Mixing
![How do I request for additional softwares for development? [duplicate]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjbpfN9tAutmK93bJRC3ZoROZzi2TJDms5n8_qJuhgE0a9b52OOHayv3NGT8igAdFL7byXNst-_1DZK5SjrIJ28_6RQPUpBROqMs5s6jo-ZsjX8kjDwfxJufIitH3TaQRXWaGSQKRQib-f/s72-c/1.jpg)
Is the charge cost of Wall of Ice an error in the description of the Staff of Frost?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
In the description of the Staff of Frost (DMG, pg. 202), the following is included in its description, detailing spells that can be cast with charges from the staff:
The staff has 10 charges. While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its charges to cast one of the following spells from it, using your spell save DC: cone of cold (5 charges), fog cloud (1 charge), ice storm (4 charges), or wall of ice (4 charges).
That last spell, wall of ice, is a 6th level spell. It should cost 6 charges, shouldn't it? All of the other spells cost a number of charges equal to their spell level (ice storm is a 4th level spell so it costs 4 charges, cone of cold is a 5th level spell so it costs 5 charges, etc).
But not wall of ice, which costs only 4 charges, making it "cheaper" than casting cone of cold, even though wall of ice is a 6th level spell and cone of cold only a 5th level spell.
Do we know if this this a mistake? Has this received errata?
dnd-5e magic-items errata
asked Aug 8 at 17:22
NathanS
13.9k363153
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
In the description of the Staff of Frost (DMG, pg. 202), the following is included in its description, detailing spells that can be cast with charges from the staff:
The staff has 10 charges. While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its charges to cast one of the following spells from it, using your spell save DC: cone of cold (5 charges), fog cloud (1 charge), ice storm (4 charges), or wall of ice (4 charges).
That last spell, wall of ice, is a 6th level spell. It should cost 6 charges, shouldn't it? All of the other spells cost a number of charges equal to their spell level (ice storm is a 4th level spell so it costs 4 charges, cone of cold is a 5th level spell so it costs 5 charges, etc).
But not wall of ice, which costs only 4 charges, making it "cheaper" than casting cone of cold, even though wall of ice is a 6th level spell and cone of cold only a 5th level spell.
Do we know if this this a mistake? Has this received errata?
dnd-5e magic-items errata
asked Aug 8 at 17:22
NathanS
13.9k363153
5
bear in mind that "higher level spell" doesn't automatically equal "more powerful"
– PixelMaster
Aug 8 at 17:42
5
Are you asking Why is it only 4 charges? or Is the 4 charge cost wrong? If it's the former, then that's a designer-intent question and should be closed.
– NautArch
Aug 8 at 17:44
1
@NautArch Designer intent questions are not off topic on RPG.SE, since they can be supported by design philosophy docs, interviews, tweets, personal communication, etc.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:05
4
@Luke This meta covers some of the issues you're bringing up. Closing a question isn't bad, it's just a way to slow the roll so that a question can be put it into a stackable form. I had tried to start that with my first comment, but there was no response so I felt that at this point it was time to vote for closure until OP came back to work on it. Do note that I do not have the power to close a question as off-topic, I just put in a single closure vote.
– NautArch
Aug 9 at 0:10
2
@NathanS I've edited the question and reopened it. The designer reason components of this were “Why is wall of ice only worth 4 charges?†and (in the note you added) asking about “whether it was intendedâ€Â. Questions that are basically “why are things this way?†and “what did they intend?†are questions about designer reasons which became off topic. I've removed those parts of the question to ask if we know if it was an error, which is entirely separate and, for now, can be determined by whether it's received errata or similar, no inquiring into their reasons or intentions necessary.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 9 at 7:50
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
In the description of the Staff of Frost (DMG, pg. 202), the following is included in its description, detailing spells that can be cast with charges from the staff:
The staff has 10 charges. While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its charges to cast one of the following spells from it, using your spell save DC: cone of cold (5 charges), fog cloud (1 charge), ice storm (4 charges), or wall of ice (4 charges).
That last spell, wall of ice, is a 6th level spell. It should cost 6 charges, shouldn't it? All of the other spells cost a number of charges equal to their spell level (ice storm is a 4th level spell so it costs 4 charges, cone of cold is a 5th level spell so it costs 5 charges, etc).
But not wall of ice, which costs only 4 charges, making it "cheaper" than casting cone of cold, even though wall of ice is a 6th level spell and cone of cold only a 5th level spell.
Do we know if this this a mistake? Has this received errata?
dnd-5e magic-items errata
asked Aug 8 at 17:22
NathanS
13.9k363153
In the description of the Staff of Frost (DMG, pg. 202), the following is included in its description, detailing spells that can be cast with charges from the staff:
The staff has 10 charges. While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its charges to cast one of the following spells from it, using your spell save DC: cone of cold (5 charges), fog cloud (1 charge), ice storm (4 charges), or wall of ice (4 charges).
That last spell, wall of ice, is a 6th level spell. It should cost 6 charges, shouldn't it? All of the other spells cost a number of charges equal to their spell level (ice storm is a 4th level spell so it costs 4 charges, cone of cold is a 5th level spell so it costs 5 charges, etc).
But not wall of ice, which costs only 4 charges, making it "cheaper" than casting cone of cold, even though wall of ice is a 6th level spell and cone of cold only a 5th level spell.
Do we know if this this a mistake? Has this received errata?
dnd-5e magic-items errata
asked Aug 8 at 17:22
NathanS
13.9k363153
edited Aug 9 at 8:11
asked Aug 8 at 17:22
NathanS
13.9k363153
asked Aug 8 at 17:22
NathanS
13.9k363153
asked Aug 8 at 17:22
NathanS
13.9k363153
13.9k363153
5
bear in mind that "higher level spell" doesn't automatically equal "more powerful"
– PixelMaster
Aug 8 at 17:42
5
Are you asking Why is it only 4 charges? or Is the 4 charge cost wrong? If it's the former, then that's a designer-intent question and should be closed.
– NautArch
Aug 8 at 17:44
1
@NautArch Designer intent questions are not off topic on RPG.SE, since they can be supported by design philosophy docs, interviews, tweets, personal communication, etc.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:05
4
@Luke This meta covers some of the issues you're bringing up. Closing a question isn't bad, it's just a way to slow the roll so that a question can be put it into a stackable form. I had tried to start that with my first comment, but there was no response so I felt that at this point it was time to vote for closure until OP came back to work on it. Do note that I do not have the power to close a question as off-topic, I just put in a single closure vote.
– NautArch
Aug 9 at 0:10
2
@NathanS I've edited the question and reopened it. The designer reason components of this were “Why is wall of ice only worth 4 charges?†and (in the note you added) asking about “whether it was intendedâ€Â. Questions that are basically “why are things this way?†and “what did they intend?†are questions about designer reasons which became off topic. I've removed those parts of the question to ask if we know if it was an error, which is entirely separate and, for now, can be determined by whether it's received errata or similar, no inquiring into their reasons or intentions necessary.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 9 at 7:50
 |Â
show 6 more comments
5
bear in mind that "higher level spell" doesn't automatically equal "more powerful"
– PixelMaster
Aug 8 at 17:42
5
Are you asking Why is it only 4 charges? or Is the 4 charge cost wrong? If it's the former, then that's a designer-intent question and should be closed.
– NautArch
Aug 8 at 17:44
1
@NautArch Designer intent questions are not off topic on RPG.SE, since they can be supported by design philosophy docs, interviews, tweets, personal communication, etc.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:05
4
@Luke This meta covers some of the issues you're bringing up. Closing a question isn't bad, it's just a way to slow the roll so that a question can be put it into a stackable form. I had tried to start that with my first comment, but there was no response so I felt that at this point it was time to vote for closure until OP came back to work on it. Do note that I do not have the power to close a question as off-topic, I just put in a single closure vote.
– NautArch
Aug 9 at 0:10
2
@NathanS I've edited the question and reopened it. The designer reason components of this were “Why is wall of ice only worth 4 charges?†and (in the note you added) asking about “whether it was intendedâ€Â. Questions that are basically “why are things this way?†and “what did they intend?†are questions about designer reasons which became off topic. I've removed those parts of the question to ask if we know if it was an error, which is entirely separate and, for now, can be determined by whether it's received errata or similar, no inquiring into their reasons or intentions necessary.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 9 at 7:50
5
5
bear in mind that "higher level spell" doesn't automatically equal "more powerful"
– PixelMaster
Aug 8 at 17:42
bear in mind that "higher level spell" doesn't automatically equal "more powerful"
– PixelMaster
Aug 8 at 17:42
5
5
Are you asking Why is it only 4 charges? or Is the 4 charge cost wrong? If it's the former, then that's a designer-intent question and should be closed.
– NautArch
Aug 8 at 17:44
Are you asking Why is it only 4 charges? or Is the 4 charge cost wrong? If it's the former, then that's a designer-intent question and should be closed.
– NautArch
Aug 8 at 17:44
1
1
@NautArch Designer intent questions are not off topic on RPG.SE, since they can be supported by design philosophy docs, interviews, tweets, personal communication, etc.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:05
@NautArch Designer intent questions are not off topic on RPG.SE, since they can be supported by design philosophy docs, interviews, tweets, personal communication, etc.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:05
4
4
@Luke This meta covers some of the issues you're bringing up. Closing a question isn't bad, it's just a way to slow the roll so that a question can be put it into a stackable form. I had tried to start that with my first comment, but there was no response so I felt that at this point it was time to vote for closure until OP came back to work on it. Do note that I do not have the power to close a question as off-topic, I just put in a single closure vote.
– NautArch
Aug 9 at 0:10
@Luke This meta covers some of the issues you're bringing up. Closing a question isn't bad, it's just a way to slow the roll so that a question can be put it into a stackable form. I had tried to start that with my first comment, but there was no response so I felt that at this point it was time to vote for closure until OP came back to work on it. Do note that I do not have the power to close a question as off-topic, I just put in a single closure vote.
– NautArch
Aug 9 at 0:10
2
2
@NathanS I've edited the question and reopened it. The designer reason components of this were “Why is wall of ice only worth 4 charges?†and (in the note you added) asking about “whether it was intendedâ€Â. Questions that are basically “why are things this way?†and “what did they intend?†are questions about designer reasons which became off topic. I've removed those parts of the question to ask if we know if it was an error, which is entirely separate and, for now, can be determined by whether it's received errata or similar, no inquiring into their reasons or intentions necessary.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 9 at 7:50
@NathanS I've edited the question and reopened it. The designer reason components of this were “Why is wall of ice only worth 4 charges?†and (in the note you added) asking about “whether it was intendedâ€Â. Questions that are basically “why are things this way?†and “what did they intend?†are questions about designer reasons which became off topic. I've removed those parts of the question to ask if we know if it was an error, which is entirely separate and, for now, can be determined by whether it's received errata or similar, no inquiring into their reasons or intentions necessary.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 9 at 7:50
 |Â
show 6 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
13
down vote
accepted
There is no errata, it is a 4 charge spell cost for Wall of Ice
There is no errata for the Staff of Frost, so whether it is 'incorrect' or not is unknown beyond the known fact that they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)
The published writing in the DMG and the official DNDBeyond.com listing both state it is a 4 charge spell, so it is a 4 charge spell.
answered Aug 8 at 17:38
NautArch
43.3k6158300
This does not answer the OP's question, but simply recapitulates the published information which the OP has made explicitly clear they are aware of. The OP's question may or may not currently be answerable, but whether or not it is you should try and answer it.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:04
5
Designer reason questions are off topic though, so answering that part of it is outside our scope.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 8 at 23:50
Accepted for confirming that there is no errata and for "they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)"
– NathanS
Aug 9 at 9:56
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
13
down vote
accepted
There is no errata, it is a 4 charge spell cost for Wall of Ice
There is no errata for the Staff of Frost, so whether it is 'incorrect' or not is unknown beyond the known fact that they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)
The published writing in the DMG and the official DNDBeyond.com listing both state it is a 4 charge spell, so it is a 4 charge spell.
answered Aug 8 at 17:38
NautArch
43.3k6158300
This does not answer the OP's question, but simply recapitulates the published information which the OP has made explicitly clear they are aware of. The OP's question may or may not currently be answerable, but whether or not it is you should try and answer it.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:04
5
Designer reason questions are off topic though, so answering that part of it is outside our scope.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 8 at 23:50
Accepted for confirming that there is no errata and for "they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)"
– NathanS
Aug 9 at 9:56
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
accepted
There is no errata, it is a 4 charge spell cost for Wall of Ice
There is no errata for the Staff of Frost, so whether it is 'incorrect' or not is unknown beyond the known fact that they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)
The published writing in the DMG and the official DNDBeyond.com listing both state it is a 4 charge spell, so it is a 4 charge spell.
answered Aug 8 at 17:38
NautArch
43.3k6158300
This does not answer the OP's question, but simply recapitulates the published information which the OP has made explicitly clear they are aware of. The OP's question may or may not currently be answerable, but whether or not it is you should try and answer it.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:04
5
Designer reason questions are off topic though, so answering that part of it is outside our scope.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 8 at 23:50
Accepted for confirming that there is no errata and for "they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)"
– NathanS
Aug 9 at 9:56
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
accepted
up vote
13
down vote
accepted
There is no errata, it is a 4 charge spell cost for Wall of Ice
There is no errata for the Staff of Frost, so whether it is 'incorrect' or not is unknown beyond the known fact that they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)
The published writing in the DMG and the official DNDBeyond.com listing both state it is a 4 charge spell, so it is a 4 charge spell.
answered Aug 8 at 17:38
NautArch
43.3k6158300
There is no errata, it is a 4 charge spell cost for Wall of Ice
There is no errata for the Staff of Frost, so whether it is 'incorrect' or not is unknown beyond the known fact that they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)
The published writing in the DMG and the official DNDBeyond.com listing both state it is a 4 charge spell, so it is a 4 charge spell.
answered Aug 8 at 17:38
NautArch
43.3k6158300
edited Aug 8 at 23:54
answered Aug 8 at 17:38
NautArch
43.3k6158300
answered Aug 8 at 17:38
NautArch
43.3k6158300
answered Aug 8 at 17:38
NautArch
43.3k6158300
43.3k6158300
This does not answer the OP's question, but simply recapitulates the published information which the OP has made explicitly clear they are aware of. The OP's question may or may not currently be answerable, but whether or not it is you should try and answer it.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:04
5
Designer reason questions are off topic though, so answering that part of it is outside our scope.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 8 at 23:50
Accepted for confirming that there is no errata and for "they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)"
– NathanS
Aug 9 at 9:56
add a comment |Â
This does not answer the OP's question, but simply recapitulates the published information which the OP has made explicitly clear they are aware of. The OP's question may or may not currently be answerable, but whether or not it is you should try and answer it.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:04
5
Designer reason questions are off topic though, so answering that part of it is outside our scope.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 8 at 23:50
Accepted for confirming that there is no errata and for "they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)"
– NathanS
Aug 9 at 9:56
This does not answer the OP's question, but simply recapitulates the published information which the OP has made explicitly clear they are aware of. The OP's question may or may not currently be answerable, but whether or not it is you should try and answer it.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:04
This does not answer the OP's question, but simply recapitulates the published information which the OP has made explicitly clear they are aware of. The OP's question may or may not currently be answerable, but whether or not it is you should try and answer it.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:04
5
5
Designer reason questions are off topic though, so answering that part of it is outside our scope.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 8 at 23:50
Designer reason questions are off topic though, so answering that part of it is outside our scope.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 8 at 23:50
Accepted for confirming that there is no errata and for "they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)"
– NathanS
Aug 9 at 9:56
Accepted for confirming that there is no errata and for "they have not changed it (which suggests it is not a mistake.)"
– NathanS
Aug 9 at 9:56
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f129214%2fis-the-charge-cost-of-wall-of-ice-an-error-in-the-description-of-the-staff-of-fr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
5
bear in mind that "higher level spell" doesn't automatically equal "more powerful"
– PixelMaster
Aug 8 at 17:42
5
Are you asking Why is it only 4 charges? or Is the 4 charge cost wrong? If it's the former, then that's a designer-intent question and should be closed.
– NautArch
Aug 8 at 17:44
1
@NautArch Designer intent questions are not off topic on RPG.SE, since they can be supported by design philosophy docs, interviews, tweets, personal communication, etc.
– Lexible
Aug 8 at 23:05
4
@Luke This meta covers some of the issues you're bringing up. Closing a question isn't bad, it's just a way to slow the roll so that a question can be put it into a stackable form. I had tried to start that with my first comment, but there was no response so I felt that at this point it was time to vote for closure until OP came back to work on it. Do note that I do not have the power to close a question as off-topic, I just put in a single closure vote.
– NautArch
Aug 9 at 0:10
2
@NathanS I've edited the question and reopened it. The designer reason components of this were “Why is wall of ice only worth 4 charges?†and (in the note you added) asking about “whether it was intendedâ€Â. Questions that are basically “why are things this way?†and “what did they intend?†are questions about designer reasons which became off topic. I've removed those parts of the question to ask if we know if it was an error, which is entirely separate and, for now, can be determined by whether it's received errata or similar, no inquiring into their reasons or intentions necessary.
– doppelgreener♦
Aug 9 at 7:50