Staff in your corner

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I would think both, right?

So you're happy to not see the target two yards behind you that you zap with the wand in your front pocket?

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by hcobb

So you're happy to not see the target two yards behind you that you zap with the wand in your front pocket?

So first off, I would drop the "or wearing" language because that's just confusing. The wizard must be holding the staff/rod/wand in order to use any of its abilities.

Second, the wizard must be aware of anyone they want to target with the 'occult strike'. I would expect that the rules assume you can see a target in your rear hexes by quickly glancing over your shoulder, right? That simple action should be sufficient to then unleash an 'occult strike' against said opponent I think.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

So first off, I would drop the "or wearing" language because that's just confusing. The wizard must be holding the staff/rod/wand in order to use any of its abilities.

That is the language in the source.

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Second, the wizard must be aware of anyone they want to target with the 'occult strike'. I would expect that the rules assume you can see a target in your rear hexes by quickly glancing over your shoulder, right? That simple action should be sufficient to then unleash an 'occult strike' against said opponent I think.

But not a thrown or missile spell, or a weapon attack, or any other use of a magic item other than a creation spell?

[Skarg]

A spell can be cast into adjacent side or rear hexes.

Originally Posted by ITL p.106

... may cast a spell into any adjacent hex ...

So since Staff III reads:

its occult attack may strike a figure two hexes away in any direction from the wizard

This doesn't seem like a huge stretch to accept what the spell description says, without having to rationalize that the staff also becomes a viewing device.

I do think it's an unfortunate spell ability in that it is a bit peculiar and unclear what it implies for roleplaying situations - it does seem to require an ability to sense who is within 2 hexes of you in any direction, even if there were a wall or shadow or complete darkness or the caster is blind or something, which in an RPG wants more than a combat rule in terms of what that power is and whether you can use it to understand who is where around you for other purposes, or not, and in what circumstances it works or not, etc.

Personally, I would tend to want to reduce it to targets you could cast a spell on because you know they are there from your own senses, and to not let it zap through walls or other figures, etc.

But if it does intend a 2-hex sphere of awareness, then I'd want to flesh that out and maybe apply it to invisible and astral figures, etc. But as with most of the new staff powers, I'd tend to want those to be their own spells rather than bonus abilities you get just for having an already great-and-needed power the staff gives you (i.e. staff mana).

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by hcobb

That is the language in the source.

Yes, but that doesn't make it right. How do you 'wear' a staff?

Originally Posted by hcobb

But not a thrown or missile spell, or a weapon attack, or any other use of a magic item other than a creation spell?

My impression is that the 'occult strike' works like none of those spell types (which is one my issues the the Staff spells as currently implemented TBH).

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Yes, but that doesn't make it right. How do you 'wear' a staff?

No ma'am, I just got a wand in me pocket.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Yes, but that doesn't make it right. How do you 'wear' a staff?

Madam Zap's staff is a hairpin.

Blogvo has a strap on his staff and tends to carry it slung on his back.

Slicem the Wizard's staff is a sword which is often worn in a scabbard.

Pokem's staff is a dagger which also has a sheath, concealed under his arm.

But I think the wording may be a holdover from Steve's previous version, which IIRC allowed the staff to be jewelry.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Madam Zap's staff is a hairpin.

Blogvo has a strap on his staff and tends to carry it slung on his back.

Slicem the Wizard's staff is a sword which is often worn in a scabbard.

Pokem's staff is a dagger which also has a sheath, concealed under his arm.

But I think the wording may be a holdover from Steve's previous version, which IIRC allowed the staff to be jewelry.

And I would not allow the wizard to use the powers from his staff for any of these scenarios. Direct physical contact (flesh-to-wood) should be required IMO.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

And I would not allow the wizard to use the powers from his staff for any of these scenarios. Direct physical contact (flesh-to-wood) should be required IMO.

What if you strap your wand to your upper arm under your robe? Would you need to point the arm at the target behind you?