Text version:

Magic-averse Staff (Wondrous item)
Weapon (Quarterstaff), Rare (requires attunement)
This weapon, with its unassuming appearance, stands as a silent testament to resilience and serves as a steadfast companion for those who choose to tread less travelled paths.

  • Weightless. This weapon has the Light and Finesse property, as the wood it’s carved from is very sturdy, but also unusually light.
  • Pierce Magic. Attacks made with this weapon bypass the Armor Class bonus derived from magical sources, such as magical armour or the Shield spell.
  • Arcane Scourge. If you hit a celestial, a fiend, or a creature that has the Spellcasting trait with this weapon, you roll one additional damage die.
  • Spell Breaker. A creature hit by this weapon has disadvantage on Constitution saving throws that it makes to maintain its concentration on a spell.
  • Fizzle Magic. The staff has three charges. While wielding this staff, you can expend one charge to cast Counterspell (only if you are one of the targets of the spell, or you are included in the area of effect of the spell) or two charges to cast Antimagic Field (no material components needed). Charisma is your spellcasting ability for these spells. The staff regains all charges daily at dusk.

Cursed. While attuned to this item, you cannot cast spells or be attuned to other magical items. If this curse is broken, the wood from which this quarterstaff is carved rots away, resulting in the destruction of the item.

  • Aielman15@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    3·
    16 days ago

    Pierce magic is supposed to only bypass the +2 bonus (which is the “magical” part; the rest of the AC comes from the armor itself), but I see where the confusion stems from.

    The bonus to hit vs concentrating characters is great, but it would only work on spellcasters, whereas pierce magic was meant to work vs martial characters as well. The point was to depict the weapon as a broader “anti-magic staff” compared to a more restrictive “anti-spellcaster staff”, but I’ll think about changing the wording or altering the trait itself to a more comprehensible one.

    Thanks for the suggestion!