Magic Weapon +2

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
One of the bundles in AGLA1-1 is a Magic Weapon +2. Can I use this bundle to get a Staff +2 for my sorcerer?
If you mean a staff +2 that can be used as an implement, no, sorry.

While a +2 magic staff implement can be used AS a magic weapon, it is not actually a weapon, it is an implement.

And a +2 magic staff weapon, which is what the adventure is giving out, cannot be used as an implement.

(unless you somehow have a weird power that specifically lets you use a staff weapon as an implement, similar to how swordmages can use magic sword weapons as implements)

You would have to get a magic staff implement either from an award that spcifically gives out a staff implement, or a "+whatever magic implement" generic award.


-karma
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
I'd like you to find a place in the rules that actually says that. My rule book says that a wizard can use a staff as an implement. A staff is, well, a staff. I see nothing in the rules that says I can't use it as an implement. Heck, the PHBII section on weapons as implements seems to say I can.

-SYB
My gut instinct would be "no" - that you must choose a weapon (Quarterstaff) but not an Implement (Staff of +2) - even if that implement may be used as a weapon (again, Quarterstaff).

Then again, it seems you can add damage from the Weapon Focus feat to an implement used as a weapon - so the line blurs yet again. (PHB FAQ #21 - http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1396).

Still, my hunch is that you'd be able to take a Quarterstaff +2, but not Staff of Coolness +2.

Someone with stronger search-fu may be able to find if this has been asked in the Rules Q&A forum already (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=868)
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

I'd say you can pick a staff +2 and use it as both a weapon and an implement, it's one of the advantages of a wizard.

For those who don't like the feeling of it, compare it to the sorcerer, who uses daggers as implements. Surely you can buy a dagger +2 as 'any +2 weapon'. And surely, any +2 dagger can be used as a sorcerer implement.

So if it works for the sorcerer, why not for the wizard?
You can could get a Magic Quarterstaff +2.

In melee your quarterstaff would allow the +2 enhancement on attack and damage, +2 weapon proficiency, and 2d8 on crit.

You can also use the Magic Quarterstaff +2 as an impliment. This allows +2 enhancement on attack and damage and 2d8 on crit, but no weapon proficiency.

If you were to get a magic staff with other weapon properties, such as a frost weapon, the daily power can only be used when you use the staff as a weapon and does not apply to spells. However a vicious quarterstaff +2 would give you 2d12 crit on both melee and magic crits.
I'd like you to find a place in the rules that actually says that. My rule book says that a wizard can use a staff as an implement. A staff is, well, a staff.

A staff implement can be treated as a magic quarterstaff when used as a weapon; that is not the same thing as being a magic quarterstaff.

A quarterstaff is a member of the staff weapon group; that is not the same thing as being a staff implement.

When given the opportunity to take a +2 magic weapon, you may take a +2 magic quarterstaff. That is a completely separate item from a +2 magic staff, the similarity in names notwithstanding.

Is there any harm in letting a wizard use a quarterstaff as a staff implement? Probably not. There might be some issues with unexpected synergy between a weapon-only power and wizard spells, but that's also the case with the swordmage and sorcerer classes. In a home game, I would almost certainly allow it without a thought.

Absent a house rule, however, a wizard cannot use a quarterstaff as an implement, any more than he can use a dagger.

-- Brian Gibbons.
So what is the official answer? Quarterstaves and Staves cost the same amount of gold and have the exact same stats. Both can be used as weapons, while the latter is explicitly an implement.

I need to know because we are about to report the game.
for what it is worth. The Character builder treats a Magic Quarterstaff+1 the same as a Magic Staff +1 for implement powers

(I'd assume the same for +2 or better weapons/implements as well)
Take it. There is nothing in the RAW that says a wizard uses a "staff implement". The RAW simply says a wizard uses a staff as an implement (note that the RAW says swordmages uses light blades and heavy blades as implements -- same wording). Furthermore, PHBII backs up the quarterstaff as a staff implement argument with its weapons as implements discussion.

It isn't a house rule. It is the rules as intended and as written and multiple sources back it up. Some DMs don't understand the rules though, so I wouldn't bring it up at a game. All too often, DMs try to be restrictive, at the expense of the players, just to enforce their own beliefs.

-SYB
Actually, if you take a look at the "Melee Weapon Groups and Associated Statistics" table on PH 77, it seems quite clear that "Staff" is simply a weapon group (like "Heavy Blade" or "Flail"), and that all quarterstaves are, in fact, a type of staff. It is also quite clear, IMHO, that staff as weapon and staff as implement are interchangeable based on the example at the bottom of page 241, which describes a cleric using a +3 staff of fiery might as melee weapon, even though it is only described in the "staff as implement" section of the magic items lists...
All I know is there is wording that says you can treat a staff as a quarterstaff to use it as a melee weapon. There are examples to back that up. There is no rules that says you can do the oppsite. The name of the weapon group doesn't mean anything in this case. Otherwise why would there be a staff listed in the adeventuring gear section on page 222?

There are explicit exception rules given out here: A staff can be treated as a quarterstaff for melee attacks, a warlock or sorcerer can use a magic dagger as an implement, a swordmage can use a light blade or heavy blade as an implement, etc. These are all rule exceptions. There is no rule in the RAW that says a quarterstaff can be used as a staff implement.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
All I know is there is wording that says you can treat a staff as a quarterstaff to use it as a melee weapon. There are examples to back that up. There is no rules that says you can do the oppsite. The name of the weapon group doesn't mean anything in this case.

Well, technically the rule is 'A wizard wielding a magic orb, staff, or wand can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of wizard powers'

So... that's interesting. Hadn't occurred to me, but the stance that you can use a 'weapon' staff appears to be correct.

Otherwise why would there be a staff listed in the adeventuring gear section on page 222?

Why would they exclude it, when they list all of the other implement types?

There are explicit exception rules given out here: A staff can be treated as a quarterstaff for melee attacks, a warlock or sorcerer can use a magic dagger as an implement, a swordmage can use a light blade or heavy blade as an implement, etc. These are all rule exceptions. There is no rule in the RAW that says a quarterstaff can be used as a staff implement.

There does not appear to be an exception that 'Weapon' staffs are not usable by wizards as an implement... just the one that says they are. It appears that you're mistaken...

Not sure if that's _intended_, though. I'd be very willing to believe otherwise.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
I'd say that quarterstaffs are perfectly legal to use as implements. Like others have said above, the wizard description simply lists 'staffs' as legal implements. This is the same way that Swordmages have 'light blade' and 'heavy blade' listed as implements. To argue that 'staffs' does not include the 'staff' weapon group would imply that Swordmages can only use swords form the sword implements tables, which don't exist.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
It isn't a house rule. It is the rules as intended and as written and multiple sources back it up. Some DMs don't understand the rules though, so I wouldn't bring it up at a game. All too often, DMs try to be restrictive, at the expense of the players, just to enforce their own beliefs./QUOTE]

And some of us who make an honest attempt to interpret the rules simply reach a different conclusion from yours.
Take it. There is nothing in the RAW that says a wizard uses a "staff implement". The RAW simply says a wizard uses a staff as an implement (note that the RAW says swordmages uses light blades and heavy blades as implements -- same wording).

I think it's beyond clear that a staff implement is more than a quarterstaff. It's a quarterstaff that has more added to it, but it can still be used as a quarterstaff if need be. That's a far cry from saying that a quarterstaff can automatically be used as a staff implement.
"Fashioned either as a quarterstaff or a walking staff, it is also imbued with arcane enchantments so that you can channel your spells through it. Unlike other implements, a staff also functions as a melee weapon (treat it as a quarterstaff)."

Can you make the argument with a straight face? Sure. WOTC occasionally has problems with using the same or similar words for different things, and the fact that they used "staff" without specifying whether they meant the staff weapon group or staff implement gives you room to argue.

Given that other classes can use weapons as implements, I don't see any substantial balance issue with allowing it, though there are a few potential issues if you read the rules as allowing weapon powers to be used when using the weapon as implement.

Interestingly enough, the "A quarterstaff is a type of staff; the rules just say that a wizard can use a staff, it doesn't specify a staff implement" argument strikes me as rather similar to the "A living construct is a type of construct; Reparation Apparatus just says that it needs to be used on a construct, not that the creature must have the construct keyword" argument, so I have to assume that SYB will be allowing Reparation Apparatus to be used by warforged even if they lose the construct keyword, just to be consistent.
Some DMs don't understand the rules though, so I wouldn't bring it up at a game. All too often, DMs try to be restrictive, at the expense of the players, just to enforce their own beliefs.

Er, that sounds an awful lot like "If you do this, some DMs are going to think you're cheating. Try not to let the DM know what you're doing, to avoid wasting time on that sort of discussion."

I can't say that I'm comfortable with that kind of advice. If you're not willing to be open and aboveboard with your DM about your character's abilities, powers and items, knowing that occasionally you're going to have to justify yourself, you should probably stay away from things an occasional DM would want to know about.

I'm quite sure, SYB, that you've been in several discussions on this very board involving some player who wanted to do something they thought was fine that others told them was against the RPGA or core rules. You're saying that the best course of action for them would have been to do what they thought was right, and conceal it from the DM to avoid the risk that the DM might have a contrary opinion?

-- Brian Gibbons.
Interestingly enough, the "A quarterstaff is a type of staff; the rules just say that a wizard can use a staff, it doesn't specify a staff implement" argument strikes me as rather similar to the "A living construct is a type of construct; Reparation Apparatus just says that it needs to be used on a construct, not that the creature must have the construct keyword" argument, so I have to assume that SYB will be allowing Reparation Apparatus to be used by warforged even if they lose the construct keyword, just to be consistent.

I agree that the argument is similar to the Living construct one, but I see it enforcing the other view. In the construct/living construct discussion, it has been generally agreed that 'living construct' does not equal 'construct' and that if they meant construct, they should have said construct.

Here, 'staff' does not equal 'staff implement'. If they meant to say only staff implements they should have said it that way. Staff is a defined 4e word, like 'light blade' or 'melee'. These types of meanings need to be consistent or we have far worse problems than if a wizard can use a staff.

Besides, I think it would be fair enough to say that a +3 quarterstaff is covered with all the mystic runes you could want. It is, after all, magic.

Er, that sounds an awful lot like "If you do this, some DMs are going to think you're cheating. Try not to let the DM know what you're doing, to avoid wasting time on that sort of discussion."

I can't say that I'm comfortable with that kind of advice. If you're not willing to be open and aboveboard with your DM about your character's abilities, powers and items, knowing that occasionally you're going to have to justify yourself, you should probably stay away from things an occasional DM would want to know about.

I have to agree with you there. A difference of interpretation is one thing, but the DM is the final say in any game. If you are worried enough about the DM's reaction that you feel the need to use creative omissions, chances are you're on shaky ground. Also, assuming the DM really is the restrictive type that likes throwing their weight around, what do you think their reaction will be when they eventually find out?

If you don't think any particular character choice is justifiable to 90% of the DMs out there, then you might want to stay away from it altogether or else be willing to accept the occasional disappointment.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
I'd say that quarterstaffs are perfectly legal to use as implements. Like others have said above, the wizard description simply lists 'staffs' as legal implements. This is the same way that Swordmages have 'light blade' and 'heavy blade' listed as implements.

It's a more accurate comparison to say a quarterstaff can be used as an implement since it's part of the staff weapon group like a Wizard of the Spiral Tower PP can use a greatsword as an implement since it's also a heavy blade.

Oh wait... they can't? They can only use longswords? But they're all part of the heavy blade weapon group...

To argue that 'staffs' does not include the 'staff' weapon group would imply that Swordmages can only use swords form the sword implements tables, which don't exist.

You're right, no sword implement table exists. But a staff implements do. Swordmages specifically say they can use magical light and heavy blades (weapons) as implements. The wizard can use a staff implement, and then they give a whole of bunch of staff implements to choose from. They then tell you that you can use it as quarterstaff. It isn't actually a quarterstaff, but you can use the same stats if you have to use it as a melee weapon.

Now point me to the rules that say that a quarterstaff can be used as an implement. When you can show me the text that says that and not a conclusion based on mental gymnastics, then I'll buy it.

I can bash someone over the head with my orb as an improvised weapon... so does that mean I can wield a +1 bar stool as an implement since it is also an improvised weapon?
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
It's a more accurate comparison to say a quarterstaff can be used as an implement since it's part of the staff weapon group like a Wizard of the Spiral Tower PP can use a greatsword as an implement since it's also a heavy blade.

Oh wait... they can't? They can only use longswords? But they're all part of the heavy blade weapon group...

And rogues don't get proficiency in light blades despite having proficiency in both daggers and short swords. What's your point? Wizards can use staffs as implements. Quarterstaffs are part of the staff weapon group.
Swordmages specifically say they can use magical light and heavy blades (weapons) as implements.

Actually, it simply lists light and heavy blade. No mention of magic.
Now point me to the rules that say that a quarterstaff can be used as an implement. When you can show me the text that says that and not a conclusion based on mental gymnastics, then I'll buy it.

The only mental gymnastics involved are in reading 'staff' to refer to the weapon group the same way that you read the swordmage's 'light blade' as referring to the 'light blade' weapon group. If staff=weapon group then quarterstaffs, as part of the weapon group are legal.

And if you don't read it this way, then the swordmages are in real trouble because I have never run into an item called a Light Blade +2. Show me where it says they can use a longsword as an implement.

I can bash someone over the head with my orb as an improvised weapon... so does that mean I can wield a +1 bar stool as an implement since it is also an improvised weapon?

Ah, but while you could certainly get a +2 barstool, barstools are not a subset of orbs.

In all seriousness, I don't think many people would choose to take a quarterstaff as an implement. The vast majority of weapons don't have powers that work very well for spells. The one possible argument in LFR is that you will see a +3 weapon long before you will find a +3 staff, but even that is marginal because it will not have a useful property.

That said, I think it IS rules as written. If it is not rules as indented, then it needs serious errata. The designers should have known problems could crop up from using one word to designate two similar types of equipment.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
And rogues don't get proficiency in light blades despite having proficiency in both daggers and short swords. What's your point? Wizards can use staffs as implements. Quarterstaffs are part of the staff weapon group.

Yet staffs are not. They have no weapon group. That's because an implement is something different. It's listed separately. Quarterstaff is part of the staff weapon group, but quarterstaff (weapon) != staff (implement)

Actually, it simply lists light and heavy blade. No mention of magic.

True, and you have a nonmagical implement as well. I cut out the middle man because you get no benefit from a non-magical implement.

The only mental gymnastics involved are in reading 'staff' to refer to the weapon group the same way that you read the swordmage's 'light blade' as referring to the 'light blade' weapon group. If staff=weapon group then quarterstaffs, as part of the weapon group are legal.

I see nothing showing me that staff (weapon group) = staff (implement). I see nothing that says that a quarterstaff can be treated as an implement. I see nothign that says that staffs are part of the staff weapon group (the equipment chart on page 222 nor any of the magic item entries for staffs in the PHB, AV, etc. list any of them being a part of a weapon group). I do see rules saying that a staff implement can be used as a weapon. That doesn't mean that the opposite holds true.

If it is so obvious, then why do we need a rule to point out that you can use a staff implement as a weapon?

And if you don't read it this way, then the swordmages are in real trouble because I have never run into an item called a Light Blade +2. Show me where it says they can use a longsword as an implement.

Apples and oranges. Swordmages have two weapon groups listed as usable implements. A staff is a specific implement and a weapon group. Implements have no weapon groups. Staffs have an exception rule applied to them: "Unlike other implements, a staff also functions as a melee weapon (treat it as a quarterstaff ). When used in melee, a staff applies its enhancement bonus and critical damage dice just as a weapon does."

This is is making it clear that a staff is not a weapon. It is, after all, an implement. So how can it then be in the staff weapon group?

There is no rule in existence that says: "Unlike other weapons, a quarterstaff also functions as an implement (treat it as a staff). When used as an arcane focus, a quarterstaff staff applies its enhancement bonus and critical damage dice just as an implement does."


Ah, but while you could certainly get a +2 barstool, barstools are not a subset of orbs.

Of course I'm being facetious anyway since you can't attack with implements (except staffs which have an exception rule).

In all seriousness, I don't think many people would choose to take a quarterstaff as an implement. The vast majority of weapons don't have powers that work very well for spells. The one possible argument in LFR is that you will see a +3 weapon long before you will find a +3 staff, but even that is marginal because it will not have a useful property.

The only instance I could see in doing so would be a melee class that MCs with an arcane/divine class that can use a staff.

That said, I think it IS rules as written. If it is not rules as indented, then it needs serious errata. The designers should have known problems could crop up from using one word to designate two similar types of equipment.

Agreed on the two groups of equipment with the same word. I respectfully disagree and believe that no quarterstaffs as implements is the RAW since there's no exception rule allowing it and weapons and implements are two separate, exclusive groups of items (with exception rules allowing weapons to be used as implements).

Even if you look under Arcane Implement in the Adventuring Gear section of the PHB it says:

Wizards use orbs, staffs, or wands as focus items for their spells, while warlocks use rods or wands. Using a nonmagical implement confers no benefit. You can purchase a magic implement to gain an enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls with your arcane powers. A staff implement can also function as a quarterstaff.

Emphasis mine. The exception rule is pointed out again. Under the Staff weapon group it says:

Staff: In its most basic form, a staff is a long piece of wood or some other substance, roughly the same diameter along its whole length.

No mention whatsoever of being able to use it as an implement. So basically we have an implement saying you can use it as a weapon, but not vice versa. I could not in good conscience allow that at a table I was running.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Yet staffs are not. They have no weapon group. That's because an implement is something different. It's listed separately. Quarterstaff is part of the staff weapon group, but quarterstaff (weapon) != staff (implement)

Yet heavy blades are not. They have no weapon group. That's because an implement is something different. It's listed separately. Greatsword is part of the heavy blade weapon group, but greatsword (weapon) != heavy blade (implement)

It really should be quite obvious how convoluted the above sounds. It might be forgivable if the wizard was the only class using a weapon or weapon group as an implement, but with swordmages using heavy and light blades, and sorcerers using daggers, it should be obvious by now that a weapon group can be listed as an implement. And since staffs are a weapon group, it really can't get more obvious.

It's unfortunate that some people get confused because there are staffs listed in a seperate PHB section. And even the reminder at the top of the section that, yes, these are really weapons, doesn't help.

I assume that you won't let sorcerers use a flaming dagger as an implement either? After all, dagger (implement) can't be the same as dagger (weapon), can it? Even though they have the same name, and I had to invent a whole new category system to accomodate this belief.
Isn't this discussion been done before?

Something with Goblin Totem and adding to the use of power through a dagger? I believe CS said that it would work so a normal +2 dagger also counts as a +2 implement for a sorcerer.

Same would apply to a +2 staff which is also a +2 Q-Staff, right
It might be forgivable if the wizard was the only class using a weapon or weapon group as an implement, but with swordmages using heavy and light blades, and sorcerers using daggers, it should be obvious by now that a weapon group can be listed as an implement. And since staffs are a weapon group, it really can't get more obvious.

You are right. It can't be more obvious that a quarterstaff is not an implement. The wizard has three implement types listed for him. Quarterstaff isn't one of them. There are rules stating you can treat a staff as a weapon, but no rules saying you can treat a quarterstaff as an implement. If it's so obvious, then why have the rules saying you can use a staff as a weapon?

It's unfortunate that some people get confused because there are staffs listed in a seperate PHB section. And even the reminder at the top of the section that, yes, these are really weapons, doesn't help.

No, it doesn't say they are weapons. It says they can be treated as a weapon. Treated as means it really isn't but you can use it that way. A staff implement is not a weapon, but you can use it as one unlike other implements. I already pointed out the exception rules at play here. If you choose to ignore them, that's your prerogative.

I assume that you won't let sorcerers use a flaming dagger as an implement either? After all, dagger (implement) can't be the same as dagger (weapon), can it? Even though they have the same name, and I had to invent a whole new category system to accomodate this belief.

Now you are just grasping at straws. As I am sure you are well aware there are no dagger implements. Sorcerers and Warlocks are given an exception rule to use a weapon as an implement. Same as swordmages are given an exception rule to use two weapon groups worth of weapons as implements. In both these cases, there is no corresponding implement. With staffs there are implements and there is a weapon group. This is mutually exclusive. You have an exception rule allowing you to use one as the other, but not vice versa.

Normally in 4e: 1) You cannot use a weapon as an implement, and 2) you cannot use an implement as a weapon. We have an exception rule for Staff implements that allow you use them as a weapon.

If you can't normally do A or B, but then are given permission to do A, that doesn't mean you suddenly have permission to do B.

Now I have already pointed all this out before. I have pointed out all the relative rules info to support my point of view. I have yet to see anyone show a rule that allows the opposite.

Until someone can or WotC issues errata, the rules support it.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
I have yet to see anyone show a rule that allows the opposite

Much like you have yet to show a rule that shows your stance, from my viewpoint? You've shown no rule that says they can't - only rules that staves and quarterstaves are intrinsically connected in the rules text in several places.

Sigh, rules arguments are silly things, but one of the inherent traps of Living campaigns - sometimes I do wish that I had access to more regular non-living campaigns... but the mods are soooo convenient

1) You cannot use a weapon as an implement

As far as I can tell, you can use whatever your class says you can use as an implement. In some cases - like the sorcerer - those are weapons. In other cases - like the shaman - not so much.

2) you cannot use an implement as a weapon

Unless, of course, it's a weapon. Such as any swordmage blade, sorcerer dagger, invoker staff, bard songblade, etc.

We have an exception rule for Staff implements that allow you use them as a weapon.

Does the lack of such text preclude a swordmage from using a sword as a weapon, a warlock use a pact blade, sorcerer a dagger, etc?

Is repeated rules text an exception? For example,
p55 'If you have a proficiency bonus to attack rolls ... from your weapon ..., you add that bonus when you use a power that has the associated keyword.'
p219 'Prof.: Proficiency with a weapon gives you a proficiency bonus to attack rolls, which appears in this column if applicable.'

Repeated rules text does not an exception make, but the entirety of your argument is that the statements that staff implements can be used as quarterstaff weapons as an exception relies on it.

Whereas it might just be making clear rules text.

We have no such text that a swordmage can use his sword as a weapon, that a pact blade may be used as a weapon, etc.

They must gain the ability from somewhere else - perhaps by the combination of rules stated above. One identifies the type of implement usable (heavy blade, staff, etc) and another identifies that as a weapon.

Now... is it intended? That I don't know. And I surely hope that clarifying text will be forthcoming.

In the meantime, for the game I run every week I'll be allowing them to use 'weapon' staves. Because I'm not going to change the rules as written on my players, and I don't read them as you do.

I did warn them that the rules might change at some point, though.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
You've shown no rule that says they can't

Wait wait wait...

You are seriously trying to argue that "because the rules don't say I cannot, I can"?


Weapons that are specifically allowed by an exception to be used as implements are still weapons to begin with. They don't stop being weapons just because some folks can use them as implements due to a rules exception.

The core of your argument seems to be the semantics of the word "staff".

They happen to be named the same, the implement and the weapon group, yes.

However, the entire structure of the rules treats them as completely separate rules mechanics. They are not the same.

- They occupy different sections of the magic item tables.

- There is a rule explicitly telling you that implements cannot be used as weapons, and that the 'staff' implement is the sole exception to that rule.

- Likewise, weapons cannot be used as implements, unless there is a specific rule allowing it, like the ones for swordmages and sorcerers.



-karma
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
- There is a rule explicitly telling you that implements cannot be used as weapons, and that the 'staff' implement is the sole exception to that rule.

- Likewise, weapons cannot be used as implements, unless there is a specific rule allowing it, like the ones for swordmages and sorcerers.

I'd be curious to see these rules because they sure haven't been quoted so far. Where does it say that an implement may not be used as a weapon? In many cases, they would fall under the improvised weapons category, but where does it say that you can never jab someone with a wand or throw an orb at them?

It simply happens that some legal implements, such as longswords and staffs have additional weapon statistics. And where does it say explicitly that a flail can NEVER be an implement? Sure, so far it is not a legal choice for any class but there is no rule prohibiting it.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
Wait wait wait... You are seriously trying to argue that "because the rules don't say I cannot, I can"?

Of course not - a rule has been provided by someone above that the staff weapon group may be used as an implement. I read that and was unable to dispute its truth.

Ergo, I had to change my personal _assumption_ that it worked otherwise. Accordingly, I am now allowing that to work at my tables.

I would assume that any DM who wishes to prohibit it should provide a rule that proves otherwise. I believe producing such a rule would nicely solve this debate.

So... please do so?

weapons cannot be used as implements, unless there is a specific rule allowing it, like the ones for swordmages and sorcerers.

or wizards or invokers... the wording being almost identical, and all.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
In order to avoid any rules conflicts, I decided to take the More Gold option instead. I still need to know the official answer to my question, though, in case I get another shot at a vanilla magic item bundle in the future.
Of course not - a rule has been provided by someone above that the staff weapon group may be used as an implement. I read that and was unable to dispute its truth.

Your argument centers around the idea that the magic 'staff' implement category is the same as the magic 'staff' weapon group, primarily because they share the word 'staff'.

The interpretation that the 'staff' weapon group and the 'staff' implement type are the same is an assumption. It is not a defined rule.

It's not a BAD assumption, but it is still an assumption.

But it is an assumption not supported by the overall structure of the related rules.

- Weapons and implements occupy different tables.

- Magical weapons have a "Weapon:" entry, followed by a weapon group or groups.

- Staff implements are designated "Implement (Staff)".


Ergo, I had to change my personal _assumption_ that it worked otherwise. Accordingly, I am now allowing that to work at my tables.

I would assume that any DM who wishes to prohibit it should provide a rule that proves otherwise. I believe producing such a rule would nicely solve this debate.

So... please do so?

You cannot prove a negative.

The default paradigm is that if the rules do not say you can, you cannot.

In general, you can use a weapon to enhance a power that has the keyword "weapon". The rules spell this out.

You can use an implement to enhance powers that have the keyword "implement", assuming it's the right type of implement. The rules spell this out.

There is no general rule allowing a weapon to enhance weapon keyword powers, nor a general rule allowing implements to enhance weapon keyword powers.

There are a few special EXCEPTIONS that allow particular weapons to be used as implements for some classes.

There is one special EXCEPTION that allows one implement category (staffs) to be used as weapons.

There is NO special exception spelled out anywhere that allows a staff weapon to be used as an implement.

Additionally, PH2 further clarifies that if you pick up a staff implement, and do NOT have implement proficiency in 'staff' (as opposed to weapon proficiency in 'staff'), you cannot use the powers and properties of the staff implement.

Which means a non-staff-implement-proficient user picking up a Staff of Storms +3 cannot use the Daily power - only the enhancement bonus and the critical hit effects. Even if he spent a feat on Weapon Proficiency (Staff).


weapons cannot be used as implements, unless there is a specific rule allowing it, like the ones for swordmages and sorcerers.

or wizards or invokers... the wording being almost identical, and all.

Not quite.

Sorcerers and swordmages can use weapons that are normally NOT implements to enhance their implement keyword powers. Both classes specifically note this exception, going as far as to state that they gain no proficiency bonus from the weapon when using it as an implement.

Wizards and invokers can use staff implements as weapons NOT because of their class, but because of a special rules exception inherent to staff implements.



-karma
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
Does the lack of such text preclude a swordmage from using a sword as a weapon, a warlock use a pact blade, sorcerer a dagger, etc?

No, because the exception rule is that they can use a weapon as an implement. The dagger or other blades are weapons, so of course you can make a melee attack with them. That's a silly statement. A dagger is not, in general rules, an implement (or any of the light or heavy blades). The exception gives the class the ability to use the weapon as an implement.

And, again, an exception exists with the staff implements. In general rules you cannot make a melee attack with an implement. The staff contains an exception rule that allows you to treat it as a quarterstaff (using its stats) if you strike someone with it in melee. This doesn't doesn't magically classify it as a weapon nor does it make part of a weapon group. Nor does it make anythign else in a similarly named weapon group magically become an implement.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
I'd be curious to see these rules because they sure haven't been quoted so far. Where does it say that an implement may not be used as a weapon? In many cases, they would fall under the improvised weapons category, but where does it say that you can never jab someone with a wand or throw an orb at them?

Well, here's a couple:

As with most other implements, you can’t make melee attacks with an orb.

As with most other implements, you can’t make melee attacks with a rod.

Etc.

Then there's:

Unlike other implements, a staff also functions as a melee weapon (treat it as a quarterstaff ). When used in melee, a staff applies its enhancement bonus and critical damage dice just as a weapon does.

Of course not - a rule has been provided by someone above that the staff weapon group may be used as an implement. I read that and was unable to dispute its truth.

Ergo, I had to change my personal _assumption_ that it worked otherwise. Accordingly, I am now allowing that to work at my tables.

I would assume that any DM who wishes to prohibit it should provide a rule that proves otherwise. I believe producing such a rule would nicely solve this debate.

So... please do so?

Where is the rule that says they can? I have asked for someone to point that out and no one has been able to. All we have is the staff weapon group description which I quoted. No where int here does it say that anythign in the staff weapon group can be used as an implement.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
The basic problem is that there are a limited number of words to describe similar items, and precision has never been one of WOTC's strong points. Indeed, with 4e, precision isn't even apparently a goal, because the mindset is that obvious problems like this can be easily solved by DM fiat.

The argument is simple: "Wizards can use orbs, staffs and wands as implements. A quarterstaff is a type of staff, so wizards must be able to use them as implements." And, sure, if you want to ignore the rest of the book and take just that one sentence in isolation, that's a fine argument.

Unfortunately, everything else in the book indicates that this is not the case: the staff implement has its own listing as an arcane implement on PH p. 221, with a note that you can also use the staff implement as a quarterstaff. While other classes may be able to use certain weapons as implements, those weapons (even ones designed primarily for implement use, like pact daggers and sorcerer-specific daggers) get listed in the Weapon section and are designated as Weapons; staff implements, in contrast, are designated Implement (staff), and like other implements, get their own section.

"A staff implement can also function as a quarterstaff" (PH p. 221) is a very different matter than "A quarterstaff can function as a staff implement". A pouch of gold coins can also function as an improvised weapon; that is a far cry from saying that every improvised weapon is a pouch of gold coins.

But yes, you can put your fingers in your ears and make the "it just says 'staff', it doesn't say 'staff implement'; a quarterstaff is a staff" argument.

By this same logic, if you get a story award naming you warlord of an orc tribe, I suppose that means you can now take warlord-only feats (pity they didn't specify warlord class); if you are a sun elf (eladrin), I guess that means you can now use elf-only powers (shame they didn't specify elf race). Should you ever encounter a door in a dungeon stating that entry allows you to go up a level, you could certainly try demanding from your DM enough XP to gain a new character level, but I would not expect that to end well.

-- Brian Gibbons.
The argument is simple: "Wizards can use orbs, staffs and wands as implements. A quarterstaff is a type of staff, so wizards must be able to use them as implements." And, sure, if you want to ignore the rest of the book and take just that one sentence in isolation, that's a fine argument.

That's the problem - it's not taking the rest of the book in isolation. It's the language used in every single instance this has come up... hence why clarifying language would be a good thing.

'A wizard wielding a magic ... staff ... can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of wizard powers, as well as wizard paragon path powers, that have the implement keyword.' (Wizard p161)

'Staff: In its most basic form, a staff is a long piece of wood or some other substance, roughly the same diameter along its whole length.' (Weapon Groups p216)

So, the rule is straightforward. No rule contradicts this one - there's certainly a lot of text that explains how staves can be used in melee, absolutely. Also text that they only work as an implement if they're implements for your class - much like the same text under Holy Symbols, for instance.

Loading into the character builder, one of other available methods to examine how WotC thinks this should interact, we see that a wizard with a +2 Vicious Quarterstaff gets the benefit on his spells. Further, that Weapon Focus (Staff) applies to his spells. Just to verify, Weapon Expertise (Staff) does not, so they do have it correctly distinguishing between 'Weapon' powers and not.

As a DM, this is an overwhelming amount of evidence as to the RAW and I would not rule against them on this issue. There's no rule against it, there are rules for it, the programs they're using to make their characters supports it, done.

But... let's take it a step further: What reason would I have to rule against it at this time? Looking at the weapon enchantments in the PHB that apply to staves... which ones would you argue this creates an imbalance? If you're not arguing on the standpoint of balance, which ones would you argue this creates problematic flavor for? Is a 'Resounding Staff' that's able to be used with Thunderwave somehow a bad thing?

I did not think that staves worked that way until I saw this thread, but now that I have, I've had to change my assumptions. I suggest that you do the same. You don't have to like it. You don't have to do it yourself, nor encourage it. You certainly don't have to think it's rules as intended - I'd even believe that it _wasn't_ intended, but then they ran with it. But, ruling otherwise only makes players unhappy and screws up players who've taken treasure they can't undo.

For LFR, I strongly suggest ruling that it works, and moving on.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
1) You can't take the Character Builder as a statement of fact on how somethign is supposed to work. There have been numerous bugs where things haven't worked correctly.

2) I need to check the temperature in hell to see if it's having a freak winter because Brian Gibbons and I agree on something...
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
1) You can't take the Character Builder as a statement of fact on how somethign is supposed to work. There have been numerous bugs where things haven't worked correctly.

Of course not - but you could say the same thing about rules text. It's just another piece of evidence to lay on the pile.

2) I need to check the temperature in hell to see if it's having a freak winter because Brian Gibbons and I agree on something...

That's a pretty cool thing to come out of it
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
So what y'all that are arguing against magic weapon (quarterstaff) +2 being used as an implement are saying is, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it is, in fact, a weasel ...

I think you're also losing sight of the whole "Roll some dice, have some fun" aspect of what we're doing. A player who takes the magic staff +2 as an implement gains no more or less advantage than the player who takes it as a weapon -- both cost the same, both deal the same melee damage, etc. It's not as if the wizard PC gets the "added" benefit of using it for Weapon powers, as the wizard has (with two exceptions, both in the same paragon path) no powers with the Weapon keyword...
I think there is a clear breakdown of RAI versus RAW.

If one compares the situation to a swordmage, it's pretty clear what the ruling should be based on the fact that both classes get similar wording.

Moreover, ruling against the staff being able to be used means that Swordmages can now only get +2 Magic Implement LONGSWORD or something.

If you ruling breaks the established norm, and goes against both the character builder and the wizard text about staffs being both implements and weapons, than perhaps you are being a pedant and allowing badly edited text to supplant the intention of the rule...

As to bgibbons arguement, it breaks down when you consider specific trumping general.

Lets look at the facts:

1. A quarterstaff is a Staff

'Staff: In its most basic form, a staff is a long piece of wood or some other substance, roughly the same diameter along its whole length.' (Weapon Groups p216)

2. Wizards can use Staffs as implements

'A wizard wielding a magic ... staff ... can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of wizard powers, as well as wizard paragon path powers, that have the implement keyword.' (Wizard p161)

- This seems to be specifically pointing out that you can add a weapon bonus to your implement powers...

3. There is no mechanic for separating implement magic bonus from weapon magic bonus
4. The swordmage uses similar text and it's darn obvious what to do there

There is however an argument that you cannot use weapon daily powers on implement keyword powers, and on that I would agree.

But a +2 Magic staff not counting as a +2 magic implement for a staff wizard? You're dreaming.

I am not sure what you are arguing...
Moreover, ruling against the staff being able to be used means that Swordmages can now only get +2 Magic Implement LONGSWORD or something.

No, ruling against the staff being able to be used means an understanding that WOTC uses the term "staff" to mean two completely separate things in different places, and is only referring to one of those things here. No more or less.

The term "heavy blade" has one meaning; the word "dagger" has one meaning. This discussion has no relevance there.

The term "elf" can mean one specific race, or it can be used more expansively. The rules clearly tell me that my drow PC is a dark elf. Nonetheless, I don't think that means that I can take a feat that has a prerequisite of "elf". When the rules use a word that has more than one meaning, context generally tells us which meaning they indicate.

When you have something that is called a staff implement and something that is called a staff weapon group, I think it's pretty clear which staff the rules are talking about in the context of wizards using them as implements.
But a +2 Magic staff not counting as a +2 magic implement for a staff wizard? You're dreaming.

The +2 magic staff is fine; it's the +2 magic quarterstaff (or worse, the +2 flaming quarterstaff) that's the problem.
But... let's take it a step further: What reason would I have to rule against it at this time? Looking at the weapon enchantments in the PHB that apply to staves... which ones would you argue this creates an imbalance?

Actually, I think it unlikely that it would create an imbalance. Then again, I don't think there would be an imbalance if you let wizards use halberds as implements either, so clearly that's not the test.

If an imbalance occurs, it's likely to be because of a power balanced for melee combat that works a lot better when the user is 50' away (e.g., a bonus to hit balanced by an AC penalty).

Though, the cunning quarterstaff (-2 to saves for effects delivered by the weapon) [AV, p. 67] looks pretty attractive to me.
I need to check the temperature in hell to see if it's having a freak winter because Brian Gibbons and I agree on something...

Hmm, you're right. Maybe I better reconsider...

-- Brian Gibbons.
Metz and I are agreeing on something. Maybe I should reconsider.



-SYB
Where the imbalance comes from is that allowing a staff weapon to count as a staff implement, you are left without the wordign sayign that the proficiency bonus doesn't count. That wording exists with every other weapon as implement exception in the rules. Allowing the staff weapon group as an implement means then one can easily argue that you should be able to use the proficiency bonus of the quarterstaff when using an implement power since there is no rule saying you can't use it like it does for daggers and light/heavy blades, etc.

That could make wizards, Invokers, druids, etc. take a staff as a no brainer since you'd have an +2 to hit without havig to burn feats or other character options.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
If an imbalance occurs, it's likely to be because of a power balanced for melee combat that works a lot better when the user is 50' away (e.g., a bonus to hit balanced by an AC penalty).

Though, the cunning quarterstaff (-2 to saves for effects delivered by the weapon) [AV, p. 67] looks pretty attractive to me.

Hmm, you're right. Maybe I better reconsider...

-- Brian Gibbons.

You have me completely convinced. I reverse my position and anticipate figuring out how to completely break the system by abusing this.



-karma
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric