Question about ST cost when using a staff occult attack

[Tolenkar]

In the new ITL there seems to be a discrepancy about whether a wizard needs to use an ST point in order to make an occult attack with his/her staff. Under the Staff spell on page 18 of the PDF book it states that a wizard's staff is an occult weapon and that: "It costs the wizard no ST to do this; it is not drawing its power from him". However, it says in the printed book version, on the same page, that: "the wizard spends 1 ST and makes a regular die roll to hit".

On page 148 (in both the PDF and printed versions), under Magical Items, it seems to to indicate that there is no ST expenditure to use the staff, stating: "The wizard can strike with it (Wizard's Staff) to do magical damage without casting a spell himself or otherwise expending strength.".

So, my question: does a wizard spend an ST for striking with his staff, or not.

-Tolenkar

[Skarg]

Yes, it requires 1 ST to do the new "arcane" staff attack. The page 148 is left over from original TFT and didn't get changed.

You are looking at an older version of page 18 of the PDF, not the final one. Steve adjusted the staff spells for the final version, making several balance adjustments.

(Both the wordings you are reading are from original TFT, where a Staff attack meant physically hitting with the staff.)

[Tolenkar]

So, that means it does cost 1 ST to strike with a staff?

[Skarg]

Yes it does.

[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.

[Skarg]

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.)

[FireHorse]

Originally Posted by Skarg

No.

What? You mean it does not count as magical damage when I punch somebody in the face while wearing a magic Ring of Protection? Drat! My scheme for an Invincible Kung Fu Master may have been thwarted…

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by FireHorse

Drat! My scheme for an Invincible Kung Fu Master may have been thwarted…

Prospective masters of the mystic martial arts, please apply here...

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...highlight=Monk

[FireHorse]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Prospective masters of the mystic martial arts, please apply here...

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...highlight=Monk

Danke für den Link! That looks like a cool take — I shall read further, and then comment there…

[Chris Rice]

But the Staff Attack in the new "Wizard" rules does not require a ST expenditure, at least not in the PDF I have. I haven't yet got the physical copy so don't know if that is final.