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.
You're attempting to draw a distinction without a meaningful difference. It's only "redundant" to you because you're intentionally conflating two different Magic Item Categories. A staff is a Staff, and a weapon is a Weapon. Just because a magical Staff can be used as a weapon doesn't mean it's a magical Weapon. In fact, the rules explicitly state they're not unless the description otherwise says so.
For example, a Enspelled Staff can be used as a Spellcasting Focus and a nonmagical Quarterstaff. If all its charges have been expended and loses its magical properties, then it ceases to be usable as a Spellcasting Focus.
I know you don't want to believe it, but an item's Magic Item Category does matter. The core rules wouldn't draw attention to such rules otherwise. No one is saying you can't have a Staff or Wooden Staff with a Weapon enhancement on their Quarterstaff functionality. We're saying permission to replicate magic items from the Staff category isn't expressly granted, so they're off limits.
You're not saying it would be "redundant" to include the Staffs category because you think they're all Weapons. You're calling the Magic Item Category, itself, redundant.
And that's the epitome of foolishness. It exists. It's RAW.
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 can find a +1 quarterstaff. That would be a weapon with a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. You could find a staff that adds +1 to spell attacks. Those are two different kinds of +1s. There are magic staffs in the game that explicitly have a bonus to attack/damage rolls and a bonus to spell attacks. But those are spelled out in the item itself, not as a general rule. Most magic items are based on exceptions spelled out in the item itself, so I don't see them as being examples of rules precedence.
You can use a staff to perform true strike. Because that implies "using" a staff as a weapon. Note this is not "creating" a staff as a weapon, as would be the case for it to apply with Replicate Magic Item. Crafting ≠ using. Replicating ≠ using.
Casting Elemental Weapon on a staff is an interesting case because it tests the borders of things. Enhancing ≠ using. However, in play I wouldn't deny it as DM, because the purpose of it is clear. It would be for using the staff as a weapon. I don't know if I'd call that RAW.
Beyond that, I don't think the purpose of allowing Replicate Magic Item to make a staff is for using the staff as a weapon. To me, it seems very much the purpose of that is to dance around the category restrictions defined in the 2024 Artificer UA.
In practice as a DM, if asked, I might be inclined to allow an Artificer to replicate an Enspelled Staff because I consider it similar enough to Enspelled Weapon, and Enspelled Armor for it not to be an issue. But I wouldn't go further than that and allow other (uncommon+) staffs. And a convoluted series or rules-lawyery justfications would test my patience and make me less likely to allow it at all. Granted, nothing about what I would allow or not has any bearing on the nature of staffs, RAW.
None of that is a statement where I consider it RAW that "staff is a type of weapon all the time."
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 can find a +1 quarterstaff. That would be a weapon with a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. You could find a staff that adds +1 to spell attacks. Those are two different kinds of +1s. There are magic staffs in the game that explicitly have a bonus to attack/damage rolls and a bonus to spell attacks. But those are spelled out in the item itself, not as a general rule. Most magic items are based on exceptions spelled out in the item itself, so I don't see them as being examples of rules precedence.
You can use a staff to perform true strike. Because that implies "using" a staff as a weapon. Note this is not "creating" a staff as a weapon, as would be the case for it to apply with Replicate Magic Item. Crafting ≠ using. Replicating ≠ using.
Casting Elemental Weapon on a staff is an interesting case because it tests the borders of things. Enhancing ≠ using. However, in play I wouldn't deny it as DM, because the purpose of it is clear. It would be for using the staff as a weapon. I don't know if I'd call that RAW.
Beyond that, I don't think the purpose of allowing Replicate Magic Item to make a staff is for using the staff as a weapon. To me, it seems very much the purpose of that is to dance around the category restrictions defined in the 2024 Artificer UA.
In practice as a DM, if asked, I might be inclined to allow an Artificer to replicate an Enspelled Staff because I consider it similar enough to Enspelled Weapon, and Enspelled Armor for it not to be an issue. But I wouldn't go further than that and allow other (uncommon+) staffs. And a convoluted series or rules-lawyery justfications would test my patience and make me less likely to allow it at all. Granted, nothing about what I would allow or not has any bearing on the nature of staffs, RAW.
None of that is a statement where I consider it RAW that "staff is a type of weapon all the time."
Do you consider the staff to be an arcane focus?
why is a staff an arcane focus and nit just an arcane focus some of the time?
the rule that says its an arcane focus has the same language for it being a quarterstaff. IE it says used as a quarterstaff and an arcane focus.
the table that says its an arcane focus declares that a staff(also a quarterstaff)
so if a soell or ability allowed you to create or enchant an arcane focus would it work on a staff?
Overall it seems like you are more in the 3. school, as in a staff is sometimes a weapon, mostly determined on your DM ruling of what is "use'
Also interesting you would say a +1 staff would be for spell attack, as there is no +1 staff magic item in the dmg, and on existing staffs, the bonus is always to attack and damage rolls. Staff of power, staff of striking, staff of the magi, staff of woodland creatures, staff of lightning and thunder . Which seems to suggest its +1 progression would be as a weapon.
which is tagged as staff(quarterstaff) in dnd beyond. how do you interpret this abomination? A clear violation of the concept that a magic item cant be both a staff and a weapon. Though i would say the difference here is one would assume its a quarterstaff if it didnt say staff. whereas (to me) a staff is always also a quarterstaff.
Anyhow, its fine you rule as you see fit, and you created an interpretation of the rules, which is what generally happens when rules are unclear, i would expect Every DM to make different decisions on when its a weapon and when its not with this ideology.
So, generally i would say, if the intent is that a staff is only a weapon sometimes, they should clearly explain when it is not, so most tables are on the same page. Which at this point would need to be errata.
And, since its actually unclear and will vary from table to table when a staff is a quarterstaff and when its not. If they want to exclude staffs from artificers, they should either say, items with the weapon tag in their descriptions, or just specifically exclude staffs, like weapons other than staffs, or not staffs.
They could also have someone mention it in a faq or video and hope it propogates in the community,
but as of now based on this thread, DMs have no consistent understanding of when 'use as' a quarterstaff applies.
For me the Raw says its clearly a weapon, and a quarterstaff in addition to being an arcane focus. and works wherever a rule says weapon or quarterstaff that would have been my ruling before artificer existed, I dont have to make any case by case adjucations.
and its also how my version of the PHB treats it. (foundryVTT) its in the weapons section, and its tooltip language says it functions as a quarterstaff. (so i am not the only one who sees it this way), to me it also fits all available data and usecases, as they litterally become quarterstaffs when their magic is expended.
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.
You're attempting to draw a distinction without a meaningful difference. It's only "redundant" to you because you're intentionally conflating two different Magic Item Categories. A staff is a Staff, and a weapon is a Weapon. Just because a magical Staff can be used as a weapon doesn't mean it's a magical Weapon. In fact, the rules explicitly state they're not unless the description otherwise says so.
For example, a Enspelled Staff can be used as a Spellcasting Focus and a nonmagical Quarterstaff. If all its charges have been expended and loses its magical properties, then it ceases to be usable as a Spellcasting Focus.
I know you don't want to believe it, but an item's Magic Item Category does matter. The core rules wouldn't draw attention to such rules otherwise. No one is saying you can't have a Staff or Wooden Staff with a Weapon enhancement on their Quarterstaff functionality. We're saying permission to replicate magic items from the Staff category isn't expressly granted, so they're off limits.
You're not saying it would be "redundant" to include the Staffs category because you think they're all Weapons. You're calling the Magic Item Category, itself, redundant.
And that's the epitome of foolishness. It exists. It's RAW.
You are not a serious person.
i never said its a magical weapon in 2024. i said its a weapon. In 2014 crawford said it was a magic weapon, because in 2014 it didnt say it can be treated as a nonmagical quarterstaff.
And the theory of the great impossibility for a weapon to be two categories, we have a quarterstaff that is also a staff.
we have shattered the impossibility matrix folks. I guess a staff is a staff and a weapon is weapon is demonstratably false now.
its also interesting you choose not to say the other part of what happens when an enspelled staff loses its magic which is that it becomes a non magical quarterstaff, almost as if it is at is core a quarterstaff with magical properties that make it an arcane focus.
And we finish off with you attacking my charachter, as opposed to the things i am saying. Class act you get bonus points.
Dont be mad later when you find out that staffs are in fact quarterstaffs. See ya.
why is a staff an arcane focus and nit just an arcane focus some of the time?
the rule that says its an arcane focus has the same language for it being a quarterstaff. IE it says used as a quarterstaff and an arcane focus.
the table that says its an arcane focus declares that a staff(also a quarterstaff)
so if a soell or ability allowed you to create or enchant an arcane focus would it work on a staff?
A staff is an arcane focus yes. It's defined as such in the the table.
I already explained what I think "(also a quarterstaff)" part of the entry of staff in the Arcane Focus table means in an earlier post in this thread. I won't repeat myself because I don't enjoy talking in circles.
If a spell or ability allowed you to create or enchant an Arcane Focus, yes, it would work on a staff, because it is an arcane focus. Arcane Focus is an umbrella category that includes staff.
Note that me stating what I think is not an attempt to change what you think, I don't have the energy to argue this stuff. I'm just stating thoughts. If you must in your mind assign me to your #3 category, go right ahead. I don't care. I still see it as 2. How, I hypothetically run a game does not change what the rules are, it just changes how the game itself runs.
An arcane focus can be a crystal, orb, staff, wand..
Not just any crystal you pick up at random by the side of the road is an arcane focus. That's part of why they have different cost.
Not just any old orb is an arcane focus. Some are just marbles or balls.
Staves and wands? Not just any switch or stick qualifies as an arcane focus, just as not just any quarterstaff is a longbow, and not all wands are woven to form wattle for walls.
So we see a thing can belong to the categories that come under the arcane focus umbrella, but hardly any of them belong to the arcane focus set.
Can we stop beating this dead horse with quarterstaves?
i never said its a magical weapon in 2024. i said its a weapon. In 2014 crawford said it was a magic weapon, because in 2014 it didnt say it can be treated as a nonmagical quarterstaff.
Jeremy Crawford's unofficial opinion in 2016 has been overruled by the 2024 DMG. His 2016 opinion on this topic is not relevant to the 2024 discussion.
As DM, I allow an arcane focus staff to be used as a quarterstaff. #DnD
This suggests that his use of a staff as a quarterstaff is unofficial. However, his opinion is not RAW. And it no longer matters in 2024 because the rule has been changed.
There's little more frustrating than incredibly dense people who think they're incredibly smart. Kudos to you guys for beating your heads against that particular brick wall of obtuseness. JFC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're attempting to draw a distinction without a meaningful difference. It's only "redundant" to you because you're intentionally conflating two different Magic Item Categories. A staff is a Staff, and a weapon is a Weapon. Just because a magical Staff can be used as a weapon doesn't mean it's a magical Weapon. In fact, the rules explicitly state they're not unless the description otherwise says so.
For example, a Enspelled Staff can be used as a Spellcasting Focus and a nonmagical Quarterstaff. If all its charges have been expended and loses its magical properties, then it ceases to be usable as a Spellcasting Focus.
I know you don't want to believe it, but an item's Magic Item Category does matter. The core rules wouldn't draw attention to such rules otherwise. No one is saying you can't have a Staff or Wooden Staff with a Weapon enhancement on their Quarterstaff functionality. We're saying permission to replicate magic items from the Staff category isn't expressly granted, so they're off limits.
You're not saying it would be "redundant" to include the Staffs category because you think they're all Weapons. You're calling the Magic Item Category, itself, redundant.
And that's the epitome of foolishness. It exists. It's RAW.
You are not a serious person.
You can find a +1 quarterstaff. That would be a weapon with a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it.
You could find a staff that adds +1 to spell attacks.
Those are two different kinds of +1s.
There are magic staffs in the game that explicitly have a bonus to attack/damage rolls and a bonus to spell attacks. But those are spelled out in the item itself, not as a general rule.
Most magic items are based on exceptions spelled out in the item itself, so I don't see them as being examples of rules precedence.
You can use a staff to perform true strike. Because that implies "using" a staff as a weapon.
Note this is not "creating" a staff as a weapon, as would be the case for it to apply with Replicate Magic Item. Crafting ≠ using. Replicating ≠ using.
Casting Elemental Weapon on a staff is an interesting case because it tests the borders of things. Enhancing ≠ using.
However, in play I wouldn't deny it as DM, because the purpose of it is clear. It would be for using the staff as a weapon. I don't know if I'd call that RAW.
Beyond that, I don't think the purpose of allowing Replicate Magic Item to make a staff is for using the staff as a weapon. To me, it seems very much the purpose of that is to dance around the category restrictions defined in the 2024 Artificer UA.
In practice as a DM, if asked, I might be inclined to allow an Artificer to replicate an Enspelled Staff because I consider it similar enough to Enspelled Weapon, and Enspelled Armor for it not to be an issue. But I wouldn't go further than that and allow other (uncommon+) staffs. And a convoluted series or rules-lawyery justfications would test my patience and make me less likely to allow it at all. Granted, nothing about what I would allow or not has any bearing on the nature of staffs, RAW.
None of that is a statement where I consider it RAW that "staff is a type of weapon all the time."
Do you consider the staff to be an arcane focus?
why is a staff an arcane focus and nit just an arcane focus some of the time?
the rule that says its an arcane focus has the same language for it being a quarterstaff. IE it says used as a quarterstaff and an arcane focus.
the table that says its an arcane focus declares that a staff(also a quarterstaff)
so if a soell or ability allowed you to create or enchant an arcane focus would it work on a staff?
Overall it seems like you are more in the 3. school, as in a staff is sometimes a weapon, mostly determined on your DM ruling of what is "use'
Also interesting you would say a +1 staff would be for spell attack, as there is no +1 staff magic item in the dmg, and on existing staffs, the bonus is always to attack and damage rolls. Staff of power, staff of striking, staff of the magi, staff of woodland creatures, staff of lightning and thunder . Which seems to suggest its +1 progression would be as a weapon.
also this; https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/9058897-quarterstaff-of-the-acrobat
which is tagged as staff(quarterstaff) in dnd beyond. how do you interpret this abomination? A clear violation of the concept that a magic item cant be both a staff and a weapon. Though i would say the difference here is one would assume its a quarterstaff if it didnt say staff. whereas (to me) a staff is always also a quarterstaff.
Anyhow, its fine you rule as you see fit, and you created an interpretation of the rules, which is what generally happens when rules are unclear, i would expect Every DM to make different decisions on when its a weapon and when its not with this ideology.
So, generally i would say, if the intent is that a staff is only a weapon sometimes, they should clearly explain when it is not, so most tables are on the same page. Which at this point would need to be errata.
And, since its actually unclear and will vary from table to table when a staff is a quarterstaff and when its not. If they want to exclude staffs from artificers, they should either say, items with the weapon tag in their descriptions, or just specifically exclude staffs, like weapons other than staffs, or not staffs.
They could also have someone mention it in a faq or video and hope it propogates in the community,
but as of now based on this thread, DMs have no consistent understanding of when 'use as' a quarterstaff applies.
For me the Raw says its clearly a weapon, and a quarterstaff in addition to being an arcane focus. and works wherever a rule says weapon or quarterstaff that would have been my ruling before artificer existed, I dont have to make any case by case adjucations.
and its also how my version of the PHB treats it. (foundryVTT) its in the weapons section, and its tooltip language says it functions as a quarterstaff. (so i am not the only one who sees it this way), to me it also fits all available data and usecases, as they litterally become quarterstaffs when their magic is expended.
but do you.
i never said its a magical weapon in 2024. i said its a weapon. In 2014 crawford said it was a magic weapon, because in 2014 it didnt say it can be treated as a nonmagical quarterstaff.
And the theory of the great impossibility for a weapon to be two categories, we have a quarterstaff that is also a staff.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/9058897-quarterstaff-of-the-acrobat
we have shattered the impossibility matrix folks. I guess a staff is a staff and a weapon is weapon is demonstratably false now.
its also interesting you choose not to say the other part of what happens when an enspelled staff loses its magic which is that it becomes a non magical quarterstaff, almost as if it is at is core a quarterstaff with magical properties that make it an arcane focus.
And we finish off with you attacking my charachter, as opposed to the things i am saying. Class act you get bonus points.
Dont be mad later when you find out that staffs are in fact quarterstaffs. See ya.
A staff is an arcane focus yes. It's defined as such in the the table.
I already explained what I think "(also a quarterstaff)" part of the entry of staff in the Arcane Focus table means in an earlier post in this thread. I won't repeat myself because I don't enjoy talking in circles.
If a spell or ability allowed you to create or enchant an Arcane Focus, yes, it would work on a staff, because it is an arcane focus. Arcane Focus is an umbrella category that includes staff.
Note that me stating what I think is not an attempt to change what you think, I don't have the energy to argue this stuff. I'm just stating thoughts. If you must in your mind assign me to your #3 category, go right ahead. I don't care. I still see it as 2. How, I hypothetically run a game does not change what the rules are, it just changes how the game itself runs.
An arcane focus can be a crystal, orb, staff, wand..
Not just any crystal you pick up at random by the side of the road is an arcane focus. That's part of why they have different cost.
Not just any old orb is an arcane focus. Some are just marbles or balls.
Staves and wands? Not just any switch or stick qualifies as an arcane focus, just as not just any quarterstaff is a longbow, and not all wands are woven to form wattle for walls.
So we see a thing can belong to the categories that come under the arcane focus umbrella, but hardly any of them belong to the arcane focus set.
Can we stop beating this dead horse with quarterstaves?
Jeremy Crawford's unofficial opinion in 2016 has been overruled by the 2024 DMG. His 2016 opinion on this topic is not relevant to the 2024 discussion.
In the same way, it doesn't matter that in 2016 Jeremy Crawford Tweeted:
This suggests that his use of a staff as a quarterstaff is unofficial. However, his opinion is not RAW. And it no longer matters in 2024 because the rule has been changed.
How to add Tooltips.
There's little more frustrating than incredibly dense people who think they're incredibly smart.
Kudos to you guys for beating your heads against that particular brick wall of obtuseness.
JFC.