"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.
This is referring to the Weapon Category of magic items and Artificers are able to replicate it.
I don't know for certain if it is RAW, but I would have no issues with someone enchanting or replicating an Arcane Focus (Staff) as +X Weapon (Quarterstaff). I think you would be hard pressed to find someone to dispute it.
However, when you are looking to magic items to replicate, look in that spot in the magic item description and pick ones that say Armor, Ring, Wand, Weapon, or Wondrous Item under the name where it lists the rarity of the item.
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.
The first sentence of Magic Item Categories, already quoted above, says "Every magic item belongs to a category." "A category" is singular. There's the rule. Magic items belong to one category. There is your inherent or default position on whether categories are exclusive.
A Staff of Striking can be used as a +3 Quarterstaff, but the category for the item is listed as "Staff", not "Staff, Weapon" or "Staff and Weapon". You have quoted in your post a magic item description that described where the Category is indicated. I have quoted the text that says it is singular.
"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.
This is referring to the Weapon Category of magic items and Artificers are able to replicate it.
I don't know for certain if it is RAW, but I would have no issues with someone enchanting or replicating an Arcane Focus (Staff) as +X Weapon (Quarterstaff). I think you would be hard pressed to find someone to dispute it.
However, when you are looking to magic items to replicate, look in that spot in the magic item description and pick ones that say Armor, Ring, Wand, Weapon, or Wondrous Item under the name where it lists the rarity of the item.
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.
The first sentence of Magic Item Categories, already quoted above, says "Every magic item belongs to a category." "A category" is singular. There's the rule. Magic items belong to one category. There is your inherent or default position on whether categories are exclusive.
A Staff of Striking can be used as a +3 Quarterstaff, but the category for the item is listed as "Staff", not "Staff, Weapon" or "Staff and Weapon". You have quoted in your post a magic item description that described where the Category is indicated. I have quoted the text that says it is singular.
Not really trying to convince you about artificers here, we just dont agree,
however logically the word "a" doesnt mean one and only one.
For example. Jimmy has 6 cars.
What is the answer to the question, Does Jimmy have a car?
If you have an income you must pay taxes.
Does that mean if i have 2 incomes i dont have to pay taxes?
Basically it boils down to the fact that you have a house is still true if you have 4 houses.
the fact that jimmy has a car, does not imply that he doesnt have 4 cars
I person tells you i do not have a car.
they would be lying if they have 4 cars.
an isosceles triangle is a triangle where 2 sides have the same length
an equilateral triangle has 3 sides with same length.
an equilateral triangle is also an iscoseles triangle.
there is difference between "a" and one and only one
however, its fine if you don't believe me. If you have decided that "a" means one and only one, you will reject everything i have said, just keep in mind people dont share your definition, and people will call you a liar if you say i dont have a cookie, and it turns out you have 40 cookies.
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.
staff and weapon both existed in 2014, and crawford said that a staff is a weapon.
the creation of category definitions that are not necessarily true is a problematic design at best, and makes deduction impossible within your rules system
But do you, at this point no one is convincing anyone else, we re just going in circles. Believe what you want.
"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.
This is referring to the Weapon Category of magic items and Artificers are able to replicate it.
I don't know for certain if it is RAW, but I would have no issues with someone enchanting or replicating an Arcane Focus (Staff) as +X Weapon (Quarterstaff). I think you would be hard pressed to find someone to dispute it.
However, when you are looking to magic items to replicate, look in that spot in the magic item description and pick ones that say Armor, Ring, Wand, Weapon, or Wondrous Item under the name where it lists the rarity of the item.
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.
The first sentence of Magic Item Categories, already quoted above, says "Every magic item belongs to a category." "A category" is singular. There's the rule. Magic items belong to one category. There is your inherent or default position on whether categories are exclusive.
A Staff of Striking can be used as a +3 Quarterstaff, but the category for the item is listed as "Staff", not "Staff, Weapon" or "Staff and Weapon". You have quoted in your post a magic item description that described where the Category is indicated. I have quoted the text that says it is singular.
Not really trying to convince you about artificers here, we just dont agree,
however logically the word "a" doesnt mean one and only one.
For example. Jimmy has 6 cars.
What is the answer to the question, Does Jimmy have a car?
I'll give you a dollar if you can flip the bottle.
If you successfully flip the bottle, do you get to take two dollars?
A square is a rectangle. Is a square two rectangles?
Jimmy is a person. Is Jimmy two people (maybe in a trench coat)?
You are additionally ignoring the fact that each magical item has the category of magic item listed in the description. Staff is a category of magic items and Artificers can't replicate them. They can craft them by the normal rules just fine. Replicate Magic Item says one of the types of magic items an Artificer can craft is a Weapon (capital "W"). A +1 weapon is a Weapon (capital "W") and a Staff of Frost is Staff (capital "S"). An Artificer cannot replicate a Staff of Frost.
staff and weapon both existed in 2014, and crawford said that a staff is a weapon.
the creation of category definitions that are not necessarily true is a problematic design at best, and makes deduction impossible within your rules system
But do you, at this point no one is convincing anyone else, we re just going in circles. Believe what you want.
Jeremy Crawford NEVER said that a Staffs are magic Weapons.
He said the same thing that is in the 2014 DMG. He gave the DMG page number. The current version of the DMG says "Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus." This is the 2024 version of what Jeremy Crawford said. It can be used as a weapon. Some can be used as magic weapons. However, none are in the magic Weapon Category.
The magic item categories are not new to 2024. They were in the 2014 rules.
You can't ignore rules because they don't support your argument. At your table as the GM, you can. In a discussion of RAW you cannot.
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.
staff and weapon both existed in 2014, and crawford said that a staff is a weapon.
the creation of category definitions that are not necessarily true is a problematic design at best, and makes deduction impossible within your rules system
But do you, at this point no one is convincing anyone else, we re just going in circles. Believe what you want.
Gwar, you aren't arguing against a "rules system" of my own design.
Staff is a Magic Item Category. This is unambiguously a truth. You're arguing with Wizards of the Coast.
"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.
This is referring to the Weapon Category of magic items and Artificers are able to replicate it.
I don't know for certain if it is RAW, but I would have no issues with someone enchanting or replicating an Arcane Focus (Staff) as +X Weapon (Quarterstaff). I think you would be hard pressed to find someone to dispute it.
However, when you are looking to magic items to replicate, look in that spot in the magic item description and pick ones that say Armor, Ring, Wand, Weapon, or Wondrous Item under the name where it lists the rarity of the item.
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.
The first sentence of Magic Item Categories, already quoted above, says "Every magic item belongs to a category." "A category" is singular. There's the rule. Magic items belong to one category. There is your inherent or default position on whether categories are exclusive.
A Staff of Striking can be used as a +3 Quarterstaff, but the category for the item is listed as "Staff", not "Staff, Weapon" or "Staff and Weapon". You have quoted in your post a magic item description that described where the Category is indicated. I have quoted the text that says it is singular.
Not really trying to convince you about artificers here, we just dont agree,
however logically the word "a" doesnt mean one and only one.
For example. Jimmy has 6 cars.
What is the answer to the question, Does Jimmy have a car?
I'll give you a dollar if you can flip the bottle.
If you successfully flip the bottle, do you get to take two dollars?
A square is a rectangle. Is a square two rectangles?
Jimmy is a person. Is Jimmy two people (maybe in a trench coat)?
You are additionally ignoring the fact that each magical item has the category of magic item listed in the description. Staff is a category of magic items and Artificers can't replicate them. They can craft them by the normal rules just fine. Replicate Magic Item says one of the types of magic items an Artificer can craft is a Weapon (capital "W"). A +1 weapon is a Weapon (capital "W") and a Staff of Frost is Staff (capital "S"). An Artificer cannot replicate a Staff of Frost.
staff and weapon both existed in 2014, and crawford said that a staff is a weapon.
the creation of category definitions that are not necessarily true is a problematic design at best, and makes deduction impossible within your rules system
But do you, at this point no one is convincing anyone else, we re just going in circles. Believe what you want.
Jeremy Crawford NEVER said that a Staffs are magic Weapons.
He said the same thing that is in the 2014 DMG. He gave the DMG page number. The current version of the DMG says "Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus." This is the 2024 version of what Jeremy Crawford said. It can be used as a weapon. Some can be used as magic weapons. However, none are in the magic Weapon Category.
The magic item categories are not new to 2024. They were in the 2014 rules.
You can't ignore rules because they don't support your argument. At your table as the GM, you can. In a discussion of RAW you cannot.
using "a" does not mean more than one, but it doesnt eliminate the possiblity of being more than one either. you are assuming more than you should.
An equivalent assumption would be. if someone says i like brunnette women, and you assume that means they only like brunettes.
logically what you know, is they definitely like brunettes, they may still like blondes, or redheads or both. that is unknown, and not given by the statement, "i like brunettes"
using your example:
i give you a dollar if you can flip the bottle.
does not necessarily mean you wont give me 2 dollars. it says nothing about that possibility.
If you give me 4 dollars have you violated the agreement? All they promised was they would give me a dollar, i can say nothing about whether they will or wont give me 2 dollars based on that statement.
A square is a rectangle is different.in this case, because the word "is"sets up an equality, or a state of being. Other verbs are not necessarily representing an equality/state of being and specifically in this case, "is a" is short hand for a type of something, not an equality.
a square is a type of rectangle, One square is not actually equal to one rectangle. it could be, but that depends on the rectangle. and yes its possible for a square to be more than one type of rectangle. another type of rectangle is a diamond, which can also be a square. that fact does not make the statement, 'a square is a type of rectangle" false.
a square is a type of parellogram. true statement.
but its more accurately many types of parrelogram, it is a type rectangle, a type of rhombus, a type of diamond. (which are all types of parallelograms)
so in this case its also true that square is multiple types of parrelogram.
the same is true with jimmy 'is a" person. the "is" talks about his state of being, not an equality and yes jimmy is a type of person, true, but that doesnt necessarily mean jimmy is not many types of person.
a true statement does not mean its the most descriptive statement.
and sometimes a thing is only one other thing, but its not the logical grammar that determines that. you cant eliminate it as an option based on the grammar.
with regard to crawford, he actually did say they are weapons.
the wording change from 2014 to 2024 is only with respect as to whether they are considered "magIc weapons"
2014 said unless its description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff
2024 said unless its description says otherwise a staff can be used as a non magical quarterstaff
they are both weapons.
And yes, the magic item categories are not new, they existed in 2014, and in 2014 he declared that staffs are weapons, nothing written suggests that determination should have changed.
and magic replication level 6 and 10 features say nothing about whether they need to be magic weapons or not, it only talks about its rarity. unccomon and rare weapons. its magicness is irrelevant to the RAW.
the only magic replication heading that specifies the items be magic is the level 2 which says common magic items, because it doesnt work on common mundane items.
Every assertion i make is RAW.
staffs are weapons. according to the head designer, and the rules (just as staffs are arcane focuses) RAW.
magic replicatiom says it can make uncommon and rare weapons. that is RAW.
this isnt about what i would rule as a DM, i have no problem house ruling things i want to change, or making exceptions. this is not that. This is about looking at what the unearthed arcana raw says, as of right now, and what it means.
the only way, that staffs would be excluded, is if they are not weapons.
And right now staffs are weapons, and magic replication makes uncommon and rare weapons.
i cant be sure of their intent, unless they say it, but the words of the dmg, phb and UA say this.
Now, im not trying to badger you here, I have realized that you dont accept my mathematics/logic, and i dont accept yours
the primary difference in logic/math being.
you dont accept that;
1. the use of 'a' does not necessarily exclude more than one of something ( you state "a" means one and only one)
2. Once you define a category, things that fit the definition become part of that category (you seem to say that the category exists outside of its definition, IE Staff is not a weapon, and rules that refer to weapons are not referencing staffs)
With these fundamental disagreements on logic/math we wont come to the same conclusions on raw in this case.
at this point i am continuing to respond so that you or others can understand my logical proof and evaluate it as they see fit, not because i expect you to change your mind, and also because you seem to be asking me to explain myself. (which may be an illusion of the reply system)
i understand why you interpret raw the way you do now, i just think its not accurate.
this is not me trying to bend raw or create an outcome. by the rules of logic i was taught, there is only one way this works.
dnd doesnt always use logic, so maybe they will say smite nailed what we were going for.
but i can only go by raw and logic, until they say otherwise.
If that were true, we wouldn't still be here litigating this.
A thing does what it says it does, and that's it. You've been attempting to backdoor your way into a feature granting access to something it explicitly does not grant for several pages now. If they wanted Replicate Magic Item to allow for Uncommon or Rare Staffs, the feature would say so.
You haven't even been on the side of RAI, let alone RAW, so don't kid yourself.
If that were true, we wouldn't still be here litigating this.
A thing does what it says it does, and that's it. You've been attempting to backdoor your way into a feature granting access to something it explicitly does not grant for several pages now. If they wanted Replicate Magic Item to allow for Uncommon or Rare Staffs, the feature would say so.
You haven't even been on the side of RAI, let alone RAW, so don't kid yourself.
Your personal perceptions or agreements do not determine what is actual or real. The fact that you dont agree has nothing to do with the actual answer.
RAI is known only be whoever designed the UA, and they havent spoken up, dont kid yourself.
now you can claim rai/raw has changed, but you have provided no evidence of that. Staffs and weapons existed as categories in 2014, and he said, its a weapon. the language is not qualitatively different.
and if a staff is a weapon, it would be redundant to say you can replicate uncommon, staffs and weapons. So no, they would not likely say it twice.
this is not new, it happens all the time with dnd rules, see 2014 champion's remarkable athlete and the debate of whether it applied to initiative rolls. Answer, yes it did, because an initiative rolls is an ability check.No they didnt feel the need to spell it out until years later due to people not understanding.
i don't need to backdoor anything, dnd is game where you can change the rules as you see fit as a DM. I gain nothing by having the raw mean one thing or another. This is also not final, so its highly likely the raw will be different in release.
i fully hope that whatever the intent is, by their final version, its definitive, clear, and not in conflict with the RAW, but right now, this is what the words they provided means.
This feels like a good time to bring up how D&D 5E is a Permissive game design, rather than Restrictive. Within a Permissive ruleset, you are allowed to do whatever the rules say. Anything outside of that is not permitted. In a Restrictive ruleset, you can do anything the rules won't forbid - you know, the whole "It doesn't say I CAN'T do this"-angle? Can you really argue a point in good faith when it takes several paragraphs worth of explanation why you should be able to do something?
Also? For the love of layout, please truncate those quotes, okay? :)
Either way, back on original topic? What do you feel is the design idea behind restricting the categories of items that can be replicated with this feature? Since you can't stockpile replicated items over consecutive days, why not allow potions? And Enspelled Items are just a wand by any other name (yet still smell as sweet), which are mini-staves in of themselves.
What would break if Artificers could just replicate any uncommon item at 10, and any rare at 14?
(Mind you, I still like to go back to Infusions and expand on that feature aaaaall the way, but I can see where this train is going :) )
it boils down to one question with 3 possible answers, each of which leads to different ways of dealing with staffs.
question is a staff a weapon.
1. yes. then All rules that apply to staffs apply to weapons
2. no. then no rules that refer to weapons applies to staffs, unless explicitly stated otherwise
3. Its a demi weapon (sometimes a weapon sometimes not. ) then every DM will make their own determination when it applies and when it doesnt, until there is some specific guidance on this. As of now i know of no official rules that would give guidance on it.
looks like yall think its 3, which would be a bad case for a rule, as there would be little consistency from table to table. but its possible, they have had things like that before.
1. is how i see it, based on aforementioned reasons. And most things are like that in 5e.
This feels like a good time to bring up how D&D 5E is a Permissive game design, rather than Restrictive. Within a Permissive ruleset, you are allowed to do whatever the rules say. Anything outside of that is not permitted. In a Restrictive ruleset, you can do anything the rules won't forbid - you know, the whole "It doesn't say I CAN'T do this"-angle? Can you really argue a point in good faith when it takes several paragraphs worth of explanation why you should be able to do something?
Also? For the love of layout, please truncate those quotes, okay? :)
Either way, back on original topic? What do you feel is the design idea behind restricting the categories of items that can be replicated with this feature? Since you can't stockpile replicated items over consecutive days, why not allow potions? And Enspelled Items are just a wand by any other name (yet still smell as sweet), which are mini-staves in of themselves.
What would break if Artificers could just replicate any uncommon item at 10, and any rare at 14?
(Mind you, I still like to go back to Infusions and expand on that feature aaaaall the way, but I can see where this train is going :) )
As far as taking several paragraphs there are many paragraphs on both sides. And dnd rules generally have a number if cases which are misunderstood or require elucidation, so you cant assume much based on how obvious something seems to you.
as far as limiting potions and spell scrolls, they seem to not want them to be consumables. Generally consuables are not more powerful than items, so it might be a low level consideration, or just a flavor one. It could also be a hint that this players should be choosing permanent items
for common items, i think they specifically dont want this feature to cover mundane common items, because that would make magic tinkering less of a feature, and because its very open ended, like making a diamond for a powerful spell. Or materials for a spell, or food items.
so by naming things they create a box.and they dont have to worry about odd applications
I think Most of the reason they broke up these features was, so they could deliver them at multiple level ranges.
like by level 6, artificers need some decent uncommon items for their power budget. but they want to expand their options later on, without going to the rare power level.
i dont particularly think they were trying to, lock out staffs, as evidenced by previous pages. But if they were, i would guess they dont think enchantment magic is something artificer should have access to. The actual staffs are no better, or super special than other weapons. A number of them cant be attuned to by artificers due to them being designed for specific casters. So then it would be either a flavor thing, which doesnt seem likely to me, as its fairly on brand. So the enspelled limitation IE lockout of enchantment replicatiom and a limit on abjuration and illusion to only one spell. but that doesnt make a ton of sense since one artificer subclass has a support focus, and armorer would likely also have support builds.
as far as rods, my gut just tells me they forgot about rods, there are not a lot of rods especially in the uncommon to rare categories, and they arent super powerful, i only count 3 uncommin to rare rods in the dmg, and one of them is warlock only.
As far as infusions, i think they should make it clear that magic replications which incorporate an item can either create the item, or be used to enhance an existing item. But maybe they want the enhancement angle to be limited to crafted items only. But since they said in the UA its supposed to replace +1s and etc infusions i think thats the intent. And it wouldnt make a huge difference either way imo.
as far as rods, my gut just tells me they forgot about rods, there are not a lot of rods especially in the uncommon to rare categories, and they arent super powerful, i only count 3 uncommin to rare rods in the dmg, and one of them is warlock only.
I think it's presumptuous to assume something was forgotten when the public playtest is, essentially, an Open Beta. Everything we see to test out has already gone through Alpha Builds and internal testing.
You're either accusing them of negligence or incompetence.
The key difference between a Staff and a Weapon is, while a staff (arcane or druidic) can be a quarterstaff, a quarterstaff is a separate item. A Staff of Striking is a Staff because the description says so. It can be used as a spellcasting focus. This is in stark contrast from, say, a +3 Quarterstaff or Flame Tongue Quarterstaff. A weapon is just a weapon. If a Staff and Quarterstaff were wholly interchangeable, they'd have identical statistics.
We know they don't, so logic dictates there must be a reason why.
Labeling something a Staff is important because that label grants increased functionality over a mere Weapon; even if a staff can also be wielded as a weapon. It would be wrong to assume the descriptions for Magic Item Adept and Magic Item Savant included accidental omissions. Not when the Artillerist can use a Staff as an Arcane Firearm and Spellcasting Focus.
The rules tell you what is and what you can do. It would be illogical to assume silence is somehow consent, or that something isn't mentioned because its inclusion would be "redundant."
If the two were meant to be considered the same thing, there would be no need to define them separately.
Instead of being defined as "quarterstaff" in the weapons table it would just be "staff." Instead of stating "(also a quarterstaff)" in the Arcane focus table they could just leave it as "staff." They could then eliminate the "Staff" category of magic items altogether as it would be redundant with the "Weapon" category, let alone defining the category and adding a general exception that allows staffs to be used as a specific kind of weapon.
The fact that they were defined separately leads me to believe they aren't intended to be considered the same.
it boils down to one question with 3 possible answers, each of which leads to different ways of dealing with staffs.
question is a staff a weapon.
1. yes. then All rules that apply to staffs apply to weapons
2. no. then no rules that refer to weapons applies to staffs, unless explicitly stated otherwise
3. Its a demi weapon (sometimes a weapon sometimes not. ) then every DM will make their own determination when it applies and when it doesnt, until there is some specific guidance on this. As of now i know of no official rules that would give guidance on it.
looks like yall think its 3, which would be a bad case for a rule, as there would be little consistency from table to table. but its possible, they have had things like that before.
1. is how i see it, based on aforementioned reasons. And most things are like that in 5e.
2. The explicit exception for a staff's use as a weapon is spelled out in the DMG, under the definition for the magic item category of Staff. As I understand the rules, that is the limit of their mechanical overlap.
I think it's presumptuous to assume something was forgotten when the public playtest is, essentially, an Open Beta. Everything we see to test out has already gone through Alpha Builds and internal testing.
You're either accusing them of negligence or incompetence.
Meh, that's harsh. These things are complicated, they interact with rules in all kinds of places, and they are probably edited and handed off and edited multiple times by multiple people. Doing it on deadline, right before a holiday, especially, oversights happen. I don't expect the same level of quality control for the playtest as the final result - the level of quality that is needed for a playtest is to answer the questions you had and find those oversights.
I agree that a staff is not a weapon and RAW therefore is excluded. I don't see any rationale for excluding them (or rods) given the other items that can be replicated. If it's not an oversight, it would be helpful to understand why. (Like seriously, isn't an Immovable Rod almost a perfect fit for the Artificer?)
Overall I assume their goal was to make the Artificer feel less complicated but I think this version is actually significantly more complicated than Tasha's with such a long list of items and so little flexibility around the number of plans known and spells prepared when you start your adventuring day.
as far as rods, my gut just tells me they forgot about rods, there are not a lot of rods especially in the uncommon to rare categories, and they arent super powerful, i only count 3 uncommin to rare rods in the dmg, and one of them is warlock only.
I think it's presumptuous to assume something was forgotten when the public playtest is, essentially, an Open Beta. Everything we see to test out has already gone through Alpha Builds and internal testing.
You're either accusing them of negligence or incompetence.
The key difference between a Staff and a Weapon is, while a staff (arcane or druidic) can be a quarterstaff, a quarterstaff is a separate item. A Staff of Striking is a Staff because the description says so. It can be used as a spellcasting focus. This is in stark contrast from, say, a +3 Quarterstaff or Flame Tongue Quarterstaff. A weapon is just a weapon. If a Staff and Quarterstaff were wholly interchangeable, they'd have identical statistics.
We know they don't, so logic dictates there must be a reason why.
Labeling something a Staff is important because that label grants increased functionality over a mere Weapon; even if a staff can also be wielded as a weapon. It would be wrong to assume the descriptions for Magic Item Adept and Magic Item Savant included accidental omissions. Not when the Artillerist can use a Staff as an Arcane Firearm and Spellcasting Focus.
The rules tell you what is and what you can do. It would be illogical to assume silence is somehow consent, or that something isn't mentioned because its inclusion would be "redundant."
my rod statement is shrugged shoulder, not statement of fact, and it has nothing to do with staffs. By raw, rods are clearly not there, i cant truely assume rai. the person asked why i think they made that decision, so i said my thoughts. They have nothing to do with what the rules say, and how they should be tested. People make mistakes, this isnt the final version, me concieving of the possibility of an error is not an accusation of anything. I fully accept the very real possibility is not an error.
i am not saying they forgot to add staff, i am saying they didnt say staff because its redundant. not an ommission. If i say people need to be kind, me not also saying male people is not an ommision. Its included in people.
yes, staffs do have additional functionality quarterstaves dont. thats is why the category exists. It is a weapon AND its an arcane focus. And there are rules that apply to it, that dont apply to other weapons or quarter staves. However that does not mean its not a weapon, or that is exempt from weapon rules.
If you see a rule that says weapon, (like spells, abilities, features, attacks,) it also applies to staffs
if you see a rule that says staffs it may not apply to other weapons
just like the importance in the distinction of the word squares and rectangles. A square is a type of parrelogram which uses rectangles rules and has sides of the same length. if i say parrelograms in a rule i dont need to also mention squares, I already did.
And silence in rules means you have no rule. You are implying that rules exist that arent written anywhere, or logically deduced from other rules. How does one put these unwritten silent rules into RAW? How are they going to be used consistently from table to table?
and thats why i dont buy into this psuedo weapon idea. There is no guidance on when a staff is following weapon rules, and when its not. (in your version of reality) You claim by divine right, that staff doesnt mean weapon when its talking about magic replication, but it does mean weapon when its talking about true strike, elemental weapon,, weapon+1+2+3.
where in the raw, does it explain how a DM should make this distinction? Every DM (following the demi weapon idea) will make different distinctions, because there is no guidance.
If the two were meant to be considered the same thing, there would be no need to define them separately.
Instead of being defined as "quarterstaff" in the weapons table it would just be "staff." Instead of stating "(also a quarterstaff)" in the Arcane focus table they could just leave it as "staff." They could then eliminate the "Staff" category of magic items altogether as it would be redundant with the "Weapon" category, let alone defining the category and adding a general exception that allows staffs to be used as a specific kind of weapon.
The fact that they were defined separately leads me to believe they aren't intended to be considered the same.
it boils down to one question with 3 possible answers, each of which leads to different ways of dealing with staffs.
question is a staff a weapon.
1. yes. then All rules that apply to staffs apply to weapons
2. no. then no rules that refer to weapons applies to staffs, unless explicitly stated otherwise
3. Its a demi weapon (sometimes a weapon sometimes not. ) then every DM will make their own determination when it applies and when it doesnt, until there is some specific guidance on this. As of now i know of no official rules that would give guidance on it.
looks like yall think its 3, which would be a bad case for a rule, as there would be little consistency from table to table. but its possible, they have had things like that before.
1. is how i see it, based on aforementioned reasons. And most things are like that in 5e.
2. The explicit exception for a staff's use as a weapon is spelled out in the DMG, under the definition for the magic item category of Staff. As I understand the rules, that is the limit of their mechanical overlap.
when i say "is" here i dont mean staff = weapon
i mean staff is (unless otherwise stated in the description) a type of weapon.
they are not intended to be the same. (equal)
a square is not the same as a rectangle, any more than a woman is the same as a person.
but every time a rule says person, it applies to women, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
that doesnt mean every rule that applies a woman applies to a person.
a woman is a type of person. This is the same relationship between staff and weapon.
A staff is an item that can be a quarterstaff AND an arcane focus. And there are certain rules which apply to staffs that dont apply to all weapons, or all arcane focuses. however rules that apply to arcane focuses apply to staffs, and rules that apply to quarterstaffs apply to staffs.
The definition of staff does in fact say when it can be used as a weapon, which is essentially all the time. just as it can be used an arcane focus all the time, Unless the rules state otherwise.
Since you appear to be of the 2. school. Can you make or find a staff+1? can you use a staff to perform true strike? can you cast elemental weapon on a staff? If any are yes, Why wouldnt the answer be no?
Please stop referencing Jeremy Crawford out of context.
Quote from Jeremy Crawford
Quote from Draconis
@JeremyECrawford Can I use a Staff of Frost as Quarterstaff (the text didn't say "you can")? If yes, it does count as a magic melee weapon?
A magic staff can be used as a quarterstaff, unless its text says otherwise (see DMG, 140). It is a magic weapon. #DnD
Jeremy Crawford's tweets aren't RAW. They are unofficial unless they make it into the Sage Advice Compendium. This Tweet is not there and is not official.
He referenced the rule in the 2014 DMG that says, "Unless a staff's description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff."
This 2024 DMG supersedes the rule and says, "Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus."
Jeremy Crawford's tweet was never official and, even if it was, has been invalidated by the RAW of the revised rules.
using "a" does not mean more than one, but it doesnt eliminate the possiblity of being more than one either. you are assuming more than you should.
You have quoted the description of a magic item that displayed the category and rarity of the item.
Show me at least one example, in the 2024 DMG, of a magic item with more than one category listed.
It's a simple proof of your point.
i dont really understand what you are asking here
but to try explain what you may be asking,
the reason i think that items can belong to more than one category, is because by definition, a staff can follow the rules of a weapon and follow the rules of an arcane focus.
Weapons are defined as things that follow the rules of a weapon, with the main (but not all) weapons listed.
to be clear, i dont see categories as being just the things that are tagged in a document with a category tag, but rather anything that follows the definitions of that category. (except categories/tags that are expressly defined as having no rules, and used for tagging) And i dont believe categories exist outside of their definitions. IE refering to things of the weapon category, but not refering to weapons
To me, a category is the group of things that fit the requirements of its definitions. Not a thing that exists on its own outside of that. Category tags are a convience, if a thing doesnt expressly list a category tag, that doesnt mean no rules apply to it.
If a totally new, undocumented item exists, Lets say Silver Surfer's Board, and it is defined as, can be used as a greatsword, then it will interact with the rules as a greatsword unless specifically stated otherwise even if it also can be used as a mount. This would mean features that can create weapons, could create this item, and features which could create a mount could create this item. (unless a specific rule says otherwise) The fact that there isnt a phb entry confirming its category is irrelevant. It told me it can be used as a greatsword.
5e is a game with homebrew, third party developers, and 10 years of differing norms and labeling. It doesnt really work with a system that requires explicit tags in order to function. You cannot solely depend on complete labeling, thats why they go by definitions.
for example:
i had a debate recently about whether an elixir is considered a potion, and they pointed out an item in strixhaven which was not labeled as a potion, but called an elixir. We argued on the basis of logic and came to no understanding, however eventually i found that dndbeyond had later labeled it as a potion. IE in the book it wasnt labeled as potion, but in dnd beyond it was. Did this alter the very nature of the item? I would say no. item was murgaxor's elixir. which in strixhaven book did not explicitly say potion but dnd beyond does https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment?filter-search=murgaxor&filter-cost-min=&filter-cost-max=&filter-weight-min=&filter-weight-max=
5e is a game with lots of moving parts, very adaptable, and many sources.
Another example, by your concept it is impossible for an item to be more than one category.
however the chapter on creating items give guidance on combining items to create new items in your game.
"
Combining Items
You can merge the properties of two magic items of the same rarity into a single item, provided no more than one of them requires Attunement.
"
so one part of the book tells me i can create and distribute an item that is an immovable rod + a lance
but you claim another part tells me this item is not a weapon in terms of how it interacts with rules xor not a rod in terms of how it interacts with rules.
and thats the problem with explicitly saying categories are exclusive in dnd, it cant be a rigidly typed system, because its content is not rigidly typed. it makes it fail repeatedly.
can a creature have more than one type? by your logic, i would assume not but then eventually we get Tannaruk in Volo's guide which both a demon and an orc. Was it impossible for sucha creature to exist before Volo's guide, did Volo rewrite the text of the monster manual? nah.
As far as items not being labeled both as staff and weapon, they dont need to, because its redundant. Staff is defined as being able to be a weapon and a arcane focus. i wouldn't have to say it anymore than an entry would have to say Jane (woman, person) for the rules that apply to persons to apply to jane. if i said a woman is a type of person
"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."
This.
Every Magical Item is listed in the format of
Name
Category, Rarity
Description.
Show me one that has two categories listed under the name. I cannot be clearer. Everyone else in the thread has provided examples and RAW quotes. You have provided no evidence that a magic item can belong to two Categories. "Can be used as" is not the same as "Is".
however the chapter on creating items give guidance on combining items to create new items in your game.
"
Combining Items
You can merge the properties of two magic items of the same rarity into a single item, provided no more than one of them requires Attunement.
"
Homebrew magic items are not relevant to this discussion. That is what that section is from. The creation of homebrew magic items, not crafting magic items. Context is important.
"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."
This.
Every Magical Item is listed in the format of
Name
Category, Rarity
Description.
Show me one that has two categories listed under the name. I cannot be clearer. Everyone else in the thread has provided examples and RAW quotes. You have provided no evidence that a magic item can belong to two Categories. "Can be used as" is not the same as "Is".
however the chapter on creating items give guidance on combining items to create new items in your game.
"
Combining Items
You can merge the properties of two magic items of the same rarity into a single item, provided no more than one of them requires Attunement.
"
Homebrew magic items are not relevant to this discussion. That is what that section is from. The creation of homebrew magic items, not crafting magic items. Context is important.
1. first off, i don't need to prove it via having an item printed and tagged with two categories.
a logical proof does not require examples, it uses deductive reasoning.
the proof is that staffs are defined as being able to be quarterstaffs or arcane focuses. RAW
the proof is the arcane focus which says a staff is also a quarterstaff. RAW
quarterstaves are types of weapons, as defined in the weapons category, and the weapons category acknowledges that there are things that are weapons that arent listed.
Are you really implying that shillegah would not work with a Wooden Staff, because its not actually a Quarterstaff?
the existence of a thing in a category being defined as something which can fit into another category is proof.
And by the way, the only way you can prove something is impossible is via reasoning. Because being unable to find an example does not prove its impossible for to it to exist. Just because i personally cant make a dog do a backflip and cannot find a picture of a dog doing a backlflip, is not proof that its impossible for a dog to do a backflip.
this is why i'm not asking you to prove its impossible, because that is an unfair burden. I am basing my reasoning on the fact that a staff(also a quarterstaff) RAW, and A staff can be used as a quarterstaff and an arcane focus RAW.
and a staff is weapon (as the head designer interprets the rules)
you dont need another example.
Also nothing they have said even implies items can only belong to one category.
As far as the guidance on creating items, it is advice for items that work within the framework of the game. And thats the other thing you are missing, rules of 5e arent just written based on whats in the phb, they are written to house homebrew, future modules, past modules, and third party creators. The created monsters, worlds, items are still supposed to work within the 5e framework, thats actually a major part of its game design. Thats why 5e generally avoids saying things are impossible, that just closes design space.
And lastly, if its possible for an item to be a weapon, but not belong to the Weapon category, as you seem to be suggesting, its also impossible to tell when rules are refering to weapons(that arent categorised as weapons) and weapons(the category) without extra text or guidance.
Essentially whether a rule means weapon(that arent in the weapon category) or weapons(the category) are totally arbitrary and up to the DM. If a rule says quarterstaff does it mean an item used as quarterstaff(but not actually in the quartestaff category) or does it mean quarterstaff(category of weapon).
thats the type of weird world you are creating by treating categories as entities seperate from what they are defining. A world were you cant reliably apply rules to things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is referring to the Weapon Category of magic items and Artificers are able to replicate it.
I don't know for certain if it is RAW, but I would have no issues with someone enchanting or replicating an Arcane Focus (Staff) as +X Weapon (Quarterstaff). I think you would be hard pressed to find someone to dispute it.
However, when you are looking to magic items to replicate, look in that spot in the magic item description and pick ones that say Armor, Ring, Wand, Weapon, or Wondrous Item under the name where it lists the rarity of the item.
The first sentence of Magic Item Categories, already quoted above, says "Every magic item belongs to a category." "A category" is singular. There's the rule. Magic items belong to one category. There is your inherent or default position on whether categories are exclusive.
A Staff of Striking can be used as a +3 Quarterstaff, but the category for the item is listed as "Staff", not "Staff, Weapon" or "Staff and Weapon". You have quoted in your post a magic item description that described where the Category is indicated. I have quoted the text that says it is singular.
How to add Tooltips.
Not really trying to convince you about artificers here, we just dont agree,
however logically the word "a" doesnt mean one and only one.
For example. Jimmy has 6 cars.
What is the answer to the question, Does Jimmy have a car?
If you have an income you must pay taxes.
Does that mean if i have 2 incomes i dont have to pay taxes?
I have a house.
are they lying if the have two houses?
a is preposition https://www.scribbr.com/commonly-confused-words/a-vs-an/
and legally
https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/an-indefinite-article-a-or-an-means-one-or-more
Basically it boils down to the fact that you have a house is still true if you have 4 houses.
the fact that jimmy has a car, does not imply that he doesnt have 4 cars
I person tells you i do not have a car.
they would be lying if they have 4 cars.
an isosceles triangle is a triangle where 2 sides have the same length
an equilateral triangle has 3 sides with same length.
an equilateral triangle is also an iscoseles triangle.
there is difference between "a" and one and only one
however, its fine if you don't believe me. If you have decided that "a" means one and only one, you will reject everything i have said, just keep in mind people dont share your definition, and people will call you a liar if you say i dont have a cookie, and it turns out you have 40 cookies.
staff and weapon both existed in 2014, and crawford said that a staff is a weapon.
the creation of category definitions that are not necessarily true is a problematic design at best, and makes deduction impossible within your rules system
But do you, at this point no one is convincing anyone else, we re just going in circles. Believe what you want.
I'll give you a dollar if you can flip the bottle.
If you successfully flip the bottle, do you get to take two dollars?
A square is a rectangle. Is a square two rectangles?
Jimmy is a person. Is Jimmy two people (maybe in a trench coat)?
You are additionally ignoring the fact that each magical item has the category of magic item listed in the description. Staff is a category of magic items and Artificers can't replicate them. They can craft them by the normal rules just fine. Replicate Magic Item says one of the types of magic items an Artificer can craft is a Weapon (capital "W"). A +1 weapon is a Weapon (capital "W") and a Staff of Frost is Staff (capital "S"). An Artificer cannot replicate a Staff of Frost.
Jeremy Crawford NEVER said that a Staffs are magic Weapons.
He said the same thing that is in the 2014 DMG. He gave the DMG page number. The current version of the DMG says "Unless its description notes otherwise, a staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus." This is the 2024 version of what Jeremy Crawford said. It can be used as a weapon. Some can be used as magic weapons. However, none are in the magic Weapon Category.
The magic item categories are not new to 2024. They were in the 2014 rules.
You can't ignore rules because they don't support your argument. At your table as the GM, you can. In a discussion of RAW you cannot.
How to add Tooltips.
Gwar, you aren't arguing against a "rules system" of my own design.
Staff is a Magic Item Category. This is unambiguously a truth. You're arguing with Wizards of the Coast.
using "a" does not mean more than one, but it doesnt eliminate the possiblity of being more than one either. you are assuming more than you should.
An equivalent assumption would be. if someone says i like brunnette women, and you assume that means they only like brunettes.
logically what you know, is they definitely like brunettes, they may still like blondes, or redheads or both. that is unknown, and not given by the statement, "i like brunettes"
using your example:
i give you a dollar if you can flip the bottle.
does not necessarily mean you wont give me 2 dollars. it says nothing about that possibility.
If you give me 4 dollars have you violated the agreement? All they promised was they would give me a dollar, i can say nothing about whether they will or wont give me 2 dollars based on that statement.
A square is a rectangle is different.in this case, because the word "is"sets up an equality, or a state of being. Other verbs are not necessarily representing an equality/state of being and specifically in this case, "is a" is short hand for a type of something, not an equality.
a square is a type of rectangle, One square is not actually equal to one rectangle. it could be, but that depends on the rectangle. and yes its possible for a square to be more than one type of rectangle. another type of rectangle is a diamond, which can also be a square. that fact does not make the statement, 'a square is a type of rectangle" false.
a square is a type of parellogram. true statement.
but its more accurately many types of parrelogram, it is a type rectangle, a type of rhombus, a type of diamond. (which are all types of parallelograms)
so in this case its also true that square is multiple types of parrelogram.
the same is true with jimmy 'is a" person. the "is" talks about his state of being, not an equality and yes jimmy is a type of person, true, but that doesnt necessarily mean jimmy is not many types of person.
a true statement does not mean its the most descriptive statement.
and sometimes a thing is only one other thing, but its not the logical grammar that determines that. you cant eliminate it as an option based on the grammar.
with regard to crawford, he actually did say they are weapons.
the wording change from 2014 to 2024 is only with respect as to whether they are considered "magIc weapons"
2014 said unless its description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff
2024 said unless its description says otherwise a staff can be used as a non magical quarterstaff
they are both weapons.
And yes, the magic item categories are not new, they existed in 2014, and in 2014 he declared that staffs are weapons, nothing written suggests that determination should have changed.
and magic replication level 6 and 10 features say nothing about whether they need to be magic weapons or not, it only talks about its rarity. unccomon and rare weapons. its magicness is irrelevant to the RAW.
the only magic replication heading that specifies the items be magic is the level 2 which says common magic items, because it doesnt work on common mundane items.
Every assertion i make is RAW.
staffs are weapons. according to the head designer, and the rules (just as staffs are arcane focuses) RAW.
magic replicatiom says it can make uncommon and rare weapons. that is RAW.
this isnt about what i would rule as a DM, i have no problem house ruling things i want to change, or making exceptions. this is not that. This is about looking at what the unearthed arcana raw says, as of right now, and what it means.
the only way, that staffs would be excluded, is if they are not weapons.
And right now staffs are weapons, and magic replication makes uncommon and rare weapons.
i cant be sure of their intent, unless they say it, but the words of the dmg, phb and UA say this.
Now, im not trying to badger you here, I have realized that you dont accept my mathematics/logic, and i dont accept yours
the primary difference in logic/math being.
you dont accept that;
1. the use of 'a' does not necessarily exclude more than one of something ( you state "a" means one and only one)
2. Once you define a category, things that fit the definition become part of that category (you seem to say that the category exists outside of its definition, IE Staff is not a weapon, and rules that refer to weapons are not referencing staffs)
With these fundamental disagreements on logic/math we wont come to the same conclusions on raw in this case.
at this point i am continuing to respond so that you or others can understand my logical proof and evaluate it as they see fit, not because i expect you to change your mind, and also because you seem to be asking me to explain myself. (which may be an illusion of the reply system)
i understand why you interpret raw the way you do now, i just think its not accurate.
this is not me trying to bend raw or create an outcome. by the rules of logic i was taught, there is only one way this works.
dnd doesnt always use logic, so maybe they will say smite nailed what we were going for.
but i can only go by raw and logic, until they say otherwise.
If that were true, we wouldn't still be here litigating this.
A thing does what it says it does, and that's it. You've been attempting to backdoor your way into a feature granting access to something it explicitly does not grant for several pages now. If they wanted Replicate Magic Item to allow for Uncommon or Rare Staffs, the feature would say so.
You haven't even been on the side of RAI, let alone RAW, so don't kid yourself.
Your personal perceptions or agreements do not determine what is actual or real. The fact that you dont agree has nothing to do with the actual answer.
RAI is known only be whoever designed the UA, and they havent spoken up, dont kid yourself.
Raw requires you to look at the meaning of words.
the question is simple is a staff a weapon.
thats it.
according to Crawford's RAI?RAW of 2014, it is.
https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/801487521662177280
now you can claim rai/raw has changed, but you have provided no evidence of that. Staffs and weapons existed as categories in 2014, and he said, its a weapon. the language is not qualitatively different.
and if a staff is a weapon, it would be redundant to say you can replicate uncommon, staffs and weapons. So no, they would not likely say it twice.
this is not new, it happens all the time with dnd rules, see 2014 champion's remarkable athlete and the debate of whether it applied to initiative rolls. Answer, yes it did, because an initiative rolls is an ability check.No they didnt feel the need to spell it out until years later due to people not understanding.
i don't need to backdoor anything, dnd is game where you can change the rules as you see fit as a DM. I gain nothing by having the raw mean one thing or another. This is also not final, so its highly likely the raw will be different in release.
i fully hope that whatever the intent is, by their final version, its definitive, clear, and not in conflict with the RAW, but right now, this is what the words they provided means.
This feels like a good time to bring up how D&D 5E is a Permissive game design, rather than Restrictive. Within a Permissive ruleset, you are allowed to do whatever the rules say. Anything outside of that is not permitted. In a Restrictive ruleset, you can do anything the rules won't forbid - you know, the whole "It doesn't say I CAN'T do this"-angle? Can you really argue a point in good faith when it takes several paragraphs worth of explanation why you should be able to do something?
Also? For the love of layout, please truncate those quotes, okay? :)
Either way, back on original topic? What do you feel is the design idea behind restricting the categories of items that can be replicated with this feature? Since you can't stockpile replicated items over consecutive days, why not allow potions? And Enspelled Items are just a wand by any other name (yet still smell as sweet), which are mini-staves in of themselves.
What would break if Artificers could just replicate any uncommon item at 10, and any rare at 14?
(Mind you, I still like to go back to Infusions and expand on that feature aaaaall the way, but I can see where this train is going :) )
So logic/math/grammar belief aside
it boils down to one question with 3 possible answers, each of which leads to different ways of dealing with staffs.
question is a staff a weapon.
1. yes. then All rules that apply to staffs apply to weapons
2. no. then no rules that refer to weapons applies to staffs, unless explicitly stated otherwise
3. Its a demi weapon (sometimes a weapon sometimes not. ) then every DM will make their own determination when it applies and when it doesnt, until there is some specific guidance on this. As of now i know of no official rules that would give guidance on it.
looks like yall think its 3, which would be a bad case for a rule, as there would be little consistency from table to table. but its possible, they have had things like that before.
1. is how i see it, based on aforementioned reasons. And most things are like that in 5e.
As far as taking several paragraphs there are many paragraphs on both sides. And dnd rules generally have a number if cases which are misunderstood or require elucidation, so you cant assume much based on how obvious something seems to you.
as far as limiting potions and spell scrolls, they seem to not want them to be consumables. Generally consuables are not more powerful than items, so it might be a low level consideration, or just a flavor one. It could also be a hint that this players should be choosing permanent items
for common items, i think they specifically dont want this feature to cover mundane common items, because that would make magic tinkering less of a feature, and because its very open ended, like making a diamond for a powerful spell. Or materials for a spell, or food items.
so by naming things they create a box.and they dont have to worry about odd applications
I think Most of the reason they broke up these features was, so they could deliver them at multiple level ranges.
like by level 6, artificers need some decent uncommon items for their power budget. but they want to expand their options later on, without going to the rare power level.
i dont particularly think they were trying to, lock out staffs, as evidenced by previous pages. But if they were, i would guess they dont think enchantment magic is something artificer should have access to. The actual staffs are no better, or super special than other weapons. A number of them cant be attuned to by artificers due to them being designed for specific casters. So then it would be either a flavor thing, which doesnt seem likely to me, as its fairly on brand. So the enspelled limitation IE lockout of enchantment replicatiom and a limit on abjuration and illusion to only one spell. but that doesnt make a ton of sense since one artificer subclass has a support focus, and armorer would likely also have support builds.
as far as rods, my gut just tells me they forgot about rods, there are not a lot of rods especially in the uncommon to rare categories, and they arent super powerful, i only count 3 uncommin to rare rods in the dmg, and one of them is warlock only.
As far as infusions, i think they should make it clear that magic replications which incorporate an item can either create the item, or be used to enhance an existing item. But maybe they want the enhancement angle to be limited to crafted items only. But since they said in the UA its supposed to replace +1s and etc infusions i think thats the intent. And it wouldnt make a huge difference either way imo.
I think it's presumptuous to assume something was forgotten when the public playtest is, essentially, an Open Beta. Everything we see to test out has already gone through Alpha Builds and internal testing.
You're either accusing them of negligence or incompetence.
The key difference between a Staff and a Weapon is, while a staff (arcane or druidic) can be a quarterstaff, a quarterstaff is a separate item. A Staff of Striking is a Staff because the description says so. It can be used as a spellcasting focus. This is in stark contrast from, say, a +3 Quarterstaff or Flame Tongue Quarterstaff. A weapon is just a weapon. If a Staff and Quarterstaff were wholly interchangeable, they'd have identical statistics.
We know they don't, so logic dictates there must be a reason why.
Labeling something a Staff is important because that label grants increased functionality over a mere Weapon; even if a staff can also be wielded as a weapon. It would be wrong to assume the descriptions for Magic Item Adept and Magic Item Savant included accidental omissions. Not when the Artillerist can use a Staff as an Arcane Firearm and Spellcasting Focus.
The rules tell you what is and what you can do. It would be illogical to assume silence is somehow consent, or that something isn't mentioned because its inclusion would be "redundant."
If the two were meant to be considered the same thing, there would be no need to define them separately.
Instead of being defined as "quarterstaff" in the weapons table it would just be "staff." Instead of stating "(also a quarterstaff)" in the Arcane focus table they could just leave it as "staff." They could then eliminate the "Staff" category of magic items altogether as it would be redundant with the "Weapon" category, let alone defining the category and adding a general exception that allows staffs to be used as a specific kind of weapon.
The fact that they were defined separately leads me to believe they aren't intended to be considered the same.
2. The explicit exception for a staff's use as a weapon is spelled out in the DMG, under the definition for the magic item category of Staff. As I understand the rules, that is the limit of their mechanical overlap.
Meh, that's harsh. These things are complicated, they interact with rules in all kinds of places, and they are probably edited and handed off and edited multiple times by multiple people. Doing it on deadline, right before a holiday, especially, oversights happen. I don't expect the same level of quality control for the playtest as the final result - the level of quality that is needed for a playtest is to answer the questions you had and find those oversights.
I agree that a staff is not a weapon and RAW therefore is excluded. I don't see any rationale for excluding them (or rods) given the other items that can be replicated. If it's not an oversight, it would be helpful to understand why. (Like seriously, isn't an Immovable Rod almost a perfect fit for the Artificer?)
Overall I assume their goal was to make the Artificer feel less complicated but I think this version is actually significantly more complicated than Tasha's with such a long list of items and so little flexibility around the number of plans known and spells prepared when you start your adventuring day.
my rod statement is shrugged shoulder, not statement of fact, and it has nothing to do with staffs. By raw, rods are clearly not there, i cant truely assume rai. the person asked why i think they made that decision, so i said my thoughts. They have nothing to do with what the rules say, and how they should be tested. People make mistakes, this isnt the final version, me concieving of the possibility of an error is not an accusation of anything. I fully accept the very real possibility is not an error.
i am not saying they forgot to add staff, i am saying they didnt say staff because its redundant. not an ommission. If i say people need to be kind, me not also saying male people is not an ommision. Its included in people.
yes, staffs do have additional functionality quarterstaves dont. thats is why the category exists. It is a weapon AND its an arcane focus. And there are rules that apply to it, that dont apply to other weapons or quarter staves. However that does not mean its not a weapon, or that is exempt from weapon rules.
If you see a rule that says weapon, (like spells, abilities, features, attacks,) it also applies to staffs
if you see a rule that says staffs it may not apply to other weapons
just like the importance in the distinction of the word squares and rectangles. A square is a type of parrelogram which uses rectangles rules and has sides of the same length. if i say parrelograms in a rule i dont need to also mention squares, I already did.
And silence in rules means you have no rule. You are implying that rules exist that arent written anywhere, or logically deduced from other rules. How does one put these unwritten silent rules into RAW? How are they going to be used consistently from table to table?
and thats why i dont buy into this psuedo weapon idea. There is no guidance on when a staff is following weapon rules, and when its not. (in your version of reality) You claim by divine right, that staff doesnt mean weapon when its talking about magic replication, but it does mean weapon when its talking about true strike, elemental weapon,, weapon+1+2+3.
where in the raw, does it explain how a DM should make this distinction? Every DM (following the demi weapon idea) will make different distinctions, because there is no guidance.
when i say "is" here i dont mean staff = weapon
i mean staff is (unless otherwise stated in the description) a type of weapon.
they are not intended to be the same. (equal)
a square is not the same as a rectangle, any more than a woman is the same as a person.
but every time a rule says person, it applies to women, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
that doesnt mean every rule that applies a woman applies to a person.
a woman is a type of person. This is the same relationship between staff and weapon.
A staff is an item that can be a quarterstaff AND an arcane focus. And there are certain rules which apply to staffs that dont apply to all weapons, or all arcane focuses. however rules that apply to arcane focuses apply to staffs, and rules that apply to quarterstaffs apply to staffs.
The definition of staff does in fact say when it can be used as a weapon, which is essentially all the time. just as it can be used an arcane focus all the time, Unless the rules state otherwise.
Since you appear to be of the 2. school. Can you make or find a staff+1? can you use a staff to perform true strike? can you cast elemental weapon on a staff? If any are yes, Why wouldnt the answer be no?
You have quoted the description of a magic item that displayed the category and rarity of the item.
Show me at least one example, in the 2024 DMG, of a magic item with more than one category listed.
It's a simple proof of your point.
How to add Tooltips.
Please stop referencing Jeremy Crawford out of context.
Jeremy Crawford's tweet was never official and, even if it was, has been invalidated by the RAW of the revised rules.
How to add Tooltips.
i dont really understand what you are asking here
but to try explain what you may be asking,
the reason i think that items can belong to more than one category, is because by definition, a staff can follow the rules of a weapon and follow the rules of an arcane focus.
Weapons are defined as things that follow the rules of a weapon, with the main (but not all) weapons listed.
to be clear, i dont see categories as being just the things that are tagged in a document with a category tag, but rather anything that follows the definitions of that category. (except categories/tags that are expressly defined as having no rules, and used for tagging) And i dont believe categories exist outside of their definitions. IE refering to things of the weapon category, but not refering to weapons
To me, a category is the group of things that fit the requirements of its definitions. Not a thing that exists on its own outside of that. Category tags are a convience, if a thing doesnt expressly list a category tag, that doesnt mean no rules apply to it.
If a totally new, undocumented item exists, Lets say Silver Surfer's Board, and it is defined as, can be used as a greatsword, then it will interact with the rules as a greatsword unless specifically stated otherwise even if it also can be used as a mount. This would mean features that can create weapons, could create this item, and features which could create a mount could create this item. (unless a specific rule says otherwise) The fact that there isnt a phb entry confirming its category is irrelevant. It told me it can be used as a greatsword.
5e is a game with homebrew, third party developers, and 10 years of differing norms and labeling. It doesnt really work with a system that requires explicit tags in order to function. You cannot solely depend on complete labeling, thats why they go by definitions.
for example:
i had a debate recently about whether an elixir is considered a potion, and they pointed out an item in strixhaven which was not labeled as a potion, but called an elixir. We argued on the basis of logic and came to no understanding, however eventually i found that dndbeyond had later labeled it as a potion. IE in the book it wasnt labeled as potion, but in dnd beyond it was. Did this alter the very nature of the item? I would say no. item was murgaxor's elixir. which in strixhaven book did not explicitly say potion but dnd beyond does https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment?filter-search=murgaxor&filter-cost-min=&filter-cost-max=&filter-weight-min=&filter-weight-max=
5e is a game with lots of moving parts, very adaptable, and many sources.
Another example, by your concept it is impossible for an item to be more than one category.
however the chapter on creating items give guidance on combining items to create new items in your game.
"
Combining Items
You can merge the properties of two magic items of the same rarity into a single item, provided no more than one of them requires Attunement.
"
so one part of the book tells me i can create and distribute an item that is an immovable rod + a lance
but you claim another part tells me this item is not a weapon in terms of how it interacts with rules xor not a rod in terms of how it interacts with rules.
and thats the problem with explicitly saying categories are exclusive in dnd, it cant be a rigidly typed system, because its content is not rigidly typed. it makes it fail repeatedly.
can a creature have more than one type? by your logic, i would assume not but then eventually we get Tannaruk in Volo's guide which both a demon and an orc. Was it impossible for sucha creature to exist before Volo's guide, did Volo rewrite the text of the monster manual? nah.
As far as items not being labeled both as staff and weapon, they dont need to, because its redundant. Staff is defined as being able to be a weapon and a arcane focus. i wouldn't have to say it anymore than an entry would have to say Jane (woman, person) for the rules that apply to persons to apply to jane. if i said a woman is a type of person
This.
Every Magical Item is listed in the format of
Show me one that has two categories listed under the name. I cannot be clearer. Everyone else in the thread has provided examples and RAW quotes. You have provided no evidence that a magic item can belong to two Categories. "Can be used as" is not the same as "Is".
Homebrew magic items are not relevant to this discussion. That is what that section is from. The creation of homebrew magic items, not crafting magic items. Context is important.
How to add Tooltips.
1. first off, i don't need to prove it via having an item printed and tagged with two categories.
a logical proof does not require examples, it uses deductive reasoning.
the proof is that staffs are defined as being able to be quarterstaffs or arcane focuses. RAW
the proof is the arcane focus which says a staff is also a quarterstaff. RAW
quarterstaves are types of weapons, as defined in the weapons category, and the weapons category acknowledges that there are things that are weapons that arent listed.
Are you really implying that shillegah would not work with a Wooden Staff, because its not actually a Quarterstaff?
the existence of a thing in a category being defined as something which can fit into another category is proof.
And by the way, the only way you can prove something is impossible is via reasoning. Because being unable to find an example does not prove its impossible for to it to exist. Just because i personally cant make a dog do a backflip and cannot find a picture of a dog doing a backlflip, is not proof that its impossible for a dog to do a backflip.
this is why i'm not asking you to prove its impossible, because that is an unfair burden. I am basing my reasoning on the fact that a staff(also a quarterstaff) RAW, and A staff can be used as a quarterstaff and an arcane focus RAW.
and a staff is weapon (as the head designer interprets the rules)
you dont need another example.
Also nothing they have said even implies items can only belong to one category.
As far as the guidance on creating items, it is advice for items that work within the framework of the game. And thats the other thing you are missing, rules of 5e arent just written based on whats in the phb, they are written to house homebrew, future modules, past modules, and third party creators. The created monsters, worlds, items are still supposed to work within the 5e framework, thats actually a major part of its game design. Thats why 5e generally avoids saying things are impossible, that just closes design space.
And lastly, if its possible for an item to be a weapon, but not belong to the Weapon category, as you seem to be suggesting, its also impossible to tell when rules are refering to weapons(that arent categorised as weapons) and weapons(the category) without extra text or guidance.
Essentially whether a rule means weapon(that arent in the weapon category) or weapons(the category) are totally arbitrary and up to the DM. If a rule says quarterstaff does it mean an item used as quarterstaff(but not actually in the quartestaff category) or does it mean quarterstaff(category of weapon).
thats the type of weird world you are creating by treating categories as entities seperate from what they are defining. A world were you cant reliably apply rules to things.