Quote:
Originally Posted by hcobb
Page 148 is correct. Read further down: "A wand. Advantages: light, stylish, can be concealed. Disadvantage: does no damage of its own if you strike with it."
The mundane strike of a wizard's staff is a magical weapon attack. And therefore is effective against targets only harmed by magical weapons.
Example: a gargoyle wizard flies 8 hexes in a straight line (not her first turn of flight), lands, and strikes a wight for three dice of magical weapon damage with her silver halberd staff, at an average risk of three silver pieces for the attack, but no ST cost.
If she used the occult strike on a wraith or green slime (which are immune to mere magical weapons) then it would cost 1 ST and do one die, again at an average risk of three silver pieces.
|
No. The above post is making obscure unexplained references (to Wights and "risk of three silver pieces") that are probably only going to confuse people here wondering if the Staff arcane attack costs ST or not. It does cost 1 ST to use the arcane attack.
That part of page 148 is the original text from the original 1980 book
Advanced Wizard, and didn't get reviewed when (right before the new ITL got finalized) Steve made a change to the staff spells.
(To reply to hcobb's obscure notion above: GMs may or may not retcon it to now mean that you can use a weapon that happens to be a staff to do a mundane attack to damage a creature that's immune to non-magical attacks, but that's not an intentional statement about that on page 148. Personally, I would say that Staff may be an enchantment, but it doesn't mean mundane with the weapon now do magic damage, because the new Staff spell doesn't do damage by hitting things. It would no more count as magic damage that it would if you put any other irrelevant enchantment on a weapon. e.g. a dagger with a Light spell on it is not suddenly going to be able to hurt creatures who can only be hurt with magic weapons.)