way to make it more clear even though its redundant. Thats not very common in how they explain things, especially in 2024. if they say something applies to ability checks, they dont redefine ability checks, or say the multiple types of ability checks. When they did the new light property, it enabled a bunch of weapon swapping, people assumed this was in error because it was a less obvious interpretation of tye rules. It was totally intended.On one side this makes things less obvious on the other side it makes the game more consistent, brings the raw and the rai closer. Specifically in the UAs of the last few years many times people thought things were not RAI that were eventually confirmed to be RAI.
making such strong assumptions of rai makes no sense, you have nothing leading you to believe its not rai in this case, other than your gut feeling.
To be clear, what some were saying is a staff is a quarterstaff, but quarterstaff is not a staff. essentially, a staff is a square and a quarterstaff is a rectangle. This would be reason enough to create a seperate category. Most noticeably a staff is a quarterstaff AND and arcane focus. But that doesnt need to be the only reason, it could also be that they have rules that they want to effect all staffs, but not all weapons.
Raw is raw. there is no other logical interpretation in this case. if i said is a staff an arcane focus, you would say yes definitely, but if i say is a staff a quarterstaff, you say uhh maybe? they both use the exact same language, why is quartestaff a maybe? Your version of raw requires creating a dichotomy between weapons, and things with the weapon category, that nothing in the text suggests exist. In fact the weapon entry says the opposite. They acknowledge there are things that are weapons other than what they explicitly defined as weapons. This is important, because it allows staffs for example to work in the many contexts of weapon. And if the big bad is using a weapon, that has no stat block, you can apply all the rules that use weapon.
They had to do this because 5e pulls on many sources, involves created concepts, and judgement calls. They arent going to make rules that are based on being clearly tagged, because many things will not always be clearly tagged.
So here is the thing, by the rules, staffs are weapons, RAI in an unearthed arcana should generally be assumed to be RAW, because its a test, and the true intent is not always clear, but also they need feedback that is consistent, and feedback based on percieved RAI is going to give you warped feedback, because RAI is different to every person. John hates this change because i played it by Johns idea of RAI, and another one loves it because their perception of RAI was different.
its tottally fair to say the RAW is unclear to me, and yall should change that. But in UA, you should definitely give feedback based on raw. And they can then change it if that RAW didnt align with RAI and created a bad/undesired result.
And this is what I was talking about when it comes to "exhausting arguments." You do you. Provide all the feedback you wish, through whatever means are available to you.
what this is about right now is whether a staff is a weapon.
so the important point of realizing that logically, a square is a rectangle, that means all properties and uses of rectangles apply to squares.
this means if say rectangles have 90 degree angles, then squares hae 90 degree angles
But not all rectangles are squares. If you only have the ability to create squares, then you can't create something that has 4 sides, with all angles at 90 degrees, and with two sides being 2 feet and the other two sides being 1 foot.
You can't say all squares are rectangles and backdoor that into "I can create all rectangles".
Artificers can Replicate Uncommon and Rare Weapon category enchantments. Staffs can be used as Weapons but are not weapons and the Staff category of magic items are not weapons.
You can't backdoor the ability to create magic Staffs because you can replicate magic weapons and a staff can be used as a weapon, in addition to being a magic staff.
what this is about right now is whether a staff is a weapon.
so the important point of realizing that logically, a square is a rectangle, that means all properties and uses of rectangles apply to squares.
this means if say rectangles have 90 degree angles, then squares hae 90 degree angles
But not all rectangles are squares. If you only have the ability to create squares, then you can't create something that has 4 sides, with all angles at 90 degrees, and with two sides being 2 feet and the other two sides being 1 foot.
You can't say all squares are rectangles and backdoor that into "I can create all rectangles".
Artificers can Replicate Uncommon and Rare Weapon category enchantments. Staffs can be used as Weapons but are not weapons and the Staff category of magic items are not weapons.
You can't backdoor the ability to create magic Staffs because you can replicate magic weapons and a staff can be used as a weapon, in addition to being a magic staff.
you are right about nit being able to make rectangles that arent squares with rules that say you can makes squares. but thats not what i am doing. I am saying you can make squares with rules that say you can make rectangles.
you are now stating, as facts, things that arent stated as rules. you are adding things that werent said in order to create rules that fit your paradigm.
the rules did nit say anything about weapon category enchantments, the rules said you can create uncommon weapons. thats all. you are inserting category and enchantments.
like wise you have created a rule that hasnt been said anywhere. You say staffs can be used as weapons, but are not weapons. that last part you made up, there is no where anywhere that staffs are not weapons.
this is not backdooring anything this is just applying rules and logic. squares having sides that are paralell to each other is me backdooring parellograms into squares, its the case because a square is by its nature meant to follow the rules of a parrelogram.
You are trying to use logic to get to your prefered outcome, instead of reaching the outcome based on logic. You have to add logic that does not exist in the rules to make your analysis make sense, i dont.
Is a staff an arcane focus? or is it just used as an arcane focus? because the same rule that says its an arcane focus is the one that says its a quarterstaff.
if monster has an ability that can pull a creatures weapons from its hand, would it work on a staff?
Can you create +1 staffs?
Can you use staffs with true strike, booming blade, green flame blade?
If i have a spell that lets you create any arcane focuses, can i make a staff?
what is your basis for determining when a staff can use weapon rules and when it cant?
what is your basis for determining if when a rule refers to a quarterstaff, a weapon or an arcane focus would that rule include staffs?
your invented rules needs a whole bunch of new invented rules to answer these questions.because you have created a bunch of extra categories out of whole cloth.
there are, in your world, weapons, weapons that have the weapon category tag, and other items categories that behave as weapons in undefined situations but should not be considered weapons, some times.
this is facinating, and highlights how humans interact with logic based systems.
The category, which should be an association of objects that follow certain rules, instead becomes an object itself which does not need to be self consistent with its own definition.
hence, staff defined as being a quarterstaff and an arcane focus, becomes a staff, which is neither a weapon nor an arcane focus.
truely amazing.
to be Clear if they had specifically defined magic replication as being for items with certain tags, you would be right, but they did not do that, because DND 5e interacts with untagged objects all the time. And the rules are meant to work for that purpose.
You are implying that the basic assumption that categories are exclusive is a logically more natural than categories not being exclusive.
that is not true.
if i tell you there are 5 major categories in my game: circle, triangle, square, rectangle, hexagon
should you make any assumption about whether these categories are exclsuive? No you should not. logically the exclusivity of these categories can not be assumed
if i then say
squares also function as rectangles.
have i broken any rule? no because i never told you these categories were exclusive.
You say these categories are exclsuive until you tell me otherwise. I Never told you they were exclusive.
the existance of a spell attack, and a melee weapon attack does not imply exclusivity. So when true strike ends up being both it has broken no rules/
I think you shot your argument in the foot, here.
Technically, all squares are also rectangles. Squares are also diamonds, kites, parallelograms, rhombuses, and trapezoids. But not all rectangles are squares.
Meaning, while all staves can be treated as quarterstaves, not all quarterstaves are necessarily staves. A staff is a quarterstaff with something "extra" that meets some other need or requirement.
And if that is what this is about, then that changes things from at least my perspective. The playtest artificer can only use Replicate Magic Item to replicate a magic item that is Uncommon or Rare if it's a suit of Armor, a Ring, a Wand, or a Weapon. Notably, a Staff is absent; despite the fact an Artillerist can use one as their Arcane Firearm and Spellcasting Focus. That may not seem important to you, but there is a table on page 221 of the DMG'24 which draws this distinction.
what this is about right now is whether a staff is a weapon.
so the important point of realizing that logically, a square is a rectangle, that means all properties and uses of rectangles apply to squares.
this means if say rectangles have 90 degree angles, then squares hae 90 degree angles
it means if a person says you can give me any rectangle and i will give you 100 points, then you can give them a square and get 100 points.
it means if i say magic replication allows you to create rectangles, it means you can legally create squares with magic replication.
that is not really debatable it is how logic works.
the idea of, if they meant squares they would have said squares, is not a logical interpretation, because a square is by definition a rectangle with extra.
What people are contending is that a staff is not a quarterstaff with something extra, it is a special case that is not a weapon, but is sometimes a weapon in undefined circumstances.
I find your idea of logic flawed.
We are talking about the rules of a game where "terms of art" take precedence over conventional definitions and understandings. It doesn't matter how we may colloquially use staff and quarterstaff interchangeably. It matters how the game defines the two.
A staff, wooden or otherwise, is also a quarterstaff, and can be used as one in combat, but that doesn't mean every quarterstaff is also a staff. Replicate Magic Item lets an artificer replicate, among other things, a Weapon (quarterstaff), not a Staff (spellcasting focus).
you are now stating, as facts, things that arent stated as rules. you are adding things that werent said in order to create rules that fit your paradigm.
the rules did nit say anything about weapon category enchantments, the rules said you can create uncommon weapons. thats all. you are inserting category and enchantments.
The rules called out what you can replicate by Magic Category. "Rare Armor, Ring, Wand, Weapon, or Wondrous Item..." These are capitalized because these are keywords, the magic item categories described in the DMG: Armor, Potions, Rings, Rods, Scrolls, Staffs, Wands, Weapons,Wondrous Items.
Potions, Rods, Rod, Scrolls, and Staffs are not on the list. Therefore, you can't replicate them. It's not about what the base item is, it's about what the magic item category is.
like wise you have created a rule that hasnt been said anywhere. You say staffs can be used as weapons, but are not weapons. that last part you made up, there is no where anywhere that staffs are not weapons.
There is explicit text that a Magic Staff can be used as a nonmagical quarterstaff, but not that Staffs are Weapons. That is a different category of magic items.
Is a staff an arcane focus? or is it just used as an arcane focus? because the same rule that says its an arcane focus is the one that says its a quarterstaff.
A staff is an Arcane Focus. If it is a wooden staff, it is a Druidic Focus. The table entry is not a full sentence. It can be interpreted as saying that it also acts a quarterstaff or that a quarterstaff counts as a staff Arcane Focus/Druidic Focus.
However, neither of those apply to the Staff category of magic items.
what is your basis for determining when a staff can use weapon rules and when it cant?
I see no issue with using replicate magic item to replicate a +1 weapon and choosing a staff (the mundane item) to make a +1 staff. You cannot make a Staff of the Adder because that is a Magic Staff (the category of magic items) and not a Magic Weapon (the category of magic items).
to be Clear if they had specifically defined magic replication as being for items with certain tags, you would be right, but they did not do that, because DND 5e interacts with untagged objects all the time. And the rules are meant to work for that purpose.
Every magic item belongs to a category. The Magic Item Categories table lists the nine categories and provides examples. Rules for the categories appear after the table.
Emphasis added. "A category" is singular. It is not "one or more categories".
Examples of the Weapon Category are [Tooltip Not Found] and [Tooltip Not Found]. Artificer's can replicate items in this category.
Example of the Staff Category is Staff of Striking. Artificers can never replicate this category.
An item in the Armor category is typically a magical version of armor from the Player's Handbook. Unless an armor's description notes otherwise, the armor must be worn for its magic to function.
Some suits of magic armor specify the type of armor they are, such as Chain Mail or Plate Armor. If no type is specified, choose the type or determine it randomly.
Emphasis added. References to the Armor category and specific items are capitalized. References to generic armor items is not capitalized.
Items in the Staff category vary widely in appearance: some are of nearly equal diameter throughout and smooth, others are gnarled and twisted, some are made of wood, and others are composed of polished metal or crystal. A staff weighs between 2 and 7 pounds and serves well as a walking stick or cane.
Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus.
Emphasis added. References to the Staff category and specific items are capitalized.
A magic weapon is typically a magical version of a weapon from the Player’s Handbook. Some magic weapons specify the type of weapon they are in their descriptions, such as a Longsword or Longbow. If no weapon type is specified, you may choose the type or determine it randomly.
Ammunition. If a magic weapon has the Ammunition property, ammunition fired from it is considered magical for the purpose of any rule that cares whether a weapon is magical or not.
Weapons doesn't have a reference to the category, but specific items and the Ammunition property are capitalized.
UA Artificer Magic Items:
Level 2+ "Common magic item that isn’t a Potion, a Scroll, or cursed" Emphasis added. Potion and Scroll are capitalized and therefore refer to the Potion and Scroll Categories. This includes any common Staff and Rod category items.
Level 6+ "Uncommon Armor, Wand, or Weapon that isn’t cursed" Emphasis added. Armor, Wand, and Weapon are capitalized and therefore refer to the Armor, Wand, and Weapon Categories.
Level 10+ "Uncommon Ring or Wondrous Item that isn’t cursed" Emphasis added. Ring and Wondrous Item are capitalized and therefore refer to the Ring and Wondrous Item Categories.
Level 14+ "Rare Armor,Ring, Wand, Weapon, or Wondrous Item that isn’t cursed" Emphasis added. Armor, Ring Wand, Weapon, and Wondrous Item are capitalized and therefore refer to the Armor, Ring Wand, Weapon, and Wondrous Item Categories.
It does not matter that a magical item in the Staff Category can be used as a weapon (lower case), it is not a Weapon (capitalized) Category item and it cannot be replicated by the current version of the UA Artificer.
Wizards of the Coast invented the rules, not me. They are kind of scattered, but if you are playing an Artificer, an understanding of the Magic Item system in the DMG should be a reasonable expectation.
you are now stating, as facts, things that arent stated as rules. you are adding things that werent said in order to create rules that fit your paradigm.
the rules did nit say anything about weapon category enchantments, the rules said you can create uncommon weapons. thats all. you are inserting category and enchantments.
The rules called out what you can replicate by Magic Category. "Rare Armor, Ring, Wand, Weapon, or Wondrous Item..." These are capitalized because these are keywords, the magic item categories described in the DMG: Armor, Potions, Rings, Rods, Scrolls, Staffs, Wands, Weapons,Wondrous Items.
Potions, Rods, Rod, Scrolls, and Staffs are not on the list. Therefore, you can't replicate them. It's not about what the base item is, it's about what the magic item category is.
like wise you have created a rule that hasnt been said anywhere. You say staffs can be used as weapons, but are not weapons. that last part you made up, there is no where anywhere that staffs are not weapons.
There is explicit text that a Magic Staff can be used as a nonmagical quarterstaff, but not that Staffs are Weapons. That is a different category of magic items.
Is a staff an arcane focus? or is it just used as an arcane focus? because the same rule that says its an arcane focus is the one that says its a quarterstaff.
A staff is an Arcane Focus. If it is a wooden staff, it is a Druidic Focus. The table entry is not a full sentence. It can be interpreted as saying that it also acts a quarterstaff or that a quarterstaff counts as a staff Arcane Focus/Druidic Focus.
However, neither of those apply to the Staff category of magic items.
what is your basis for determining when a staff can use weapon rules and when it cant?
I see no issue with using replicate magic item to replicate a +1 weapon and choosing a staff (the mundane item) to make a +1 staff. You cannot make a Staff of the Adder because that is a Magic Staff (the category of magic items) and not a Magic Weapon (the category of magic items).
to be Clear if they had specifically defined magic replication as being for items with certain tags, you would be right, but they did not do that, because DND 5e interacts with untagged objects all the time. And the rules are meant to work for that purpose.
Every magic item belongs to a category. The Magic Item Categories table lists the nine categories and provides examples. Rules for the categories appear after the table.
Emphasis added. "A category" is singular. It is not "one or more categories".
Examples of the Weapon Category are [Tooltip Not Found] and [Tooltip Not Found]. Artificer's can replicate items in this category.
Example of the Staff Category is Staff of Striking. Artificers can never replicate this category.
An item in the Armor category is typically a magical version of armor from the Player's Handbook. Unless an armor's description notes otherwise, the armor must be worn for its magic to function.
Some suits of magic armor specify the type of armor they are, such as Chain Mail or Plate Armor. If no type is specified, choose the type or determine it randomly.
Emphasis added. References to the Armor category and specific items are capitalized. References to generic armor items is not capitalized.
Items in the Staff category vary widely in appearance: some are of nearly equal diameter throughout and smooth, others are gnarled and twisted, some are made of wood, and others are composed of polished metal or crystal. A staff weighs between 2 and 7 pounds and serves well as a walking stick or cane.
Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus.
Emphasis added. References to the Staff category and specific items are capitalized.
A magic weapon is typically a magical version of a weapon from the Player’s Handbook. Some magic weapons specify the type of weapon they are in their descriptions, such as a Longsword or Longbow. If no weapon type is specified, you may choose the type or determine it randomly.
Ammunition. If a magic weapon has the Ammunition property, ammunition fired from it is considered magical for the purpose of any rule that cares whether a weapon is magical or not.
Weapons doesn't have a reference to the category, but specific items and the Ammunition property are capitalized.
UA Artificer Magic Items:
Level 2+ "Common magic item that isn’t a Potion, a Scroll, or cursed" Emphasis added. Potion and Scroll are capitalized and therefore refer to the Potion and Scroll Categories. This includes any common Staff and Rod category items.
Level 6+ "Uncommon Armor, Wand, or Weapon that isn’t cursed" Emphasis added. Armor, Wand, and Weapon are capitalized and therefore refer to the Armor, Wand, and Weapon Categories.
Level 10+ "Uncommon Ring or Wondrous Item that isn’t cursed" Emphasis added. Ring and Wondrous Item are capitalized and therefore refer to the Ring and Wondrous Item Categories.
Level 14+ "Rare Armor,Ring, Wand, Weapon, or Wondrous Item that isn’t cursed" Emphasis added. Armor, Ring Wand, Weapon, and Wondrous Item are capitalized and therefore refer to the Armor, Ring Wand, Weapon, and Wondrous Item Categories.
It does not matter that a magical item in the Staff Category can be used as a weapon (lower case), it is not a Weapon (capitalized) Category item and it cannot be replicated by the current version of the UA Artificer.
Wizards of the Coast invented the rules, not me. They are kind of scattered, but if you are playing an Artificer, an understanding of the Magic Item system in the DMG should be a reasonable expectation.
Logically speaking if i say, "everyone in this room likes a color"
it does not mean they only like one color. The statement is still true if one person like 4 different colors.
so that is very flawed proof because it is logically inaccurate. It shows that you are making incorrect leaps that you think are logical, but are not logical.
you have decided based on nothing that categories exist outside of thier definitions. That an item that is defined weapon cannot be assumed to be in the weapon category
you believe that if i define category Z as being girls who like red. that doesnt mean if i find a girl who likes red, she is part of the category. This is illogical. Your definition should include whatever requirements are needed to qualify for the category, or it becomes a poor definition.And it becomes impossible to make logical deductions in your system.
whether a category is a key word or not.a key word, if it is defined, then logically things that fit the definition should be a part of the category.
and you are inconsistent.
the definition of a staff in the magic item categories page "Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus."
they literally used "AND"here, logically that means the rule is exactly the same. logically that sentence is equivalent to
a staff can be used as a quareterstaff +.
a staff can be used as an arcane focus.
yet you say a staff is an arcane focus, but it is not a quarterstaff.
with the same exact language, you make a different determination that shows your decision is not based on what is said, but rather what you believe.
the other source for it being an arcane focus, says staff(also aquarterstaff) which you said applies to the staff, not a quarterstaff being an arcane focus, and yet now you say its not a quarterstaff.
the language of weapon+1 +2 +3 :
"Weapon (Any Simple or Martial), Uncommon (+1), Rare (+2), or Very Rare (+3)
You have a bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The bonus is determined by the weapon’s rarity."
here, its captialized, its part of item creation, but here, you say staff qualifies as a Weapon, Why? its arbitrary, because you arent using a consistent logical basis to determine when staff qualifies as a weapon, and when it doesnt, or whether rules are refering to a category, or a property of the item. Not surprisingly there is no official guidance on how to make this decision, because categories are supposed to be = to their definition, not a separate entity.
And thats the whole problem with creating some magical concept of a category that doesnt need to follow its own rules, it becomes arbitrary when rules apply to it and when it does not. Each player must create a new logic, not stated anywhere to determine when its a Weapon property, or a weapon Category.
Jimmy says, "See, you can tell here, they mean weapon property because its talking about fighting things, and here its talking about making things so it means something different, but here.. well i ve seen +1 staffs in games before, so even though its items, and capitilized it must mean could be used as a weapon..." thats all inconsistent made up things, its going to be different every time.
and dont blame the developers for this, they never told you that staffs were not weapons, you assumed that based on an idea of exclusivity they never said. In fact crawford said yeah they are weapons, and you are like, nah. the book says they are quarterstaffs, you are like nah.
nah based on what? because inherently categories must be exclusive, except thats not true. there is no inherent or default position on whether categories are exclsuive.
look, its clear you have your belief, and no amount of logic will shake that belief. I'm at this point just hoping someone who reads the thread in the future will better understand how to pply logic.
Now i will concede this, its possible they intend for things to work as you describe.
Not all rule systems are based on logic.
but if thats the case they need to tighten up thier rules and describe things better, and come up with a clear convention of when they mean Weapon categories versus Weapon properties, because as of now, your interpretation requires players to invent rules, and make determinations based on their beliefs that will be inconsistent across every table, unintentionally.
Hopefully whatever they come up in the final will clearly be understood in whatever way they intended.
Gwar, stop being illogical. You don't need to twist yourself into knots with analogies when the plain text is right in front of us.
There is a difference between saying A is B and A can be used as B.
A staff is a Staff. What a staff can be used as depends on both the rules and item's description. The line, "A staff can be used as Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus," does not mean a Staff is those things. A broken off chair or table leg isn't a Club, but a DM might say they can be used as one per the Improvised Weapon rules.
For the purposes of this discussion, a Staff is a category of Magic Item. If an artificer isn't given permission to replicate one, then they can't replicate one. It doesn't matter how else a Staff might be usable. What matters is what a Staff is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
you are assuming that categories must be exclusive, that is not said anywhere. Its also proven wrong by the fact that a staff is in 2024, discribed as a simple melee weapon.
i have trouble how you can hold to be true that a staff can be enchanted with recipes that say they make weapons, features that ask for weapons
but some how its not a weapon when we are talking about magic replication.
what logical basis justifies this?
ti be clear, they didnt even say something like you can create items with the tag weapon. They just said weapon, so you cant even argue that it is a weapon, but it doesnt have a weapon tag (though you cant prove that either, and it does describe it as a simple melee weapon) All the magic replication thing says, is you can create uncommon weapons. if its a weapon, and its uncommon or common you cant even argue create it.
if there is a specific staff which is not considered a weapon due to its specific text, you wouldnt be able replicate that staff, but any staff that is also a quarterstaff, or says simple melee, wouod be craftable via magic replication.
Also as far as some items being better than others, that is the nature of items, and the nature of artificer. Its also true of feats and spells. Thats not a proof of intent. You can make weapon of warning before you can make helm of awareness. Items with rarities generally have a range of power levels within the same rarity
Rod of the Pact Keeper +1 is an uncommon magic item, so an artificer can't make these either, at any level (which makes no sense to me). Personally, I think it should be added to the level 2 crafting list, alongside Wand of the War Mage +1.
I can't drop 50 feet below the ground because the rules don't say I can't. It has to be said that they can be multiple categories.
Yes, a Staff can be used as a quarterstaff, nowhere does it say that a staff is a quarterstaff. Nowhere does it say that a quarterstaff is a Staff or can be used as one. The Arcane Focus table and Druidic Focus tables potentially allow a quarterstaff to be used as an Arcane Focus or a Druidic Focus, but that is not the same as saying a quarterstaff is a Staff. It's not.
The Replicate Magic Item description calls out specific Magic Item Categories and if a magic item is not in one of those categories, it can't be replicated. All common magic items are fair game except for potions, scrolls, and cursed items. Uncommon and Rare items can only include Armor, Rings, Wands, Weapons, and Wondrous Items. No Potions, Rods, Scrolls, or Staffs. You can replicate a Staff using a Weapon Enchantment, but not a Staff one. A Wizard or Druid could then use it as an arcane or druidic focus.
I believe a staff can be replicated with a Weapon Enchantment. You can make +1 Staff, a Vicious Staff, or a Slumbering Dragon's Wrath Staff, for example. You just can't replicate the Staff category of magic items.
Since a Staff is not actually a quarterstaff, it is not technically a weapon and others might understandably rule against choosing staff as the weapon type for a weapon enchantment. It's something to be mindful of, but that is not my interpretation.
A Staff can be used as a weapon. However, read the Staff section again. "Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus." Replicate Magic Item only replicates magic items. The Artificer gets the ability to replicate uncommon and rare magic weapons and Staffs, as a category of magic items, are not magic weapons and no interpretation of replicate Uncommon or Rare Weapons allows for replicating magic Staffs. They are a different category and either need a blanket allowance (like all common magic items except potions and scrolls at level 2) or they need an explicit inclusion of Uncommon or Rare Staffs.
Being able to be used as weapon is not the same as being a weapon. I won't dispute applying weapon enhancements on a Staff, but it is not technically ever a weapon. A staff is not in the Simple or Martial Category, a quarterstaff is. A staff can be used as a quarterstaff, but it is not one.
Edit: Cleaning up random extra line breaks added by D&D Beyond after posting.
How to add Tooltips.
Enspelled Staff is in the Staff category of magic items.
Enspelled Weapon is in the Weapon category of magic items.
Forgive, but my wife has the DMG squirreled away and the tables aren't in the free rules. I think there is an Armaments table that has weapons and armor and Enspelled Weapon is on that table. Meanwhile, Enspelled Staff is on an Arcana table. The tables should be on pages 326 through 330. There are also Relics and Implements tables, but I don't remember what those have so there may be overlap there.
Are Enspelled Staffs overpowered compared to Enspelled Weapons of the same spell level? No. However, Artificers can't replicate Staff magic items above common rarity, just Armor, Rings, Wands, Weapons, and Wondrous Items.
Would I object to the ability being opened up to all magic items? Also no. :D However, as far as what does the UA Replicate Magic Item ability do, RAW, it doesn't do the magic item category of Staffs, including Enspelled Staffs.
How to add Tooltips.
Re @smite
your reasoning is flawed;
You are implying that the basic assumption that categories are exclusive is a logically more natural than categories not being exclusive.
that is not true.
if i tell you there are 5 major categories in my game: circle, triangle, square, rectangle, hexagon
should you make any assumption about whether these categories are exclsuive? No you should not. logically the exclusivity of these categories can not be assumed
if i then say
squares also function as rectangles.
have i broken any rule? no because i never told you these categories were exclusive.
You say these categories are exclsuive until you tell me otherwise. I Never told you they were exclusive.
the existance of a spell attack, and a melee weapon attack does not imply exclusivity. So when true strike ends up being both it has broken no rules/
to state either as a fact, the rules would have to say so, or in the case of dnd, sometimes you use real world as the basis, like we assume gravity exists in dnd.because thats the normal
in this case there is no "normal" poisition. categories being exclsuive and not being exclusive are both common normal realities, so you should assume nothing about its exclusivity
the difference between me and you is that im not stating one or the other based on my gut feeling of what is the natural position, im saying, the rules dont explicitly tell us one way or the other, so i assume neither UNTIL something says otherwise
Staff is the UNTIL
the other game rules created a staff, which is also a weapon, by the words of the head designer, by the equipment table on arcane focuses, by the fact that they function as quarterstaffs and are weapons and by the description of most staffs in the dmg which define them as simple melee.
all signs point to them being both weapons, and staffs, no signs point to those categories being exclusive. You have created an illogical construct of it being not a weapon, but being a special case of a weapon like thing, that the rules never defined, or required you to create, in order to justify category exclusivity that was never claimed anywhere.
so you might say, why would they create categories that are not exclusive? because they have certain rules that apply to staffs, but not all weapons, or because flavor is important or any number of other reasons.
a staff by definition also functions as a quarterstaff, a quarterstaff by definition functions as a weapon.
by the transitive property (a logically proven axiom) a staff functions as a weapon.
logic, the head designer, the phb 2024 arcane focus equipmemt table all say its a weapon.
also magic replication can create uncommon armor, weapon or wand that isnt cursed. a staff of the python is a weapon, it is uncommon i can therefore craft it. its magicalness when used as a quarterstaff is irrelevant to it being an uncommon weapon. you can create an uncommon nonmagical quarterstaff, if such a thing existed with magic replication
also not all staffs are non magical quarterstaffs, some are magical quarterstaffs.
now perhaps they will change this, and make it clear that magic replication does not apply to staffs.
but right now a staff is an arcane focus and quarterstaff. thats the definition of it.
it makes as much sense to say its not a quarterstaff as it makes to say its not an arcane focus which is to say, it doesnt make sense.
so yes it is a weapon, it is staff, and it is an arcane focus. it fits all 3 categories.
staff is by definition also quarterstaff.
it fits into both categories of magic item.
the magic item plans table does not say uncommon. magic weapons. it just says uncommon weapons, wands and rings
the only one where it specifies magic, is for common items, it goes out of the way to say common magic items.
the specific reason is likely that they dont want you to be able to create non magical common items via magic replication. A staff of healing is an uncommon weapon, regardless of whether it is magical as a quarterstaff
and not all the staffs are nonmagical quarterstaffs anyway.
like any +1 staff would be a magical quarterstaff, staff of woodland creatures, and staff of withering is are magical quarterstaff, striking, power, etc.
not that it matters because as mentioned before, the level 6 and 10 magic plans features dont require the item to be magical, all they care about is its rarity.
Yeah, not sure why I read the Rod of the Pact Keeper as a Common item. Oops.
Adding it as a specific/named item on the Level 2+ list makes sense.
I'd say that in general, Rods should be added to the "Uncommon" item categories mentioned at Level 6+. Staffs should then similarly be added at Level 10+, and then Rare versions of either item type should be included at Level 14+.
I'd love to know if/why these two item categories were specifically excluded from the types Artificers can replicate.
So I'm fairly certain the purpose of putting the "(also a Quarterstaff)" parenthesis to the "Staff" entry of the Arcane Focuses table was to provide general guidance for how to rule "The wizard bonks you on the head with his staff," i.e. treat it like an attack with a quarterstaff, not as an improvised weapon. I don't think it's intended to say "A staff and quarterstaff are the same in all contexts." However, my only actual evidence of this is that a Quarterstaff is not defined as (also a Staff), my basis for that interpretation is based on 2014 5e and my own impression of common sense.
So, can an artificer replicate an Enspelled Staff?
RAW: An exhausting argument might get you to an acquiescent "maybe."
RAI: Most likely not.
Is it overpowered?
Not any more powerful than Enspelled weapon or Enspelled armor already are.
Can an artificer replicate other staffs of Uncommon or Higher Rarity?
RAW: An exhausting argument might get you to an acquiescent "maybe."
RAI: Most definitely not. Otherwise they would have included "Staffs" in the Replicate Magic Item categories.
Would that be overpowered?
Potentially, maybe.
I think you shot your argument in the foot, here.
Technically, all squares are also rectangles. Squares are also diamonds, kites, parallelograms, rhombuses, and trapezoids. But not all rectangles are squares.
Meaning, while all staves can be treated as quarterstaves, not all quarterstaves are necessarily staves. A staff is a quarterstaff with something "extra" that meets some other need or requirement.
And if that is what this is about, then that changes things from at least my perspective. The playtest artificer can only use Replicate Magic Item to replicate a magic item that is Uncommon or Rare if it's a suit of Armor, a Ring, a Wand, or a Weapon. Notably, a Staff is absent; despite the fact an Artillerist can use one as their Arcane Firearm and Spellcasting Focus. That may not seem important to you, but there is a table on page 221 of the DMG'24 which draws this distinction.
Woth noting: in the DMG, chapter 7 (where they go over general magic item rules), there are 9 categories (Armor, Potions, Rings, Rods, Scrolls, Staffs, Wands, Weapons, and Wonderous Items). They are very, very likely just referring to these categories, and not trying to cover "any that could be used to hit someone" with "Weapons."
And yes, the text for "Staffs" includes "Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus." The PHB tables merely acknowledge that.
the purpose of them telling you its also a quarterstaff, is so that whenever a rule calls for a weapon, or would apply to a quarterstaff, you know you could use the staff.
like, blade cantrips, summons, spells that target weapons. its actually very important that staffs are weapons for many usecases. Its not just about bonks on head, its about how it interacts with rules.
rules like magic replication.
As for RAi:
Dont assume Rai by saying, oh if they wanted it to apply, they would have gone out their way to make it more clear even though its redundant. Thats not very common in how they explain things, especially in 2024. if they say something applies to ability checks, they dont redefine ability checks, or say the multiple types of ability checks. When they did the new light property, it enabled a bunch of weapon swapping, people assumed this was in error because it was a less obvious interpretation of tye rules. It was totally intended.On one side this makes things less obvious on the other side it makes the game more consistent, brings the raw and the rai closer. Specifically in the UAs of the last few years many times people thought things were not RAI that were eventually confirmed to be RAI.
making such strong assumptions of rai makes no sense, you have nothing leading you to believe its not rai in this case, other than your gut feeling.
To be clear, what some were saying is a staff is a quarterstaff, but quarterstaff is not a staff. essentially, a staff is a square and a quarterstaff is a rectangle. This would be reason enough to create a seperate category. Most noticeably a staff is a quarterstaff AND and arcane focus. But that doesnt need to be the only reason, it could also be that they have rules that they want to effect all staffs, but not all weapons.
Raw is raw. there is no other logical interpretation in this case. if i said is a staff an arcane focus, you would say yes definitely, but if i say is a staff a quarterstaff, you say uhh maybe? they both use the exact same language, why is quartestaff a maybe? Your version of raw requires creating a dichotomy between weapons, and things with the weapon category, that nothing in the text suggests exist. In fact the weapon entry says the opposite. They acknowledge there are things that are weapons other than what they explicitly defined as weapons. This is important, because it allows staffs for example to work in the many contexts of weapon. And if the big bad is using a weapon, that has no stat block, you can apply all the rules that use weapon.
They had to do this because 5e pulls on many sources, involves created concepts, and judgement calls. They arent going to make rules that are based on being clearly tagged, because many things will not always be clearly tagged.
So here is the thing, by the rules, staffs are weapons, RAI in an unearthed arcana should generally be assumed to be RAW, because its a test, and the true intent is not always clear, but also they need feedback that is consistent, and feedback based on percieved RAI is going to give you warped feedback, because RAI is different to every person. John hates this change because i played it by Johns idea of RAI, and another one loves it because their perception of RAI was different.
its tottally fair to say the RAW is unclear to me, and yall should change that. But in UA, you should definitely give feedback based on raw. And they can then change it if that RAW didnt align with RAI and created a bad/undesired result.
what this is about right now is whether a staff is a weapon.
so the important point of realizing that logically, a square is a rectangle, that means all properties and uses of rectangles apply to squares.
this means if say rectangles have 90 degree angles, then squares hae 90 degree angles
it means if a person says you can give me any rectangle and i will give you 100 points, then you can give them a square and get 100 points.
it means if i say magic replication allows you to create rectangles, it means you can legally create squares with magic replication.
that is not really debatable it is how logic works.
the idea of, if they meant squares they would have said squares, is not a logical interpretation, because a square is by definition a rectangle with extra.
What people are contending is that a staff is not a quarterstaff with something extra, it is a special case that is not a weapon, but is sometimes a weapon in undefined circumstances.
the categories are defined for a reason, not all items have clearly labeled categories, they are still meant to interact with the rules. A staff is defined as being a quarterstaff and an arcane focus. Ignoring the definition of the staff category, means you arent actually using it properly.
if for some reason they wanted a rule to refer to the meta concept of a category, and not what the category defines, they would have to go out of their way to say so. However it would be really bad in terms of rules, and logic to have categories with definitions, and ignore those definitions for making rules.
You would basically be Creating broken rules.
The point of defining categories, is so that you can organize things by the traits of the thing, even if you dont always have the category, and you can determine the traits of a thing if you know the category.
by creating a category that doesnt align with that you create an illogical, often broken system.
Say you Said Group B are girls who like red or green.
then you say Group B get on the bus.
a girl who likes green goes to the bus, and you refuse her, because what you meant was people who you have a paper that said group B.
thats a broken illogical system, it you intended group B to be people with the piece paper, you should have said girls who like red and green who have a group B paper.
And this is what I was talking about when it comes to "exhausting arguments." You do you. Provide all the feedback you wish, through whatever means are available to you.
But not all rectangles are squares. If you only have the ability to create squares, then you can't create something that has 4 sides, with all angles at 90 degrees, and with two sides being 2 feet and the other two sides being 1 foot.
You can't say all squares are rectangles and backdoor that into "I can create all rectangles".
Artificers can Replicate Uncommon and Rare Weapon category enchantments. Staffs can be used as Weapons but are not weapons and the Staff category of magic items are not weapons.
You can't backdoor the ability to create magic Staffs because you can replicate magic weapons and a staff can be used as a weapon, in addition to being a magic staff.
How to add Tooltips.
you are right about nit being able to make rectangles that arent squares with rules that say you can makes squares. but thats not what i am doing. I am saying you can make squares with rules that say you can make rectangles.
you are now stating, as facts, things that arent stated as rules. you are adding things that werent said in order to create rules that fit your paradigm.
the rules did nit say anything about weapon category enchantments, the rules said you can create uncommon weapons. thats all. you are inserting category and enchantments.
like wise you have created a rule that hasnt been said anywhere. You say staffs can be used as weapons, but are not weapons. that last part you made up, there is no where anywhere that staffs are not weapons.
this is not backdooring anything this is just applying rules and logic. squares having sides that are paralell to each other is me backdooring parellograms into squares, its the case because a square is by its nature meant to follow the rules of a parrelogram.
You are trying to use logic to get to your prefered outcome, instead of reaching the outcome based on logic. You have to add logic that does not exist in the rules to make your analysis make sense, i dont.
Is a staff an arcane focus? or is it just used as an arcane focus? because the same rule that says its an arcane focus is the one that says its a quarterstaff.
if monster has an ability that can pull a creatures weapons from its hand, would it work on a staff?
Can you create +1 staffs?
Can you use staffs with true strike, booming blade, green flame blade?
If i have a spell that lets you create any arcane focuses, can i make a staff?
what is your basis for determining when a staff can use weapon rules and when it cant?
what is your basis for determining if when a rule refers to a quarterstaff, a weapon or an arcane focus would that rule include staffs?
your invented rules needs a whole bunch of new invented rules to answer these questions.because you have created a bunch of extra categories out of whole cloth.
there are, in your world, weapons, weapons that have the weapon category tag, and other items categories that behave as weapons in undefined situations but should not be considered weapons, some times.
this is facinating, and highlights how humans interact with logic based systems.
The category, which should be an association of objects that follow certain rules, instead becomes an object itself which does not need to be self consistent with its own definition.
hence, staff defined as being a quarterstaff and an arcane focus, becomes a staff, which is neither a weapon nor an arcane focus.
truely amazing.
to be Clear if they had specifically defined magic replication as being for items with certain tags, you would be right, but they did not do that, because DND 5e interacts with untagged objects all the time. And the rules are meant to work for that purpose.
I find your idea of logic flawed.
We are talking about the rules of a game where "terms of art" take precedence over conventional definitions and understandings. It doesn't matter how we may colloquially use staff and quarterstaff interchangeably. It matters how the game defines the two.
A staff, wooden or otherwise, is also a quarterstaff, and can be used as one in combat, but that doesn't mean every quarterstaff is also a staff. Replicate Magic Item lets an artificer replicate, among other things, a Weapon (quarterstaff), not a Staff (spellcasting focus).
The rules called out what you can replicate by Magic Category. "Rare Armor, Ring, Wand, Weapon, or Wondrous Item..." These are capitalized because these are keywords, the magic item categories described in the DMG: Armor, Potions, Rings, Rods, Scrolls, Staffs, Wands, Weapons, Wondrous Items.
Potions, Rods, Rod, Scrolls, and Staffs are not on the list. Therefore, you can't replicate them. It's not about what the base item is, it's about what the magic item category is.
There is explicit text that a Magic Staff can be used as a nonmagical quarterstaff, but not that Staffs are Weapons. That is a different category of magic items.
A staff is an Arcane Focus. If it is a wooden staff, it is a Druidic Focus. The table entry is not a full sentence. It can be interpreted as saying that it also acts a quarterstaff or that a quarterstaff counts as a staff Arcane Focus/Druidic Focus.
However, neither of those apply to the Staff category of magic items.
I see no issue with using replicate magic item to replicate a +1 weapon and choosing a staff (the mundane item) to make a +1 staff. You cannot make a Staff of the Adder because that is a Magic Staff (the category of magic items) and not a Magic Weapon (the category of magic items).
Magic Item Categories.
Emphasis added. "A category" is singular. It is not "one or more categories".
Examples of the Weapon Category are [Tooltip Not Found] and [Tooltip Not Found]. Artificer's can replicate items in this category.
Example of the Staff Category is Staff of Striking. Artificers can never replicate this category.
Armor
Emphasis added. References to the Armor category and specific items are capitalized. References to generic armor items is not capitalized.
Staff
Emphasis added. References to the Staff category and specific items are capitalized.
Weapons
Weapons doesn't have a reference to the category, but specific items and the Ammunition property are capitalized.
UA Artificer Magic Items:
It does not matter that a magical item in the Staff Category can be used as a weapon (lower case), it is not a Weapon (capitalized) Category item and it cannot be replicated by the current version of the UA Artificer.
Wizards of the Coast invented the rules, not me. They are kind of scattered, but if you are playing an Artificer, an understanding of the Magic Item system in the DMG should be a reasonable expectation.
How to add Tooltips.
Logically speaking if i say, "everyone in this room likes a color"
it does not mean they only like one color. The statement is still true if one person like 4 different colors.
so that is very flawed proof because it is logically inaccurate. It shows that you are making incorrect leaps that you think are logical, but are not logical.
you have decided based on nothing that categories exist outside of thier definitions. That an item that is defined weapon cannot be assumed to be in the weapon category
you believe that if i define category Z as being girls who like red. that doesnt mean if i find a girl who likes red, she is part of the category. This is illogical. Your definition should include whatever requirements are needed to qualify for the category, or it becomes a poor definition.And it becomes impossible to make logical deductions in your system.
whether a category is a key word or not.a key word, if it is defined, then logically things that fit the definition should be a part of the category.
and you are inconsistent.
the definition of a staff in the magic item categories page
"Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus."
they literally used "AND"here, logically that means the rule is exactly the same. logically that sentence is equivalent to
a staff can be used as a quareterstaff +.
a staff can be used as an arcane focus.
yet you say a staff is an arcane focus, but it is not a quarterstaff.
with the same exact language, you make a different determination that shows your decision is not based on what is said, but rather what you believe.
the other source for it being an arcane focus, says staff(also aquarterstaff) which you said applies to the staff, not a quarterstaff being an arcane focus, and yet now you say its not a quarterstaff.
the language of weapon+1 +2 +3 :
"Weapon (Any Simple or Martial), Uncommon (+1), Rare (+2), or Very Rare (+3)
You have a bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The bonus is determined by the weapon’s rarity."
here, its captialized, its part of item creation, but here, you say staff qualifies as a Weapon, Why? its arbitrary, because you arent using a consistent logical basis to determine when staff qualifies as a weapon, and when it doesnt, or whether rules are refering to a category, or a property of the item. Not surprisingly there is no official guidance on how to make this decision, because categories are supposed to be = to their definition, not a separate entity.
And thats the whole problem with creating some magical concept of a category that doesnt need to follow its own rules, it becomes arbitrary when rules apply to it and when it does not. Each player must create a new logic, not stated anywhere to determine when its a Weapon property, or a weapon Category.
Jimmy says, "See, you can tell here, they mean weapon property because its talking about fighting things, and here its talking about making things so it means something different, but here.. well i ve seen +1 staffs in games before, so even though its items, and capitilized it must mean could be used as a weapon..." thats all inconsistent made up things, its going to be different every time.
and dont blame the developers for this, they never told you that staffs were not weapons, you assumed that based on an idea of exclusivity they never said. In fact crawford said yeah they are weapons, and you are like, nah. the book says they are quarterstaffs, you are like nah.
nah based on what? because inherently categories must be exclusive, except thats not true. there is no inherent or default position on whether categories are exclsuive.
look, its clear you have your belief, and no amount of logic will shake that belief. I'm at this point just hoping someone who reads the thread in the future will better understand how to pply logic.
Now i will concede this, its possible they intend for things to work as you describe.
Not all rule systems are based on logic.
but if thats the case they need to tighten up thier rules and describe things better, and come up with a clear convention of when they mean Weapon categories versus Weapon properties, because as of now, your interpretation requires players to invent rules, and make determinations based on their beliefs that will be inconsistent across every table, unintentionally.
Hopefully whatever they come up in the final will clearly be understood in whatever way they intended.
Gwar, stop being illogical. You don't need to twist yourself into knots with analogies when the plain text is right in front of us.
There is a difference between saying A is B and A can be used as B.
A staff is a Staff. What a staff can be used as depends on both the rules and item's description. The line, "A staff can be used as Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus," does not mean a Staff is those things. A broken off chair or table leg isn't a Club, but a DM might say they can be used as one per the Improvised Weapon rules.
For the purposes of this discussion, a Staff is a category of Magic Item. If an artificer isn't given permission to replicate one, then they can't replicate one. It doesn't matter how else a Staff might be usable. What matters is what a Staff is.