Community

Telvin3d wrote:

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.

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

LordMairsil wrote:

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.

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.

Keithric wrote:

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

KarmaInferno wrote:

- 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.

KarmaInferno wrote:

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.

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.

Keithric wrote:

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

Keithric wrote:

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.

Telvin3d wrote:

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.

Keithric wrote:

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.

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.

bgibbons wrote:

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.

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...

Dragon9 wrote:

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

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...

_metz_ wrote:

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.

_metz_ wrote:

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.

Keithric wrote:

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.

Dragon9 wrote:

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.

bgibbons wrote:

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

Dragon9 wrote:

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.

Except you aren't missing that wording. That wording exists in PHB2 as a standard boilerplate for ALL weapons as implements. If that is your only argument, then PHB2 solves the problem.

-SYB

I didn't see that in the PHB2. I saw how it was only mentioned in the weapon keyword rules update. I didn't see it anywhere else. Is it listed anywhere else?

Pg. 204, PHB2

-SYB

Note that at the staff section in the PHB it is also reasonably clear about magical staffs and quarterstaffs being the same.

It says no such thing. I'm not sure where you are getting that it is reasonably clear they are the same thing. "Treated as," "functions as," and "can be used as" are not saying it is the same thing.

Arvagor wrote:

I think you're also losing sight of the whole "Roll some dice, have some fun" aspect of what we're doing.

This is essentially it - I don't see any inherent harm in allowing it to work, and there is inherent harm in disallowing it until there is a more clear ruling.

I'd strongly advise against any DM ruling against this issue until the powers what be settle it straight. It's not like LFR is setup like a home campaign where you can just go 'Oh, hrmm, that +1 Resounding Quarterstaff I gave you doesn't work? Nevermind it's a... Fiery Might'. Ruling against it is, as far as I can tell, going against a preponderance of evidence in an attempt to reduce the enjoyment of someone else, without increasing the enjoyment of anyone else (well, I'd hope - some folks get their kicks on odd things).

This isn't a reparation apparatus or rod of reaving + corruption combo we're talking about here. It's really benign.

I'm surprised we haven't seen a reply from the powers that be to this thread yet. A simple "yes" or "no" would conclude this discussion.

Its Core rule.
CT and LFR admins do not deal or answer core rules issues (execept perhaps to give an opinion, which has as much wiegth as anyone else on teh forum).
the peoep, hwo can answer the question do not do so on these fora, but through the FAQ at the wizards site.

Gomez,
who leans to say: yes, a magic quarterstaff is a weapon AND an implement. It is not like a wizard with a staff is going to do massive melee damage...

It's not entirely a core rules question, though.

How many DMs actually give out a "magic weapon +2" generic treasure in their home games?

They're going to give out a specific item.

The only place you're going to see this sort of thing IS places like LFR, where the author of an adventure is NOT the DM, and the DM has no authority to change the treasure awarded.


-karma

Agreed with KarmaInferno. This is an LFR issue. My original question was, "Can I take the Magic Weapon +2 bundle to get a Staff +2?"

A suggestion for future adventure writers... To avoid rules headaches like this, give us both a magic weapon and a magic implement bundle in the same adventure.

gomeztoo wrote:

yes, a magic quarterstaff is a weapon AND an implement. It is not like a wizard with a staff is going to do massive melee damage...

Me, I'm leaning towards getting a "damage type shifting" staff.

Brilliant Weapon or Radiant might be nice, all those juicy wizard AoEs turned into radiant damage. Undead? What undead?

Oh and hey look, all those nice, more expensive, damage-type-shifting gloves and such? Now totally irrelevant. Why would I get Shadowfell Gloves when I can get a Necrotic or Vampiric Staff, and have ALL my powers be Necrotic, not just once a day.

People are already considering that Frost Weapon + Lasting Frost + Wintertouched is too good a combo, and that's versus single targets. Now my wizard can do it in wide AoEs. Permanent Combat Advantage is kinda nifty.

As mentioned, Cunning Weapon. A permanent -2 penalty to targets for all my 'save ends' spells. Who needs the Orb Wizard save penalty? I'll take 'always on' versus 'once an encounter' please.

Ooo, I gotta see if there's a staff weapon enchantment that lets me add the psychic keyword. Dark Fury and Psychic Lock on ALL my spells. Nice.

I gotta get home and look through my 4E stuff, i just came up with the above skimming through AV.


-karma

KarmaInferno wrote:

It's not entirely a core rules question, though.

How many DMs actually give out a "magic weapon +2" generic treasure in their home games?

They're going to give out a specific item.

The only place you're going to see this sort of thing IS places like LFR, where the author of an adventure is NOT the DM, and the DM has no authority to change the treasure awarded.

No, it's a core rule question. It's just a gap in the rules that would only be shown by a bizarre treasure system like LFR's. Any home DM who was so inappropriate with treasure choices would be taken out back and beaten long before the wizard resorted to considering if he could take a +2 quarterstaff just to have ANYTHING. Really, this is a thread that should get linked in one of the standard D&D forums. I'm not sure where core rules questions usually go, so someone who hangs out more on the main boards might want to take care of that.

KarmaInferno wrote:

Me, I'm leaning towards getting a "damage type shifting" staff.

Just to make this debate more fun, all the damage shifting weapons say things along the lines of "All damage dealt by this weapon" where as the few damage shifting implements specifically reference implement damage. So my reading is that the use of 'weapon' means that damage dealt with implement powers would not be affected.

I believe the section only says you get enhancement bonus to hit and damage . It does not mention properties gaining the properties of the item.

For what it's worth, I intended to ugprade the Staff +2 that I would've gotten into a Staff of Ruin +2 (still the best choice for staff sorcerers).

I wasn't trying to get a Flaming Quarterstaff to convert all of my spells into Fire (which is my chosen element). I'm a DM, too, and I wouldn't allow it.

KarmaInferno wrote:

Me, I'm leaning towards getting a "damage type shifting" staff.

Brilliant Weapon or Radiant might be nice, all those juicy wizard AoEs turned into radiant damage. Undead? What undead?

Oh and hey look, all those nice, more expensive, damage-type-shifting gloves and such? Now totally irrelevant. Why would I get Shadowfell Gloves when I can get a Necrotic or Vampiric Staff, and have ALL my powers be Necrotic, not just once a day.

People are already considering that Frost Weapon + Lasting Frost + Wintertouched is too good a combo, and that's versus single targets. Now my wizard can do it in wide AoEs. Permanent Combat Advantage is kinda nifty.

As mentioned, Cunning Weapon. A permanent -2 penalty to targets for all my 'save ends' spells. Who needs the Orb Wizard save penalty? I'll take 'always on' versus 'once an encounter' please.

Ooo, I gotta see if there's a staff weapon enchantment that lets me add the psychic keyword. Dark Fury and Psychic Lock on ALL my spells. Nice.

I gotta get home and look through my 4E stuff, i just came up with the above skimming through AV.


-karma

Karma, you are overstating the issue. You can really only viably have one staff at a time. So, if you want psychic damage on all your attacks (assuming it works... I really haven't a clue and don't feel like looking it up), then you don't have a cunning staff (or at least you didn't use it for that attack).

In fact, all of the so-called "problems" you just talked about are minor issues at best. Permanent combat advantage at paragon isn't that big a deal (it also isn't true, because you will still miss on attacks). Really, just a non-issue from the word "go".

-SYB

KarmaInferno wrote:

Brilliant Weapon or Radiant might be nice, all those juicy wizard AoEs turned into radiant damage. Undead? What undead?

Oh and hey look, all those nice, more expensive, damage-type-shifting gloves and such? Now totally irrelevant. Why would I get Shadowfell Gloves when I can get a Necrotic or Vampiric Staff, and have ALL my powers be Necrotic, not just once a day.

People are already considering that Frost Weapon + Lasting Frost + Wintertouched is too good a combo, and that's versus single targets. Now my wizard can do it in wide AoEs. Permanent Combat Advantage is kinda nifty.

As mentioned, Cunning Weapon. A permanent -2 penalty to targets for all my 'save ends' spells. Who needs the Orb Wizard save penalty? I'll take 'always on' versus 'once an encounter' please.

Here's where the distinction *is* important, and why none of those work how you think those will work... Every single enchantment you mention is a Weapon enchantment, which means the powers and properties of the enchantment (if they change damage types, power effects, etc.) only work when the weapon is used as a weapon; none of them are going to work (with the exception of the critical effect - see PH2, p204) if you're using the staff as an implement.

Arvagor wrote:

Here's where the distinction *is* important, and why none of those work how you think those will work... Every single enchantment you mention is a Weapon enchantment, which means the powers and properties of the enchantment (if they change damage types, power effects, etc.) only work when the weapon is used as a weapon; none of them are going to work (with the exception of the critical effect - see PH2, p204) if you're using the staff as an implement.

But wait! Didn't everyone just get done saying that a quarterstaff and a staff are the same thing? So shouldn't it get the properties and powers that the quarterstaff has? I mean... they're the same thing! A staff is a weapon, it's part of the staff weapon group! Roll dice! Have fun! Breath mint! Two weeks! Ahhhhh! *head asplode*

Dragon9 wrote:

But wait! Didn't everyone just get done saying that a quarterstaff and a staff are the same thing? So shouldn't it get the properties and powers that the quarterstaff has? I mean... they're the same thing! A staff is a weapon, it's part of the staff weapon group! Roll dice! Have fun! Breath mint! Two weeks! Ahhhhh! *head asplode*

Regardless of whether a staff is a weapon or an implement (it's both :P ), it doesn't change the fact that weapon effects only apply for powers with the Weapon keyword and implement effects only apply to powers with the Implement keyword.

PH2 206:
[INDENT]If you can wield a staff as an implement, you can
add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the
damage rolls of implement powers you use through
the staff, and you can use its properties and powers.
Otherwise, you treat a staff as a magic quarterstaff
and cannot use its properties or powers.[/INDENT]
I see no reason why the reverse would not also be true, that if you're using a staff with a weapon property, that those properties only apply when using it with weapon powers. In fact, the text on page 56 of the Adventurer's Vault supports this:
[INDENT]Many weapons have properties that provide a
constant benefit. To gain the benefit of a weapon’s
property, you must be wielding the weapon. Unless
specified otherwise, a property affects only the
weapon to which it’s attached. For example, a +2 cunning
dagger, which bestows a –2 penalty to an enemy’s
saving throws against your weapon powers, affects
only powers that are delivered using that weapon. [emphasis mine][/INDENT]
Try thinking of a staff as a Shrödinger's Cat of D&D -- it's nature depends on the power with which you're using it. If you use a power with the Weapon keyword, then only weapon properties apply, while if you use a power with the Implement keyword, then only implement properties apply. For good or bad, it is the nature of 4e that prevents an item from having multiple enchantments (i.e., a staff can never have a weapon property and an implement property, though that paradigm could certainly be blurred in the future).

egardless of whether a staff is a weapon or an implement (it's both ), it doesn't change the fact that weapon effects only apply for powers with the Weapon keyword and implement effects only apply to powers with the Implement keyword.

Don't you love people who shoot themselves in the foot?

So, a +2 quarterstaff (weapon) cannot provide any benefit at all when used as an implement, since its +2 has the weapon keyword?

kinevon wrote:

Don't you love people who shoot themselves in the foot?

How so? Nothing I wrote contradicts anything I previously stated.

kinevon wrote:

So, a +2 quarterstaff (weapon) cannot provide any benefit at all when used as an implement, since its +2 has the weapon keyword?

Did you actually read any of the referenced texts from AV or PH2? I'm not sure to what you're referring, since nowhere did I say anything about the staff, or whatever a "+2" is, having a Weapon keyword -- I (and AV 56, and PH2 206) were referring to powers with the Weapon or Implement keywords...

Try re-reading PH2 204 as well; that'll answer your second question:
[INDENT]If you’re able to wield a magic weapon as an
implement and use an implement power through
it, you add the weapon’s enhancement bonus to the
power’s attack rolls and damage rolls, but you do not
use the weapon’s proficiency bonus. If you score a
critical hit with the magic weapon when using it as
an implement, you use the weapon’s critical hit effect.[/INDENT]

Arvagor wrote:

Every single enchantment you mention is a Weapon enchantment, which means the powers and properties of the enchantment (if they change damage types, power effects, etc.) only work when the weapon is used as a weapon

That's an open question.

I originally would have completely agreed with you, but since the ruling* appears to be that the damage bonus from Weapon Focus applies even when using the weapon as an implement, I'd be hard-pressed to argue that an item's powers can't be used in similar circumstances.

Basically, the argument is "When you hit with the weapon" just means "When you hit with a power delivered through this item" not "When you use this weapon as a weapon". Another point raised is that some implement-based swordmage powers do [W]-based damage, so clearly the weapon-as-a-weapon's properties aren't completely distinct from the weapon-as-an-implement statistics.

I'm not really thrilled with the argument, but I can't see much of a rationale for treating weapon powers differently from the Weapon Focus feat.

-- Brian Gibbons.
* Show

Hence, anothr reason why I am loathe to throw what I see as RAW out the window to allow a quarterstaff to function as an implement.

For example: The Staff section specifically calls out that you gain the properties of the implement when using it to deliver an implement power. No such wording exists for weapons. So yeah, you can argue to allow such a thing. The wording from the AV is nice, but it does leave soem wiggle room to argue the case since it's speaking as an example and not as a rule.

I don't agree with it, but a swordmage could easily argue that they should get the +d6 damage of the porperty when using an implement power through it.

I say: Keep 'em seperate!

bgibbons wrote:

WOTC's current position appears to be that if something is listed as a Property for a weapon, you can use it when wielding the item as an implement, but that you can't use things listed as Powers. So, for example, if a swordmage were to use a +1 controlling glaive (AV, p. 66), they could increase by 1 the distance of any pulls/pushes done by powers using the glaive as an implement (because that's a property), but couldn't turn the pull/push into a slide (because that's a power).

The problem I see with that interpretation is that lots of the new daggers in the PHB2 have daily powers that are triggered when "you hit an enemy with a sorcerer power using this dagger". Since the daggers are in the weapon section, and no sorcerer powers have the Weapon keyword, the above ruling would make it impossible to activate their daily powers.

As for the whole 'when is a staff a staff?' question, I'm staying well away from that one - it's a little too philosophical for me .

I doubt this will change anyone's mind, but I actually have an explanation for why their are rules that talk about staff implements as staff weapons, but not vice versa.

First, lets be clear. Their is no explicit language in the book that says a staff weapon is not a staff implement.

Second, according to page 157 of the PHB, "a wizard wielding a 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."

"Staff" may be an overloaded word, but their is no explicit rule that says it is. As such, we must take all uses of the word "staff" as applying to all text that refers to "staff". That is RAW. Anything else is making assumptions of RAI without evidence. So, based on the pg. 157, a magical weapon staff adds its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of wizard powers that have the implement keyword.

A side note here. The PHB2 language on pg. 204 about not adding proficiency to implement attacks should also exist in PHB (if for no other reason than Wizard of the Spiral Tower).

Third, it is important to note that the text for staff implement as quarterstaff only exists in the Magic Item section of the PHB. It doesn't exist in the normal equipment section. This distinction is telling, in my opinion. The text explicitly allows a staff from that chart to be used as a quarterstaff and to add enhancement bonus to weapon attacks. Without that text, any staff on that chart would not be permissibly used that way, because their would be no explicit text allowing it.

To follow the chain of rules:
1. Wizard rules explicitly allow wizards to use anything labeled "staff" as an implement and does NOT explicitly provide an exception for the "staff" weapon group.
2. A magical staff from the weapon chart explicitly allows the enhancement bonus to be used on weapon attacks (and rule 1 above allows a wizard to use it on spells).
3. A magical staff from the staff chart explicitly allows the enhancement bonus to be used on implement attacks (redundant) and explicitly allows it to be used on weapon attacks.
4. PHB2 includes rules preventing weapon proficiency from being used on implement attacks (this REALLY should have been in PHB).

-SYB

Thanyll wrote:

The problem I see with that interpretation is that lots of the new daggers in the PHB2 have daily powers that are triggered when "you hit an enemy with a sorcerer power using this dagger". Since the daggers are in the weapon section, and no sorcerer powers have the Weapon keyword, the above ruling would make it impossible to activate their daily powers.

Well, as an exception rules set those items are giving an exception rule to allow it via the appropriate rules listed in their stat blocks.

@ SYB

I see where you are coming from, but this is an exception rules set. Your stance stems from two thoughts: 1) that the rules don't say can't so you can, and 2) An assumption, due to the similarity in name, that a staff implement is part of the staff weapon group despite there being no explicit rule to declare it so and predicated on the fact that if you use a staff implement to make a melee attack you treat it as a quarterstaff that is part of the staff weapon group. In this type of rules set that is a false assumption.

I really, really wish WotC had responded to my plea for a firmly detailed explanation of exception rules, so that people would stop misusing them in rules arguments.

Dragon9 wrote:

I see where you are coming from, but this is an exception rules set. Your stance stems from two thoughts: 1) that the rules don't say can't so you can, and 2) An assumption, due to the similarity in name, that a staff implement is part of the staff weapon group despite there being no explicit rule to declare it so and predicated on the fact that if you use a staff implement to make a melee attack you treat it as a quarterstaff that is part of the staff weapon group. In this type of rules set that is a false assumption.

Don't you see, though -- it's just as much a flaw in logic to argue the other way, i.e., "the rules don't say you can, so you can't". For example:

• The Heal skill doesn't say you can use a check to determine cause-of-death
  
• The Nature skill doesn't say you can attempt to predict the weather
  
• The Perception skill doesn't say you can attempt to notice or identify a smell

But would you deny the use of any of those skills for any of those purposes?

If I might quote the rules directly? Just to..yaknow..give a bit of info? Found under the 'Staffs' sections on 240 of the PHB.

A staff is a shaft of wood as tall or slightly taller than
you are, sometimes crowned with a decorative crystal
or some other arcane fetish. 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 ).
When used in melee, a staff applies its enhancement
bonus and critical damage dice just as a weapon does.


Reading over that. And trying to interpret it. It tells me, directly, that a staff is either a quarterstaff or a walking staff. It then goes on to say that a staff is different from all other implements because it also functions as a melee weapon. Reading over it..and trying to infer it into the spirit of the game..

For better or worse..I read the spirit of the rules saying that..yes..a quarterstaff is a staff. Taking function to NOT mean 'it acts like' and instead 'it appropriately is'. Which if any of you check the dictionary, is a viable way of taking function (and the one I most assume it as being to be honest).

As for this being..broken...and all because this could mean wizards can use the different weapon enhancements..and changing all spells from one type of damage to another....

Umm...do note other classes can do the same..sorcerer, as noted just in this thread. Actually gains every single 'weapon skill' a wizard does..as well as some others that are light blade only (hello dancing weapon perhaps?). And look at wizard of the spiral power...it allows you to treat longswords (specifically) as impliments...so also applying their powers then?

In other words....these things were already available, and other classes have them as well. I don't even see anything in the sense of broken..that wasn't already possible anyway...and it certain makes some of the elemental weapons make more sense to me now..heh.

Dragon9 wrote:

I see where you are coming from, but this is an exception rules set. Your stance stems from two thoughts: 1) that the rules don't say can't so you can, and 2) An assumption, due to the similarity in name, that a staff implement is part of the staff weapon group despite there being no explicit rule to declare it so

See, many of us feel just the opposite. We see absolutely nothing in the rules as they are currently written to suggest that 'staff' refers to anything other than the weapon group. It's the type of disagreement where there is nothing more than can really be said either way until some errata shows up. The current evidence has either been enough to convince you one way or another and there is nothing new to add.

I agree that the onus of proof goes to the position that "staff" does not refer to the weapon group.

If you see the word "staff" in rules text, you know that "staff" is a defined rules term. You must then apply all instances of that word to the rule using it unless a specific exception is noted.

Arguing that Implement Staves and Weapon Group Staves are different is arguing Rules As Intended, not Rules As Written. By RAW, a Staff is a Staff is a Staff, unless specifically said otherwise.

That's exception based design.

Note also: The specific rule that says that Staff Impelements can be used as Quarterstaves? Imagine that in Adventurer's Vault 2, we get a Superior Weapon that belongs to the Staff weapon group, say, i dunno, a "Fullstaff". Now you have a clear indication that Implement Staves can be used as Quarterstaves and not Fullstaves.
Coming from the other side, we know that Wizards who took Weapon Proficiency Fullstaff would be able to use their Fullstaff as an implement, because it belongs to the staff weapon group, and Wizards can use staffs as implements. The fact that Implement Staves are noted as being Quarterstaves does not exclude Weapon Fullstaves from being used as Implements, it just clearly denotes what kind of weapon Implement Staves can be used as.

I beg to differ. We have a staff weapon group that contains 1 thing: Quarterstaff. There is no listing for "Staff."

Staff implements are treated as a quarterstaff when used for a melee attack. It is not, in and of itself, a quarterstaff. There is nothing that says a staff implement is a quarterstaff. It only says it is treated as a quarterstaff for the purpose of melee attacks.

So it is not arguing RAI. Staff is defined as two things: an implement and a weapon group. The fact they share a similar name is not indicative of an implement staff being part of the staff weapon group. In Barrow of the Ogre King there's a item called the Skull Totem. It's a mace. Since it has Totem in the name should it be usable by Druids and Shamans as implements? They share the same name: Totem.

I really dont get how these people can argue with logic, since anyone who read the book should have noticed multiple naming convention discrepancies. As has pointed out the Staff.. There is also the word Mace which is used for two different things as with Flail and Melee. Attack seems to have three meanings in the books.. and if you go by the FAQ the word Wield has multiple uses as well. I know I have missed as few, but those are the ones off the top of my head.

Just because two things use the same name, does not mean they are the same thing. We are all writing in the english language.. in order for you to have learned this language you had to learn multiple words that mean the same thing and multiple words that mean more than one thing, why can that be accepted in a language but not in a game?

Dragon9 wrote:

I beg to differ. We have a staff weapon group that contains 1 thing: Quarterstaff. There is no listing for "Staff."

Staff implements are treated as a quarterstaff when used for a melee attack. It is not, in and of itself, a quarterstaff. There is nothing that says a staff implement is a quarterstaff. It only says it is treated as a quarterstaff for the purpose of melee attacks.

So it is not arguing RAI. Staff is defined as two things: an implement and a weapon group. The fact they share a similar name is not indicative of an implement staff being part of the staff weapon group. In Barrow of the Ogre King there's a item called the Skull Totem. It's a mace. Since it has Totem in the name should it be usable by Druids and Shamans as implements? They share the same name: Totem.

...No listing for "Staff"? What? Why would the weapon group Staff having a listing for Staff in it? Everything under the Staff weapon group is a Staff. Just like everything under the Heavy Blade weapon group is a Heavy Blade.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with that.

Look at it this way. What is a dagger? A dagger is a Light Blade.

What is a Quarterstaff? A quarterstaff is a Staff.

What can be used as Wizard Implements? A Staff.

Ergo, Quarterstaff can be used as an implement, because it is a Staff.

As for the "Skull Totem", the term "Skull Totem" is for the specific name of a magic item, not a categorization. What is a Skull Totem? In rules-speak, it is not a Totem, it is a mace. What's a Holy Avenger? It's a heavy blade, not a Divine Striker class. The *name* of a magic item doesn't change what it is.

AvonRekaes wrote:

...No listing for "Staff"? What? Why would the weapon group Staff having a listing for Staff in it? Everything under the Staff weapon group is a Staff. Just like everything under the Heavy Blade weapon group is a Heavy Blade.

And what if there was an item called "Heavy Blade?"

A staff implement is not a quarterstaff. So yes, you would need to have "Staff" listed in the weapon tables and have it listed as part of the staff weapon group if it is going to be considered part of it.

Staff shows up under the adventuring gear list. Not the weapon table.

This is what I think you are failing to understand. A staff is not a quarterstaff.

What is a Quarterstaff? A quarterstaff is a Staff.

What can be used as Wizard Implements? A Staff.

I see how you're twisting it around. You should be writing:

What is a quarterstaff? A weapon in the staff weapon group.

What is a staff? a wizard/druid/invoker implement.

Implements are not weapons and are not a part of a weapon group. The staff has an exception rule allowing you to use the stats of a quarterstaff if you bash someone in the head with it.

Again, look at the wording: "treated as," "used as," "counts as," etc. So it bears repeating: a staff is not a quarterstaff. A staff is not a weapon.

As for the "Skull Totem", the term "Skull Totem" is for the specific name of a magic item, not a categorization.

That's my point. A wizards implement is called a staff. It shares a name with a weapon group, but is not part of that weapon because it is not a weapon.

What is a Skull Totem? In rules-speak, it is not a Totem, it is a mace. The *name* of a magic item doesn't change what it is.

Thank you for proving my point.

Actually he didn't proove your point, instead you proved is that you know how to twist other peoples words to get a meaning that you want..out of it.


The question here isn't if an item named 'impliment staff' weapon class 'impliment' should count as a staff. The question is if the entire weapon class 'staff' is the same as the impliment.

Reading the PHB, I think in the spirit and literal interpretation of the rules..that yes the weaponclass Staff, is the exact same class of items as the impliment Staff.

The Skull Totem does NOT come into play here. As you are looking at the name of the item, instead of the type of item it is. Those saying they are one and the same, are saying that the weapon class Staff, is the exact same thing as the impliment Staff.

I'd personally like to see a direct ruling from wizards to be honest...simply because they do use somewhat ambiguous text. Including using words that could mean 'it acts like' as well as 'the exact same thing' (yes some of the words they use to define impliment staves have definitions that can go either way). At least that way we'd get their official ruling..and I'd go whichever way they said no problem.


Besides if this goes through this dosn't even cheese much at all....all it'd do for the most part..is allow those who use staves as an impliment to have a better possibility of getting an impliment as a reward...instead of being shafted in impliment choices.

Dragon9 wrote:

Implements are not weapons and are not a part of a weapon group.

Except where they are.

Swordmage's implements are two weapon groups.

Wizard's implements are orb, wand, and Weapon Group Staff.

"But the book doesn't say "Weapon Group"" you say.

It doesn't have to. Because a Staff is a Staff.


Also, I never said that a Implement Staff IS a Quarterstaff. That's where you're confused.

What I said was that a Quarterstaff is a Staff. And a Staff is a wizard implement, because the class says so.

If you have a magic implement staff, I'm willing to agree with you that it isn't actually a quarterstaff, but is only treated as one.

This does not stop an actual quarterstaff from being an implement.

Magic Staff +1 can be treated as a quarterstaff.

And Magic Quarterstaff +1 IS a Magic Staff +1, because all Quarterstaves are Staves.

AvonRekaes wrote:

Swordmage's implements are two weapon groups.

True. Because they have an exception that says they utilize weapons from two different weapon groups as implements.

Wizard's implements are orb, wand, and Weapon Group Staff.

Not true. It does not say anything about the staff weapon group. It says staff, but you are inserting your assumption into the statement.

"But the book doesn't say "Weapon Group"" you say.

It doesn't have to. Because a Staff is a Staff.

Yes, actually, it does. Because they have presented us with two different rules items named staff: 1) a weapon group, 2) an implement. Because they share a name does not mean they are the same thing.

If you have a magic implement staff, I'm willing to agree with you that it isn't actually a quarterstaff, but is only treated as one.

This does not stop an actual quarterstaff from being an implement.

Magic Staff +1 can be treated as a quarterstaff.

And Magic Quarterstaff +1 IS a Magic Staff +1, because all Quarterstaves are Staves.

If this is true (which I do not believe it is and commonality of name is not enough to convince me) then why would we see exception rules allowing you to use a staff as a quarterstaff but see nothing allowing the opposite? That is where the logic breaks down. It makes no sense. If they are meant to be interchangeable, you wouldn't need to give rules to allow it one way but not the other.

Barring an explicit explanation by WotC allowing it, i would need the following holes cleared up before I could consider a quarterstaff to be an implement:

If anything from the staff weapon group is allowed to be used as an implement... then why have separate listings for staffs?

Why place them in a separate category?

Why not leave it as the weapon group like Swordmages?

Why not only have Orbs, Rods, and Wands as the only implements if the staff weapon group is meant to be the implement?

Why do we not see magic Light Blade and Heavy Blade listings with the other implement listings in the PHB, AV, AV2, etc.?

Why do magic weapons have staff listed as what it can be applied to, but under the Staff listings it says Implement (staff)?

Is a quarterstaff an Implement (Staff)?

Is the staff weapon group an Implement (staff)?

Why have separate staff items with their own properties instead of listing them under Magic Weapons like the pact weapons or the newer sorcerer weapon items?

There's too much pointing to them being separate and not equal aside from the language allowing an Implement (staff) to be used as a quarterstaff btu no such language existing the other way. I know you want to say that they don't have to, but again, why point out you can use a staff as a weapon if it's so obvious that it can go either way?

Dragon9 wrote:

Not true. It does not say anything about the staff weapon group. It says staff, but you are inserting your assumption into the statement.

It does say something about the staff weapon group. In the same way that Swordmage says something about the heavy blade and light blade weapon groups. Does the Swordmage class specifically say "any weapon of the heavy blade or light blade weapon groups" or does it just say "heavy blades or light blades"? It just names the weapon group. Just like wizard just names its weapon group.

Yes, actually, it does. Because they have presented us with two different rules items named staff: 1) a weapon group, 2) an implement. Because they share a name does not mean they are the same thing.

That's ludicrous. They don't share names, they share designations. They are both designated as staves. It's one thing to say "This is called a staff" and another to say "This is a staff".

Skull Totem is just called a totem, but it is a mace. Magic Quarterstaves are staves. Implement staves are staves.

If this is true (which I do not believe it is and commonality of name is not enough to convince me) then why would we see exception rules allowing you to use a staff as a quarterstaff but see nothing allowing the opposite? That is where the logic breaks down. It makes no sense. If they are meant to be interchangeable, you wouldn't need to give rules to allow it one way but not the other.

Except if there ends up being a plethora of staff group weapons. Then you need a specific ruling saying what kind of staff weapon implement staves can be used like. If Three-Section-Staves and Bo Staff are added to the Staff weapon group, then you'd be confused as to what kind of staff an implement staff can be used as to bash someone over the head. So the rule is there, and it defaults to the basic quarterstaff.

Barring an explicit explanation by WotC allowing it, i would need the following holes cleared up before I could consider a quarterstaff to be an implement:

If anything from the staff weapon group is allowed to be used as an implement... then why have separate listings for staffs?

Why place them in a separate category?

Because some staves are particularly enchanted to improve implement attacks, and some are particularly enchanted to improve weapon attacks.

Frost Quarterstaves can't be used to make implement attacks do cold damage, because weapons only apply properties, crit, and enhancement to implement attacks. You can't use item powers from a weapon on an implement power.

So then you have implement staves, who can apply their item powers to implement attacks. They can also be used as weapons.

Why not leave it as the weapon group like Swordmages?

Because Swordmages have many more weapon attacks than implement attacks, so it doesn't quite make sense to give them implement swords that they can't use item powers on for most of their attacks.

Why not only have Orbs, Rods, and Wands as the only implements if the staff weapon group is meant to be the implement?

What? I never said it was meant to be "the" implement for wizards, just "an" implement for them.

Why would we eliminate three other implement types just because they can use a weapon group as implements? Look at the Sorcerer. Sure they don't get the entire Light Blade group as implements, but just because they can use Daggers as implements doesn't mean they have to give up all other implement types.

Why do we not see magic Light Blade and Heavy Blade listings with the other implement listings in the PHB, AV, AV2, etc.?

Like I said above, Swordmages use those as implements, and most of the class's powers are Weapon attacks. Making implements for them in heavy or light blade form would stunt the majority of the class. It's an all-around bad design choice.

Why do magic weapons have staff listed as what it can be applied to, but under the Staff listings it says Implement (staff)?

Because.... they both apply to the same thing? Both types can be applied to the same item?

It's like a Spiked Shield. Though this isn't a perfect example and doesn't correlate exactly, bare with me. With a Spiked Shield, you can take it and enhance it two different ways. You can make it a magic weapon, or a magic shield. But both options come from the same mundane item.

Is a quarterstaff an Implement (Staff)?

For a class that uses staves as implements? Yes. Because a quarterstaff is a staff, and those classes use staves as implements.

Is the staff weapon group an Implement (staff)?

No, because the staff weapon group is a category, not an object, so it can't be anything but a heading under which other items exist.

If you meant "is anything in the weapon group staff an implement"? Yes. If a "Longstaff" or a "Three-Section-Staff" (hypothetical future members of the staff weapon group) were enhanced as magical weapons, then they would apply enhancement, crit, and property to implement attacks for classes that can use staves as implements. Because they are staves.

Why have separate staff items with their own properties instead of listing them under Magic Weapons like the pact weapons or the newer sorcerer weapon items?

Because then you couldn't use item powers on implement attacks, because for "weapons used as implements" you can only use enhancement, crit, and property on implement attacks.
Note that the sorcerer daggers specifically make note of being used with sorcerer attack powers. This is a specific rule overriding weapon powers not being able to be used in implement attacks. These daggers specifically, can be used with sorcerer powers.

Should a Swordmage try and used these daggers, he may not use the powers on his attacks, because they specifically only work for sorcerers.

These "sorcerer daggers" are more of a collection of similar magic items, rather than a category in and of themselves. Just like pact weapons. There's not actual category for pact weapons, just several magic weapons that have similar properties (usable as an implement for warlocks) that all have "Pact" somewhere in their name. It's not a rules category, just a naming theme.

These pact weapons and sorcerer daggers aren't their own implement type because they are specific magic items, each one of them. They are not a category because you can't say "pact weapons" or "sorcerer daggers" in rules text, because those designations don't exist within the rules.

Whereas staves can just be enchanted as implements. Wizards, Invokers, and Druids can use them to use their item powers on implement attacks, as well as enhancement, crit, and properties on any attacks they make, treating their implements as quarterstaves for weapon attacks.

There's too much pointing to them being separate and not equal aside from the language allowing an Implement (staff) to be used as a quarterstaff btu no such language existing the other way. I know you want to say that they don't have to, but again, why point out you can use a staff as a weapon if it's so obvious that it can go either way?

Because if the "Longstaff" and "Three-Section-Staff" exist, hypothetically, at some point in the entire future of 4e, then there would be confusion as to what kind of weapon the implement can be used as. This way, it defaults to Quarterstaff.

Also, consider. We have general rules for using weapons as implements in the PHB2, because LOTS of weapons can be used as implements, either from their individual types like Pact Daggers and Holy Avengers, or from classes being able to use them, like Swordmages, Sorcerers, and any class that can use staffs.

What we don't have are general rules going the other way. We don't have a rule for trying to whack someone with your holy symbol, other than to default to "improvised weapon". Staff implements then provide us with specific rules for using them as weapons.

I rather suspect that both sides have made their arguments, to one extent or another, and that very few minds are going to be changed by further pages of discussion.

Hopefully at some point in the future, this issue will be clarified officially.

You beat me to the punch. I could still reply to Avon's post, but as you said, the horse has been thouroughly beaten to death.

My feeling is that weapon quarterstaves weren't intended to be used as wizard implements.

However, I'm not going to ruin some kid's Christmas by telling him is treasure choice was a useless mistake.

The proper thing to do would be to inform the kid that it could be a problem if he runs into a DM that won't allow it, and suggest that he replace the problematic item pick with one less likely to cause a problem.

That way at least even if he chooses not to, he knows it's a potential problem.

For what it's worth, I posed the question to CS:

Q: Can a Quarterstaff (PHB page 218) be used as an Implement by classes that use staff implements?

The Quarterstaff is in the "Staff" weapon group, and certain classes can use Staff as an implement.

For example, Staff in included in the Implement types a Wizard can use. If my wizard picks up a Frost Quarterstaff +2 (PHB pg 234), can he cast his Implement keyword spells using that quarterstaff as a staff implement?

Would he get the enhancement bonus to hit and damage? The +1d6 cold damage per plus on criticals? The weapon powers (Assuming he was proficient with the quarterstaff as a weapon, which wizards are)?

A: A quarter staff cannot be used as an implement. Only an actual Staff can be. A staff can be used as a weapon (as a quarter staff), however, a quarter staff cannot be used as an implement.

Not "LFR-official" but at least a guideline.


-karma

Thanks for posing the question to CS Karma.

KarmaInferno wrote:

The proper thing to do would be to inform the kid that it could be a problem if he runs into a DM that won't allow it, and suggest that he replace the problematic item pick with one less likely to cause a problem.

That way at least even if he chooses not to, he knows it's a potential problem.

I meant if someone was at my table who had previously selected the +2 quarterstaff, I wouldn't deny them the use of it. If they were to pick it at my table, I'd definitely warn them that they should be prepared if another DM does deny them.

Yeah, this came up when I was running a series of adventures for new PH2 characters that will take them from 1st through 6th via Spellgard... so I was asked about taking a +2 quarterstaff and I responded that I suspected something official might rule against it in the future and that there might be DM variance, but I would allow it through Spellgard in the meantime in the hopes things would be clarified.

I'll cede the arguement. There really is no convincing anyone at this point and people are entitled to their own opinions.

I'll just note that Customer Service is far from reliable. CS answers in the past have been overturned in official updates/FAQs and I've had a personal distaste for them ever since asking for help on making a DM ruling and their answer to me was "ask your DM."

I just find it interesting that some people believe a +2 quarterstaff cannot be used as an implement by a sorcerer...but have no problem with the sorcerer using a +2 dagger as an implement.

I would suggest re-reading everything that was said for the why to what you find interesting.

As to tyweise's situation. i would disallow it in a heartbeat and ban him from ever playign at one of tables again. But then again, I have been known to kick puppies and eat babies, so what do you expect?

(That is all a joke of course... at least the kicking puppies part... I'd never do that... :D)

Fedifensor wrote:

I just find it interesting that some people believe a +2 quarterstaff cannot be used as an implement by a sorcerer...but have no problem with the sorcerer using a +2 dagger as an implement.

It would clearly be overpowered if a sorcerer could use a +2 quarterstaff as an implement. The sorcerer would have access to all those "staff weapon group only" magic item enhancements that break the game.

-SYB

Somewhere off in the distance, I hear a sound... it's as if a million Player's Handbooks suddenly shattered...

Hmmmm... RAI says it's nonsensical to think that rhe terms are not interchangeable. I'd allow it.

Rexracerjr wrote:

Hmmmm... RAI says it's nonsensical to think that rhe terms are not interchangeable. I'd allow it.

Using RAI is such an insanely slippery slope. Waaaay too many things can be argued ad nauseum via the concept of RAI.

RAW is much tighter, once you get into RAI, you lose.

Joseph_Silver wrote:

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.

You would get the +2 bonus to attack & damage when the Staff is used a melee weapon and when it's used as an implement you would not get the Weapon proficiency bonus. The only item I'm aware of that can be used as both a weapon and an implement is a Disrupting Weapon which are much sought after by Divine charactors. Even in the case of a Disrupting Weapon the charactor is not allowed to use the weapons Proficiency Bonus when it's used as an implement. To get a bonus when the Staff is used as an implement you must get (either in a mod or through purchuse) the item Magic Staff.

"If you’re able to wield a magic weapon as an
implement and use an implement power through
it, you add the weapon’s enhancement bonus to the
power’s attack rolls and damage rolls, but you do not
use the weapon’s proficiency bonus. If you score a
critical hit with the magic weapon when using it as
an implement, you use the weapon’s critical hit effect."

When it's worded this way it easy to see why some people might be confused it's called Magic Weapon +2 so if the the item is being used in that capacity you get the bonus to attack and damage rolls. But when it's being used as an Implement your still using the weapon so any powers that it has can be used with the attack and you even get the bonus to damage but not the Proficiency bonus.

The best answer, sadly is. For now your milage may vary from one GM to the next. In my group I actually posed the question. All agree that the staff weapon group, is exactly the same thing as the staff impliment group. IE a quarterstaff can be used as an impliment.

The problem is, the RAW dosn't explicitly state it one way or another. It dosn't come out and say 'weapon staves are not impliments' it also dosn't say 'weapon staves are impliments'. Instead it just vaguely says how you treat pure impliment staves as a quaterstaff.

And they probably figured thats because nobody would ever, well, question it one way or another. They figured it would be obvious. Problem is its obvious to me that the weapon group Staff are also impliment...while to others its obvious they arn't. And we get this from reading the same text. We just need to get Wizards to answer this officially...not through CS or the char builder. At least until CS stops giving different answers to the same question...

Stafir Ortnev wrote:

And they probably figured that's because nobody would ever, well, question it one way or another. They figured it would be obvious. Problem is its obvious to me that the weapon group Staff are also implement...while to others its obvious they aren't.

One of the basic issues is that, to WOTC, an obvious problem isn't a problem.

Even moreso than 3e, 4e has an assumption of an active DM taking a hand in determining what type of campaign he wants and how the rules support that. The real problem is subtle rules interactions that a DM or group might not notice. Obvious issues are easily solved because you just ask the DM.

If you asked WOTC R&D whether a wizard could use a +1 cunning quarterstaff as an implement, they'd be slightly baffled by the idea that the question had any real importance, since the real answer is "If the DM of the campaign wants it to work, it does."

Unfortunately, the DM of our campaign isn't talking, so we're left trying to parse out crumbs of rules as if we were doing divination through tea leaves.

-- Brian Gibbons.

The best policy is usually: If something could see table variance, it's best to ask yourself if you can live without it before taking that option.

I just wanted to bring up the current FAQ wording for this discussion:
21. I am using a weapon as an implement, like a long sword for a Wizard of the Spiral Tower or a staff implement held in two hands, do I gain the extra damage from feats like Weapon Focus?

I know there are people that like to claim that a staff is a staff instead of it being a staff, but from the FAQ it clearly says "a STAFF IMPLEMENT held in two hands". If a staff was a part of the weapon group staff there would be no reason for them to include the word implement. There would also be no need to say it being held in two hands as if was a weapon it would always be a weapon. The staff implement is only a weapon when it is held in two hands per the rules in the PH.

deathmaster35 wrote:

I just wanted to bring up the current FAQ wording for this discussion:
21. I am using a weapon as an implement, like a long sword for a Wizard of the Spiral Tower or a staff implement held in two hands, do I gain the extra damage from feats like Weapon Focus?

I know there are people that like to claim that a staff is a staff instead of it being a staff, but from the FAQ it clearly says "a STAFF IMPLEMENT held in two hands". If a staff was a part of the weapon group staff there would be no reason for them to include the word implement. There would also be no need to say it being held in two hands as if was a weapon it would always be a weapon. The staff implement is only a weapon when it is held in two hands per the rules in the PH.

Of course, the question also implies that a staff implement is a weapon, instead of merely "functioning as one". "I am using a weapon as an implement, like...a staff implement"

Sithobi1 wrote:

Of course, the question also implies that a staff implement is a weapon, instead of merely "functioning as one". "I am using a weapon as an implement, like...a staff implement"

A staff implement can be used as a weapon when used in two hands, so what the FAQ is saying is that when it can be used as a weapon it counts as being a weapon as well.

Not sure what you are refering to with ""I am using a weapon as an implement, like...a staff implement"" though

deathmaster35 wrote:

I just wanted to bring up the current FAQ wording for this discussion:
21. I am using a weapon as an implement, like a long sword for a Wizard of the Spiral Tower or a staff implement held in two hands, do I gain the extra damage from feats like Weapon Focus?

I know there are people that like to claim that a staff is a staff instead of it being a staff, but from the FAQ it clearly says "a STAFF IMPLEMENT held in two hands". If a staff was a part of the weapon group staff there would be no reason for them to include the word implement. There would also be no need to say it being held in two hands as if was a weapon it would always be a weapon. The staff implement is only a weapon when it is held in two hands per the rules in the PH.

Actually just to say, someone has already handled this earlier. Assuming a quarterstaff is an implement here by the by.

There are just currently two types of staves. The quarterstaff, and the 'staff implement'. What it is telling you is that the 'staff implement', which is a staff that is capable of receiving the different implement specific powers, has the same stats as a quarterstaff, if you use it as a weapon. This dosn't negate the quarterstaff being an implement as well.

For your specific question noted. This is telling you that in order to use it as a weapon you must wield it two handed. Instead of one handed like a club. With the way people do by the letter type stuff lately..such differentiation is needed.

I have come to the conclusion that quarterstaves can be used as sorcerer implements. Using Occam's Razor, the alternative would be incredibly convoluted and counterintuitive.

1. The reasoning that quarterstaves allow sorcerers access to weapon-only enchantments is moot. Sorcerers can already access them through the dagger. Besides, sorcerers rarely make weapon-keyword attacks anyway.

2. A magic quarterstaff has the exact same stats as a magic staff. Both deal 1d8 damage on a hit, both have a +2 proficiency bonus, and both are treated as quarterstaves. They even cost the same amount of gold.

So there. Thank you, Occam's Razor.

Your reasoning in point #2 is flawed. That would assume that a magic staff has melee weapon stats of it's own, which it doesn't. So no, they don't have the same stats as the damage etc. is not inherant to the staff.

Of course I am firmly in the camp of they are seperate and not equal and see it as convoluted and counterintuitive to believe they are one and the same. WotC (so far) has agreed with my stance. So I see no need to change it, no matter what Occam might say.

You can just as easily say:

1. There are explicit rules allowing a staff to act as a quarterstaff, but not a quarterstaff (or any other member of the staff weapon group for that matter) to act as a staff implement.

So there. Thank you, Occam's Razor.

Also something to remember is that D&D, 4th Edition especially, tends to use a structure of Defined Terms rather than just any old words.

What I mean is that even though the 'Staff' weapon group, the quarter'staff' weapon, and the 'Staff' implement share the same name, they are all different Defined Terms.

They occupy different equipment charts. They have different type labels - "Weapon: Staff" versus "Implement: Staff" right in the magic item descriptions.

Just like a Humanoid is not the same as a Monstrous Humanoid, or a Beast is not the same as a Magical Beast, a weapon is not the same as an implement, even if they share the same name, unless the rules specifically say they are.

This is important. A defined term does not have any properties or functions that it is not specifically designated as having. A weapon does not have any implement properties unless the rules specifically say that it does, even if it shares the same name as an implement.

Assuming that they share a connection because they have the same name is just that, an assumption. It may make sense, it may even seem to be common sense, but in a system that defines every rules item in a specified manner, it's not necessarily a truth.


-karma

I propose a new internet law. We have Godwin's Law. I now propose:

Miller's Law: The longer a debate on the internet goes, the probability of someone using philosophical principles, logical fallacies, and adages including, but not limited to, Occam's Razor and Straw Man, approaches 1.

Dragon9 wrote:

Your reasoning in point #2 is flaed. That would assume that a magic staff has melee weapon stats of it's own, which it doesn't. So no, they don't have the same stats as the damage etc. is not inherant to the staff.

Of course I am firmly in the camp of they are seperate and not equal and see it as convoluted and counterintuitive to believe they are one and the same. WotC (so far) has agreed with my stance. So I see no need to change it, no matter what Occam might say.

You can just as easily say:

1. There are explicit rules allowing a staff to act as a quarterstaff, but not a quarterstaff (or any other member of the staff weapon group for that matter) to act as a staff implement.

So there. Thank you, Occam's Razor.

Seriously? You really think that letting staff-users use quarterstaves as implements is bad for the game?

The rule that states that magic staves can be used as magic quarterstaves implies that magic staves and magic quarterstaves have the same stats. A magic staff used to make a melee basic attack does the same amount of damage as a magic quarterstaff used to do the same.

It doesn't unbalance the game. 4E encourages DM's to say "yes" to players, and in this case, there is no harm in allowing it.

Joseph_Silver wrote:

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

The rule that states that magic staves can be used as magic quarterstaves implies that magic staves and magic quarterstaves have the same stats.

Seriously? So what you're saying is that you are making an assumption not based on any actual rule in the rulebook? We are now supposed to play the game by what is implied? Well heck, in that case, I think the rules imply that all my PCs get to reroll all attack rolls until they hit.

A magic staff used to make a melee basic attack does the same amount of damage as a magic quarterstaff used to do the same.

So what? There is a specific exception rule that says you can use a staff to make a melee attack (unlike other implements) and when you do you use the stats for a quarterstaff to deal damage, the proficiency bonus, etc. Point me to the rule that says the opposite.

It doesn't unbalance the game. 4E encourages DM's to say "yes" to players, and in this case, there is no harm in allowing it.

I'm not saying it does. I'm very willing to say yes. But not to something that is against RAW (as i read it). I wouldn't let a Wizard take a Warlock power when he levels up without having the appropriate multiclass feats either. It may be fun for the player, but it's not how the rules work. There's a big difference between saying yes to a crazy stunt the player wants to try that isn't covered by the rules for any published skill. It's a another thing entirely to ignore or change the rules of how something works in the game.

Other implements specifically say you can't make melee attacks with them. Should you say yes to someone attacking with it when the rules clearly state you can't? What if they changed Rods back to their previous edition "theme" and said that you could now make a melee attack with it and you should use the stats for a light mace when you do. Does that suddenly make light maces implements as well? What if an orb is meant to be treated as an unarmed strike as a melee attack? Does that make your fists implements?

Good to see that healthy discussion is going on with new interesting information instead of retreading old ground, mm?

It's really okay to let people come to a conclusion that is not your own. Once you've explained your interpretation, it's really okay to leave it there and move on.

Don't look at me... Joe started it.

When discussions like these start up, I usually fall on the side of "well, is it overpowered or break the rules?"

So far, I haven't seen anything that argues that using a regular +1 weapon quarterstaff as an implement is game breaking.

For what it's worth. . .

mdonais wrote:

Staffs (and quarterstaffs) can be used as an implement one handed.

This is on our list of things to fix in character builder but has some weird implications since it is a weapon and small wizards can also use them in one hand.

Nevertheless we are working on it and in the mean time I will confirm it does work that way.

Not sure if this means anything - as he both splits then into two groups (staffs AND quarterstaffs) then goes on to say "it [a staff] is a weapon".

Sounds like they're. . . both? ~shrugs and gives up~

[edit] For reference - he's talking about implementation in the DDI:Character Builder[/edit]

Just to be clear, that last CS ruling states that a magical quarterstaff (not just a staff that is listed in the implement section of magic items) can be used as an implement, correct?

Furthermore, they are adding the rule that staff implements and quarterstaves when used as an implement, can be used in only one hand?

Just making sure I'm understanding this correctly.

I'm looking forward to the FAQ on this since this impacts both my Sorcerer and Wizard. Previously, I've fallen on the weapon staff=implement anyways, but the one handed use is certainly a new one for me and seems to be an entirely made up rule.

Wolfstar, you win the cupie doll.

The key part of Mike Donais' post is the first sentence. He says:

Staffs (and quarterstaffs) can be used as an implement....

The emphasis is mine. But, he clearly states that a quarterstaff can be used as an implement.

Game. Set. Match.

-SYB

Which is, of course, the exact opposite of what CS said a bit earlier in the thread.

I give up.



-karma

Woah...there's enough here to make your head spin...

Coming from the point of view of someone who made a swordmage first and then a wizard, I think staffs work the same way as swordmage blades and sorcerer daggers. When I see that a wizard can use a staff as an implement and the column next to quarterstaff says 'staff', that pretty much clears it up. It's the same as figuring out which weapons can be used as implements by a swordmage - go to the 'weapon group' column, and look for a match.

I think the problem here is the way WotC styled the magic items section. By lumping swordmage 'implements' and sorcerer 'implements' with magic weapons but keeping magic staffs separate, they've created the impression that staffs should be treated differently. If magic staffs were lumped in with the rest of the magic weapons, I don't think we'd be having this spirited discussion.

So why would magic staffs be separate unless WotC meant for them to be treated differently? Because most people aren't attacking with a stick as their primary weapon. They're probably different enough from swords, hammers, and axes to necessitate their own category. If there was a class that could use a spear as a implement, magic spears would probably get their own category as well.

Just my two cents. Hopefully this doesn't stoke the fire too much.

battles14 wrote:

So why would magic staffs be separate unless WotC meant for them to be treated differently? Because most people aren't attacking with a stick as their primary weapon. They're probably different enough from swords, hammers, and axes to necessitate their own category. If there was a class that could use a spear as a implement, magic spears would probably get their own category as well.

FWIW magic staff implements specifically do not grant their properties or powers to anyone who is not proficient in using them as implements. This is not true of magic quarterstaff weapons. So if you pick up a magic staff as a wizard or sorcerer, you can use it's properties and powers. (though some people might claim the powers mystically turn off whenever you use a weapon quarterstaff as an implement because of something not said in the FAQ overriding the rules that are stated in the PHB, or something.) But if your fighter picks up a magic staff implement he cannot use its powers or properties (unless he multiclassed appropriately), only it's proficiency bonus, enhancement, weapon die, and crit bonus.

Rexracerjr wrote:

Hmmmm... RAI says it's nonsensical to think that rhe terms are not interchangeable. I'd allow it4e Doctor Doom- Kneel Before Doom, Grognards!

4E Avenger

"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun! Go back to the shadow. You shall not pass!" -Gandalf

"It's a goobah fish!!!!" - Jar Jar Binks

"Don't Tell me what I can't do!" - John Locke

My 4e Characters
Vydorf- Half Elf Wizard
Myrridin- Dwarf Cleric

HAHAHAHA I thought you said Kneel Before Doom, Gonads! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Of course as a wizard you could just splurge, get the transfer enchantment ritual at level 4 and take all those +3 Magic Armors and +3 magic weapons (vanilla Magic ones) and just transfer them to a staff or orb or wand

only 175g to buy the ritual and 25g per casting

No limitations on item level for transferring stuff that is already higher level than you are too...