Runestaffs and UMD

[Cybris75]

Hello playgrounders,

would you as a DM allow the following:

- a Cleric activating a runestaff, casting only spells on the cleric list
- a Cleric activating a runestaff, casting only domain spells (maybe using his domain slots)
- a Cleric activating a runestaff with non-cleric spells with UMD
- a Bard activating a runestaff with non-bard spells with UMD
- a Wizard activating a runestaff with spells from his forbidden schools with UMD
- a Rogue activating a runestaff with UMD

Edit: And another question: is a runestaff a spell trigger item? If yes, the "use a wand" usage of UMD would apply.

[Lightlawbliss]

1. I can see no reason a Divine magic runestaff couldn't exist.
2. I personally would have no problem with a runestaff of Divine spells from a Domain
3-6. The runestaff allows casting a spell by expending a spell slot (all the staffs I see are Arcane but that doesn't prohibit Divine). As I see it, there is nothing for UMD to directly do here...though I might allow UMD to use a wand or staff as fuel instead of slots you yourself possess.

[ArcturusV]

Near as I can figure UMD wouldn't do anything for it. At least in cases like the prohibited school. The staff itself just adds a spell available. But the wizard is still prohibited from casting spells from their forbidden school. Note that near as I can figure even normally a wizard can't UMD wands or staves so you don't even have that backdoor logic to work, as UMD lets you emulate a class feature, but doesn't actually negate the "Cannot use scrolls or wands" rule, nor does UMD let you remove a quality from yourself necessarily.

[Jack_Simth]

Hello playgrounders,

would you as a DM allow the following:

- a Cleric activating a runestaff, casting only spells on the cleric list

Runestaff specifies you must burn Arcane spell slots. No effect.

- a Cleric activating a runestaff, casting only domain spells (maybe using his domain slots)
Runestaff specifies you must burn Arcane spell slots. No effect.


- a Cleric activating a runestaff with non-cleric spells with UMD
Runestaff specifies you must burn Arcane spell slots. However, the book example of UMD permits a rogue to activate something that burns turn undead attempts. Character needs to make a check suitable UMD check to emulate a Wizard level high enough to actually cast that spell, in addition to a UMD check to emulate an ability score high enough to cast that spell. Further castings of the same spell level from the Runestaff later in the day will need to increase one or the other check (for bonus spell slots or more base spell slots).


- a Bard activating a runestaff with non-bard spells with UMD

Bard has two options.

He can either just make the check sufficient to get the spells on his class list, and burn his own slots, or he can use the much more difficult UMD check the Cleric in the above uses.


- a Wizard activating a runestaff with staff from his forbidden schools with UMDSame as the Bard in the example above.


- a Rogue activating a runestaff with UMD
See Cleric.

[Cybris75]

1. I can see no reason a Divine magic runestaff couldn't exist.

Well, the MIC says there are only arcane runestaffs. In this specific question I was thinking about spells that are on the Sorcerer/Wizard AND the Cleric list (e.g. Dispel Magic). I was thinking about the existing items, but of course one can houserule divine runestaffs to exist.


though I might allow UMD to use a wand or staff as fuel instead of slots you yourself possess.

That's pretty radical, and usually stuff like this would warrant a feat or special class feature. I was thinking more about the "Emulate a class feature" version of UMD in my rogue question. (Personally, I wouldn't let that fly, because a rogue might pretend to have spell slots with UMD, but the staff could never use them.)

[DEMON]

Not the Rogue - he doesn't have any spell slots to expend and thus cannot actually utilize the runestaff. A Beguiler, or Bard, on the other hand, could.

Other uses as described above seem legal to me, provided the character also expends his slot.

Domain staves are similar to runestaffs for domain spells, albeit you can only cast each spell once a day.

[Thiyr]

3-5 are, as far as i'm aware, commonly accepted as how it works. Runestaves normally require it to be on your class spell list, but by emulating the class feature of a different spellcasting class, that would allow you to activate such a runestaff (provided you still use up a spell slot as per normal). 6 is _technically_ possible, but as rogues don't have spell slots to use, it wouldn't accomplish anything. Being reasonable readings of the rules and not really skirting the intent of the rules afaict, I'd allow it. 1 and 2 are, in my opinion, reasonable extensions of the rules, so I'd consider it. Maybe "Domain Staves", which must consist of a domain list from 1st level spells up (perhaps partial lists that are cheaper as well). Largely because clerics already get so much versatility in what they have available, between domains, knowing their entire spell list, and spont casting cure spells.

EDIT:

However, the book example of UMD permits a rogue to activate something that burns turn undead attempts. Character needs to make a check suitable UMD check to emulate a Wizard level high enough to actually cast that spell, in addition to a UMD check to emulate an ability score high enough to cast that spell. Further castings of the same spell level from the Runestaff later in the day will need to increase one or the other check (for bonus spell slots or more base spell slots).

I'd disagree with this. The example given doesn't mention the item given requiring the actual expenditure of a TU attempt (and it isn't a listed item, making it hard to adjudicate outside of the words given). It mentions channeling positive energy like using TU, but this could also be a fluffy way of saying "This only works for people with TU". The only other thing we have to go on is the UMD rules, which says

This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class.
And the rules of runestaves include verbiage requiring a) attunement to the runestaff in question when preparing spells, and b) expending a spell slot, neither of which the rogue can fake with UMD.

[Hypothetical generalization of] You can lie as much as you want. It can get you into a shooting range without a firearm, but it can't put a bullet into a target.

[Cybris75]

Near as I can figure UMD wouldn't do anything for it. At least in cases like the prohibited school.

I asked that question a few months ago (can't find the thread right now), and many posters said that the "cannot use spell-trigger or spell-completion items" clause was a general rule, while UMD was more specific and would supercede the general rule.

Anyway, my question assumed that UMD works for normal staffs even for spells from a prohibited school. Unfortunately there are no specific rules regarding UMD and runestaffs, and I would probably just assume that a runestaff is a kind of staff.

[Cybris75]

Runestaff specifies you must burn Arcane spell slots. However, the book example of UMD permits a rogue to activate something that burns turn undead attempts.

Great find, I'm so used to the SRD that I rarely check the PHB. In that example, the rogue not only pretends to have turn undead, she actually emulates using turn undead!

[DEMON]

Great find, I'm so used to the SRD that I rarely check the PHB. In that example, the rogue not only pretends to have turn undead, she actually emulates using turn undead!

I'm still not convinced, but YMMV. Partly because the example used some item I have never heard of and partly because rules compendium states:


Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result –20. This skill doesn’t let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature.

Since you need to expend a spell slot (i.e. use the class feature), I would rule it you cannot active a runestaff w/out actually having a spell slot to expend and expending it.

[Toliudar]

From the UMD Skill description:


This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class.

I would consider spell slots a class feature. You can pretend to have caster levels for the purposes of casting a scroll. But you can't use UMD to actually prepare spells or create spell slots, so there's nothing to power the runestaff. I would not permit scenarios 3-6 to work.

[Cybris75]

But you can't use UMD to actually prepare spells or create spell slots, so there's nothing to power the runestaff. I would not permit scenarios 3-6 to work.

In all examples except number 6 spell slots would be spent; why do you say 3-5 wouldn't work?

[ArcturusV]

Because the character in question wouldn't have an appropriate spell slot.

For example, if you were a Cleric 3/Wizard 3... you can't cast Fly out of your Cleric 3 spot, or your Cleric 3 Domain slot, but only out of the Wizard 3 slot.

That's probably what he's getting at.

[Cybris75]

Since you need to expend a spell slot (i.e. use the class feature), I would rule it you cannot active a runestaff w/out actually having a spell slot to expend and expending it.

The PHB rules and the example are contradictory. The example where Lidda uses turn undead is directly followed by the paragraph that states she can't actually do that. Are examples within the rules text considered part of the rules?

Actually, the quote is


This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature.

I read this as "You can't actually turn undead, but you can activate an item as if you were turning undead". Or, regarding staffs "You can't actually use the emulated spell slot, but you can activate an item as if you had the spell splot"

[DEMON]

The PHB rules and the example are contradictory. The example where Lidda uses turn undead is directly followed by the paragraph that states she can't actually do that.

I am also of the opinion that the ruling contradicts itself.


I read this as "You can't actually turn undead, but you can activate an item as if you were turning undead". Or, regarding staffs "You can't actually use the emulated spell slot, but you can activate an item as if you had the spell splot"

I see where you are going and actually I must admit that yours is a reasonable ruling. I would still not allow this in my campaigns, but am willing to admit it might be just (another) house-ruling on my part.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I read this as "You can't actually turn undead, but you can activate an item as if you were turning undead". Or, regarding staffs "You can't actually use the emulated spell slot, but you can activate an item as if you had the spell splot"
A Rune staff is powered by spell slots its not simply activated by them without spell slots expended there is nothing to power the staff. If an item is activated by turn undead then sure a rogue could UMD it. But if the energy is actually required to power the device there is nothing the rogue can do.

The example item Lidda emulates turn undead for.... doesn't actually exist. There is no chalice that makes holy water by having a cleric expend a turn undead attempt. But the line "This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." Tells us the made up item must simply be activated by channeling positive energy not actually powered.

[Cybris75]

If an item is activated by turn undead then sure a rogue could UMD it. But if the energy is actually required to power the device there is nothing the rogue can do.

The example in the PHB says otherwise.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The example in the PHB says otherwise.

Nope the example in the PHB is a non-existent item. The example doesn't say the chalice is powered by a turn undead attempt simply that its activated by it. There's no actual chalice in the DMG or anywhere else to reference.

The line "This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." Tells us Chalice made up simply as a UMD example must only be activated by turn undead not powered.

[Toliudar]

The example does indeed clearly contradict the rule. But the rule is simple and quite clear: you can pretend to be something (an alignment, a spellcaster, etc), but you can't DO the things that that thing can do. Otherwise, with UMD I should be able to emulate a 20th level wizard's ability to cast Time Stop, and actually cast Time Stop.

If you follow your line of reasoning, Cybris, the runestaff is actually contributing nothing to the equation. A runestaff doesn't have magical energy in it, simply the ability to channel specific kinds of spell slots into specific forms. If the use of a skill can create that spell slot (or transform something that isn't that spell slot into something that is, in the case of the cleric or bard with UMD), then it doesn't need the runestaff in the first place.

Now, I could absolutely see the use of homebrew runestaves that run off of different kinds of spell slots. Bardic runestaffs, assassin runestaffs, etc. But that's a different question.

[Cybris75]

Nope the example in the PHB is a non-existent item. The example doesn't say the chalice is powered by a turn undead attempt simply that its activated by it. There's no actual chalice in the DMG or anywhere else to reference.

I know that this item only exists in this example.


For example, Lidda finds a magic chalice that turns regular water into holy water when a cleric or an experienced paladin channels positive energy into it as if turning undead.

I see your point; the chalice is activated by channelling positive energy into it. It does not say that the chalice needs the energy for anything. Still, Lidda can fake channelling positive energy (i.e. the trigger for the device).


A runestaff allows its wielder to use her own arcane energy to generate magical effects.

The rules about runestaffs don't actually say that the staff or spell is powered by arcane energy - they just say arcane energy is used.

Well, I think this is hairsplitting and houserule-worthy. "Arcane energy" is not actually a defined term, and the rest of the rules talk about spell slots, which I guess UMD can emulate as a class feature.

[Deophaun]

-You can emulate having a spell on your list (at the very least, a specialist wizard could emulate being a sorcerer).
-You can emulate having spell slots.
-You cannot emulate spending spell slots.

So 4 & 5 are fine (runestaffs only require you to spend arcane spell slots, not wizard or sorcerer or bard or duskblade or beguiler spell slots). 6 is not.

[Cybris75]

And another question: is a runestaff a spell trigger item? If yes, the "use a wand" usage of UMD would apply.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The rules about runestaffs don't actually say that the staff or spell is powered by arcane energy - they just say arcane energy is used.


"A runestaff allows its wielder to use her own arcane energy to generate magical effects."
Excuse me but that says there powering the staff with their own arcane energies, further more runestaves require you supply any xp or material components which on a regular staff would be provided by the item. Its quite clear the staff is powered by the arcane spell slot its the reason runestaves don't have charges to begin with.


And another question: is a runestaff a spell trigger item? If yes, the "use a wand" usage of UMD would apply.

By appearances no, spell trigger items require you speak an activation word of some sort but no gestures or spell finishing is required. All the spell components are supplied by the staff. Spell trigger items have no arcane spell failure for example Runestaves actually require the caster provide all the somantc*, verbal, material and xp components and are subject to arcane spell failure. *Though they can use the hand holding the staff for somatic components.

So actually there spell completion items at best but even that doesn't fit as scrolls provide the xp and material components and have a fixed caster level. They also don't require expending spell slots either.

[ArcturusV]

-You can emulate having a spell on your list (at the very least, a specialist wizard could emulate being a sorcerer).
-You can emulate having spell slots.
-You cannot emulate spending spell slots.

So 4 & 5 are fine (runestaffs only require you to spend arcane spell slots, not wizard or sorcerer or bard or duskblade or beguiler spell slots). 6 is not.

I ponder that actually. Have a class feature, yes. So you could emulate having the spellcasting feature of a class to be considered having spellcasting equal to check result -20 (Though in the case of a specialist wizard I'd think the school restriction still applies). I would think that RAW wise now that I"m really looking at the wording, that you could emulate spending a spell slot. Key phrasing I'm thinking of is from page 86, under "Emulate a Class Feature:" saying "Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item." Meaning that using it means you're using that class feature, in this case the spellcasting of Class X at level Y where Y is Check Result -20. So if I roll a 25 I count as being a 5th level wizard for example, and my Cleric could expend a wizard's 3rd level spell slot on a 3rd level spell Rune Staff. Though I would have to make a check every time I tried to do that.

... least RAW wise... it SEEMS to suggest that to me as I read it. Though I realize that is insanely powerful and needs to be slapped down (Otherwise you could emulate unlimited spell slots for all day long casting).

[Thiyr]

A runestaff is not a spell trigger item. It still requires at the very least somatic and material components, while spell trigger states "No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know"

Also, all this talk of that example I find kinda silly, what with examples constantly being wrong in other books. I wish it were easier to find a decent list, but things like the Abjurant Champion thinking mage armor is abjuration, the master of 9 example build being wrong, etc, are all solid displays of why examples can and are often safely ignored. But again, even within that example, I direct you to my analogy. UMD can fake having TU, spellcasting, etc, but it can't actually give it. No matter how convincing your carved wooden bullets are, they will not fire.

[Vortenger]

1. I can see no reason a Divine magic runestaff couldn't exist.
2. I personally would have no problem with a runestaff of Divine spells from a Domain


These already exist. Domain Staves are printed in Complete Champion and have nearly the exact same rules as runestaves, just with a divine bent. Don't make things up if they already have a stat block, I always say.

[Lightlawbliss]

These already exist. Domain Staves are printed in Complete Champion and have nearly the exact same rules as runestaves, just with a divine bent. Don't make things up if they already have a stat block, I always say.

Domain staffs are similar in idea but significantly different in actual use. among other differences, domain staves can activate each spell 1 a day and have more spells available, while a runestaff is 3 a day of a shorter list. Which is better depends on the desired use.

[Big Fau]

I think they made the Runestaves arcane-only because most Divine casters know their entire spell list (or, in the Spirit Shaman's case, can get access to the rest of it).

[Jack_Simth]

I'd disagree with this. The example given doesn't mention the item given requiring the actual expenditure of a TU attempt (and it isn't a listed item, making it hard to adjudicate outside of the words given). It mentions channeling positive energy like using TU, but this could also be a fluffy way of saying "This only works for people with TU". The only other thing we have to go on is the UMD rules, which says
Well, I think this is hairsplitting and houserule-worthy.

A Rune staff is powered by spell slots its not simply activated by them without spell slots expended there is nothing to power the staff. If an item is activated by turn undead then sure a rogue could UMD it. But if the energy is actually required to power the device there is nothing the rogue can do.

As the presence of the argument clearly indicates, the specific interactions are not entirely clear - just like a great many other interactions in D&D. Like in pretty much all such cases, the person who needs to answer is the DM in question. I answered as the original post phrased the question - how would I rule if I were the DM. I'm making no claims that my interpretation is strict RAW in the absolute sense - I am, however, replying based on what I believe the intent to be. Besides: If the low-tier rogue wants to spend 35,000 gp on buying a Runestaff of Time, and make both high DC UMD checks (37 for the class feature, 34 for the Int) to cast Time Stop once a day... well, it still isn't going to put the rogue on the level of the Wizard-17 who could do it without a roll. The rules aren't fully clear on the subject, it seems at least a bit reasonable to me, and it's not something I expect to break the game... so I'm probably going to allow it.

[Cybris75]

As the presence of the argument clearly indicates, the specific interactions are not entirely clear - just like a great many other interactions in D&D.

I agree.


well, it still isn't going to put the rogue on the level of the Wizard-17 who could do it without a roll.

Yes, but if you allow this usage to the Rogue (UMD without spending a spell slot), you would also allow a Wizard/Loremaster, or a Wizard with Able Learner, etc., to cast more high level spells than he should, giving him the flexibility of the Wizard plus the staying/spamming power of the sorcerer.

[Vortenger]

Domain staffs are similar in idea but significantly different in actual use. among other differences, domain staves can activate each spell 1 a day and have more spells available, while a runestaff is 3 a day of a shorter list. Which is better depends on the desired use.

Several are 1/day abilities. The Runestaff of Power (my personal favorite due to the passive buffs), for example is 1/per day on all spells granted.

Honestly, I'd hope that a divine and arcane version of similar items would have slightly different use and application, they are after all supposed to come from very distinct and separate sources of power. It is undeniable that they are an in game parallel to each other, however. I guess the idea of making a divine runestaff or an arcane domain staff (since we have the inverse this seems to be the next logical step, right?) acceptable in-game seems like it defeats the concept of the item altogether. It ruins the flavor. To each their own, though.

[Jack_Simth]

Yes, but if you allow this usage to the Rogue (UMD without spending a spell slot), you would also allow a Wizard/Loremaster, or a Wizard with Able Learner, etc., to cast more high level spells than he should, giving him the flexibility of the Wizard plus the staying/spamming power of the sorcerer.He doesn't get as much spamming power as you might think. You can only be attuned to one runestaff at a time (UMD does not help you with that), and a lot of the more useful runestaffs are 1 per day per spell. Plus a Wizard with UMD is a lot less common, and Wizards often end up with misprepared spell slots that they could burn on the Runestaff anyway. While it does boost the Wizard slightly, the UMD option is a much bigger boon to the Rogue than it is the Wizard.