# Staff Fighting and Dual Implement Spellcaster



## Falling Icicle (Jun 17, 2009)

If I take the Staff Fighting feat, which lets me treat a staff as a double weapon, can I use the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat with it?


----------



## Diirk (Jun 17, 2009)

No, its a double weapon, but still only 1 implement. Similarly, if you took Arcane Proficiency (Heavy Blade), you couldn't use a double bladed sword with dual implement spell caster.


----------



## Trevelyan (Jun 17, 2009)

Yes. Moreover, the character builder allows this and attributes the damage bonus accordingly.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 17, 2009)

Trevelyan said:


> Yes. Moreover, the character builder allows this and attributes the damage bonus accordingly.




I doubt it.   It's still only one implement, it just counts as two weapons.

I wouldn't trust the character builder at face value on issues like this - bug report it and see what WOTC says.


----------



## Caliber (Jun 17, 2009)

Hurm. RAI, I agree, that this shouldn't fly. The caster is getting double the enhancement bonus of his item added to damage essentially for free. RAW though, I'm not so sure. Don't double weapons essentially say to treat them as two separate weapons for rules purposes? Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an entry in the Compendium for the double weapon property. 

This is probably something that could use a WotC response.


----------



## Akaiku (Jun 17, 2009)

It counts as wielding two staffs. You can use a staff as an implement. Fun with staffs of ruin.


----------



## Eldorian (Jun 17, 2009)

Caliber said:


> Hurm. RAI, I agree, that this shouldn't fly. The caster is getting double the enhancement bonus of his item added to damage essentially for free.




Free?  It costs 2 feats...  One of which has a dex requirement, the other a wis.  Far from free.


----------



## Caliber (Jun 17, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> Free?  It costs 2 feats...  One of which has a dex requirement, the other a wis.  Far from free.




Keep in mind, to get ANY bonus from the second implement, he'd have to get the Dual Implement Wielder feat anyway, so it isn't appropriate to count that in the "cost" of this concept. 

That said, sure it costs one feat to make the staff a double weapon, but for the price of that feat you're getting a "double the enhancement bonus of staves for damage rolls". Is that balanced with the usual requirement from users of the feat of having to buy an additional Implement to carry? I guess that will vary from DM to DM.


----------



## Mahali (Jun 17, 2009)

Diirk said:


> No, its a double weapon, but still only 1 implement. Similarly, if you took Arcane Proficiency (Heavy Blade), you couldn't use a double bladed sword with dual implement spell caster.




Agreed.  
You're still not wielding two implements.

Never go by the CB for rules.  Someday it may be bug free and apply all the rules appropriately.  That also assumes no more errata at some point too.


----------



## Eldorian (Jun 18, 2009)

Caliber said:


> Keep in mind, to get ANY bonus from the second implement, he'd have to get the Dual Implement Wielder feat anyway, so it isn't appropriate to count that in the "cost" of this concept.
> 
> That said, sure it costs one feat to make the staff a double weapon, but for the price of that feat you're getting a "double the enhancement bonus of staves for damage rolls". Is that balanced with the usual requirement from users of the feat of having to buy an additional Implement to carry? I guess that will vary from DM to DM.




No matter the DM, you're almost guaranteed to have an old implement of 1 less plus than your current one.  It's the one you had before you got your current one.  

Basically, a staff wielder spends two feats, one with a dex requirement and one with a wisdom requirement to get 1 ac and double the enhancement bonus of his staff to damage.  That doesn't sound too bad to me.  An other caster, for example, sorcerer, can spend one feat that has a dex requirement to get a feat that adds his enhancement bonus to damage -1.  Sounds fair too.  My sorcerer currently uses a mage's parrying dagger for his off hand, but he'll likely pick up the dual implement feat and use his older dagger in his offhand when he gets the feats for it.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jun 18, 2009)

Caliber said:


> Keep in mind, to get ANY bonus from the second implement, he'd have to get the Dual Implement Wielder feat anyway, so it isn't appropriate to count that in the "cost" of this concept.
> 
> That said, sure it costs one feat to make the staff a double weapon, but for the price of that feat you're getting a "double the enhancement bonus of staves for damage rolls". Is that balanced with the usual requirement from users of the feat of having to buy an additional Implement to carry? I guess that will vary from DM to DM.




There are other advantages to wielding two implements, like getting the benefit of two properties and the potential use of two implement mastery features.


----------



## Trevelyan (Jun 18, 2009)

Caliban said:


> I doubt it. It's still only one implement, it just counts as two weapons.



The main end counts as a +x staff (of a given type) and a +x staff (generic magic weapon), just as a double sword counts as a +x sword (of a given type) in the main hand and a +x sword (generic magic weapon) in the off hand. You quite clearly do count as having a staff in each hand, therefore dual implement applies.



> I wouldn't trust the character builder at face value on issues like this - bug report it and see what WOTC says.



Why should I given that I'm happy with the outcome and it makes sense? If you think it's a bug then why not report it and report back.

Incidentally, the character builder only allows you to dual wield a staff implement if you already have the staff fighting feat, not if you simply hold the staff in both hands as a weapon. That suggests a level of intent rather than an accidental result.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 18, 2009)

Trevelyan said:


> Why should I given that I'm happy with the outcome and it makes sense? If you think it's a bug then why not report it and report back.




Because the character builder is known to have many bugs, and this could be a new one?   

It may very well be the intent of the designers that it works the way you want it too, but personally, I'd rather know for sure before I counted on it.   

I will bug report it before I play my next staff wizard who uses Two weapon fighting and Dual implements, if no one else has.


----------



## Trevelyan (Jun 19, 2009)

Caliban said:


> Because the character builder is known to have many bugs, and this could be a new one?



Depends on your definition of bug. I've always thought that a bug was when it allowed something which it clearly wasn't supposed to (or vice versa). 

When something makes sense both from a rational and RAW point of view, and when I've discussed it with the DM for the game in which I intend to use it, and who agrees with my understanding, then I have very little cause to assume that the character builder is wrong in supporting me purely because some of the more reactionary members of ENworld are running around screaming about it. Belt and braces can be useful in some situations, but belt, braces and an elastic waistband just seems silly.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 19, 2009)

Trevelyan said:


> Depends on your definition of bug. I've always thought that a bug was when it allowed something which it clearly wasn't supposed to (or vice versa).




Some people think this clearly isn't allowed.  Just because the character builder allows it, doesn't mean they are wrong.  The character builder allows several things that are clearly wrong. 

There is little point in debating it here, you clearly want it to work and don't want to risk finding out that it might not.   

I'll send a question off to WOTC when I have time, because I'd actually like to know if it's supposed to work or not.   I do a have a staff fighting wizard build I plan on playing at some point, and if it works then the dual implement feat would be an easy way to pick up an extra damage bonus.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 19, 2009)

Hey, looks like it works.   If both the character builder and CustServ agree, that will do until it shows up in a FAQ or errata, at least for me.



> *Response (Support Agent)*06/19/2009 02:29 PM
> Caliban,
> 
> Thank you for writing.
> ...


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Jun 22, 2009)

I'd allow it in my game, just because it's an awesome idea.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 22, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> It counts as wielding two staffs. You can use a staff as an implement. Fun with staffs of ruin.




The extra damage on a staff of ruin is listed as item bonus, but the Dual implement feat states that you get the enhancement bonus of the item in your off hand. Staff of ruin in the offhand would be no better than other implement


----------



## Eldorian (Jun 22, 2009)

BobTheNob said:


> The extra damage on a staff of ruin is listed as item bonus, but the Dual implement feat states that you get the enhancement bonus of the item in your off hand. Staff of ruin in the offhand would be no better than other implement




He means that if you have a staff of ruin and the appropriate feats, then you gain 3 times the enhancement bonus to damage with your attacks.  This is fun because you're adding a ridiculous amount of damage from your item.


----------



## Trevelyan (Jun 22, 2009)

Caliban said:


> There is little point in debating it here, you clearly want it to work and don't want to risk finding out that it might not.



Hardly. You're not the first person to ask custserve that question and get the same answer, but I didn't have a link to the previous instance and somehow I don't think "Someone somewhere I don't know got a custserve ok on a previous thread but I can't prove it, sorry" would have gone down well. Besides, custserve are hardly infallible. But it appears that I've been vindicated so why worry.


----------



## Akaiku (Jun 22, 2009)

Eldorian said:


> He means that if you have a staff of ruin and the appropriate feats, then you gain 3 times the enhancement bonus to damage with your attacks.  This is fun because you're adding a ridiculous amount of damage from your item.




This.

It's 2 handed bloodclaw without the damage back at you. Just costs 2 (or 3) more feats. It has the nice +1 ac to go with it as well.


----------



## N0Man (Jun 23, 2009)

I'd allow it just on the basis that otherwise a staff wizard is at a disadvantage to non-staff dual implement wielders, since a staff is a two-handed implement, according to the new Eberron Player's Guide (which I brought up in another thread).


----------



## Caliban (Jun 24, 2009)

N0Man said:


> I'd allow it just on the basis that otherwise a staff wizard is at a disadvantage to non-staff dual implement wielders, since a staff is a two-handed implement, according to the new Eberron Player's Guide (which I brought up in another thread).




I think that is only in regards to using it as an attached component on a warforged, not for anything else. 

Especially since I carried on a multiple e-mail exchange with Cust Serv on staffs as implements, weapons, the staff fighting feat, and TWF feats, which resulted in a change to the FAQ. At the moment, I'm pretty confident that a staff is a one-handed implement and a two-handed weapon. (Which isn't to say that the designers won't change their mind at some time in the future and issue new "clarifications". They did it once already with staff as implement/weapon and appear to be doing it again with the move into/enter a square distinction I've seen reported by some people.)


----------



## N0Man (Jun 24, 2009)

Caliban said:


> At the moment, I'm pretty confident that a staff is a one-handed implement and a two-handed weapon.




I saw it exactly as you do, but after the Eberron Player's Guide I'm not so sure.



			
				Eberron's Player's Guide p. 113 said:
			
		

> Two-Handed Implements, such as staffs, cannot be attached or embedded.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 24, 2009)

N0Man said:


> I saw it exactly as you do, but after the Eberron Player's Guide I'm not so sure.




Yes, I read that the first time you posted it. 

and in the post you replied to,  I said



> I think that is only in regards to using it as an attached component on a warforged, not for anything else.




Given the other errors in the warforged section (is it a minor action or 5 minutes to attach/remove a component?), I certainly don't consider the Eberron Player's guide a source of errata for the core rulebooks.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 27, 2009)

IMHO staff is one of the best examples of a weapon that demands to be a special effect (rather than a rigidly defined element in a simulation). They are so iconic, and their (iconic) uses so different, it's going to be really hard to fit them all in a single balanced weapon.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## lupo1977 (Jan 11, 2010)

*status quo ?*

hi guys,

i was just skimming through the forums, in order to ssek an answer to my question regarding the "staff fighting" - "dual implement spellcaster" discussion.

i discovered these threads, and wanted to know if you know about any official (FAQ) rulings to this point ? i didn't find any, so the last thing i know is:

- character builder allows it
- cust. service allows it

is this still up to date ? (i do not have the char. builder at hand to validate this)


----------



## Badwe (Mar 12, 2010)

Staff of Ruin Errata



> Update (2/8/2010)
> Replace the item’s property with the following text: “Whenever you make an attack using this staff, you gain an item bonus to the attack’s damage rolls equal to the staff’s enhancement bonus.” This change prevents this staff’s property from being used with the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat to gain disproportionate damage.
> First published in Adventurer's Vault.




not really a complete answer but they seem to be aware of it. still reading it as written i'm not sure how much damage you deal...


----------



## Aulirophile (Mar 13, 2010)

Badwe said:


> Staff of Ruin Errata
> 
> 
> 
> not really a complete answer but they seem to be aware of it. still reading it as written i'm not sure how much damage you deal...



If you cast through it, you deal Enhancement x2, if you don't cast through it (use it off-hand) you deal w/e your MH Enhancement is+Staff of Ruins Enhancement Bonus. That's it. If you take Staff Fighting and DIS you deal Enhancement bonus x3, same as before. 

This makes Subtle Weapon better in the off-hand then Staff of Ruin. Will do the same amount of damage as the old combo, so long as you have CA. In fact I think Subtle is untyped, so Staff of Ruin/Subtle+DIS is Staff Enhancement x2 and Subtle Enhancement x2 to damage when attacking with CA (+24 at epic from your weapons!) Add Siberys Shard of the Mage for another +5. Sorcs can break +50 to damage with CA I think.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Mar 13, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> This makes Subtle Weapon better in the off-hand then Staff of Ruin.




No it doesn't. Weapon properties only apply to the weapon they are attached to. You need to actually attack with the Subtle Weapon to gain the bonus. 



			
				AV page 56 said:
			
		

> 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. *You couldn’t hold the weapon in your off-hand and gain the benefit of the property on powers delivered using a main weapon*.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 13, 2010)

lupo1977 said:


> is this still up to date ? (i do not have the char. builder at hand to validate this)



 So far as I can see, you are still able to use a single staff as two implements -- adding its Enhancement bonus twice to damage -- if you have both feats. Does that answer your question?



Badwe said:


> Staff of Ruin Errata



 Looks like they fixed the hole where your Sorcerer has a Bloodiron Dagger in his main hand and a Staff of Ruin in his off-hand, which is good.

Using just one Staff of Ruin + Staff Fighting + Dual Implement = 3x Enhancement damage, which is not bad at all.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## GrandPotato (Jul 3, 2010)

I found this on a google search. It looks like the character builder still adds twice the enhancement bonus to the staff when Dual Implement Caster feat is taken, whether or not Staff Fighting or any other feat is selected. I merely have DIS and a +3 staff in my main hand and it applies +6 damage. 

Is THIS intended?


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 3, 2010)

No one knows for certain and it really depends on who you ask. I would at least require the feat being that the Staff is one of the best, if not the best, implements in the game.


----------



## Aulirophile (Jul 3, 2010)

It is a CB bug, it isn't intended. CB does not handle staffs properly because, unlike like every other weapliment, they can be wielded as an implement 1hed, and but as a weapon they require 2hs. Everything else is wielded in the same number of hands, regardless of it is an implement or a weapon.

Staff Fighting+DIS with one staff is intended to work though, a double weapon is two weapons by RAW.


----------



## Aulirophile (Jul 3, 2010)

abyssaldeath said:


> No it doesn't. Weapon properties only apply to the weapon they are attached to. You need to actually attack with the Subtle Weapon to gain the bonus.



AV pg. 56 only applies to weapon powers. Implements have always operated by a completely different set of rules then weapons in 4e.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 3, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> Staff Fighting+DIS with one staff is intended to work though, a double weapon is two weapons by RAW.



That is debatable. Wielding a double weapon is like wielding two weapons. Nowhere does it say that a double weapon is two weapons, nor that a double weapon is two implements. One staff is still just one implement.

The staff is a bit weird, since it's a one-handed implement but a two-handed weapon by default. But nothing in the rules implies that Staff Fighting affects the way you wield it as an implement. Making it a double weapon doesn't make it a double implement (or two implements).


----------



## Nifft (Jul 3, 2010)

GrandPotato said:


> I found this on a google search. It looks like the character builder still adds twice the enhancement bonus to the staff when Dual Implement Caster feat is taken, whether or not Staff Fighting or any other feat is selected. I merely have DIS and a +3 staff in my main hand and it applies +6 damage.
> 
> Is THIS intended?



 IMHO that is what the rules say ought to happen, so therefore the CB is probably working as intended.

If y'all disagree, report it as a bug, and we'll see what happens.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 3, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> AV pg. 56 only applies to weapon powers. Implements have always operated by a completely different set of rules then weapons in 4e.



Subtle is a WEAPON enchantment. The rules for weapon enchantments don't change just because you are using it as an implement. Two completely separate rules that have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 3, 2010)

Nifft said:


> IMHO that is what the rules say ought to happen, so therefore the CB is probably working as intended.
> 
> If y'all disagree, report it as a bug, and we'll see what happens.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Do you know the reference for this Nifft?


----------



## Nifft (Jul 3, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> Do you know the reference for this Nifft?



 The reference for DIS working with Quarterstaves? I can try to justify it, if that's what you're asking about.

The distinction between Staff (weapon class) and Staff (implement type) has never been made very clear in 4e, and the CB certainly doesn't clarify if any such distinction even exists -- so I can't pretend to have an *unambiguous* reference -- but I could show my chain of thought, if you want.

It's NOT a page reference or anything like that, though.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 3, 2010)

abyssaldeath said:


> Subtle is a WEAPON enchantment. The rules for weapon enchantments don't change just because you are using it as an implement. Two completely separate rules that have nothing to do with each other.




You shouldn't base your rules argument on AV1 when PHB3 has rules for it as well. They state that you can apply a weapon's magical properties when you use them as implements. WotC CharOp agrees that a subtle weapon can be off-handed to gain the bonus damage from the property.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 3, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> You shouldn't base your rules argument on AV1 when PHB3 has rules for it as well. They state that you can apply a weapon's magical properties when you use them as implements. WotC CharOp agrees that a subtle weapon can be off-handed to gain the bonus damage from the property.



Nothing in the PHB3 rules override the AV1 rules. It says you gain the weapons properties, but it doesn't say you don't follow the rules for weapon properties.

WotC CharOp usually agrees on what is the most beneficial for them and they look for any loophole possible to gain an advantage. They completely ignore the AV1 rule because they don't like it. They completely ignore the AV1 rule for weapon users too, so you can not use their stance on it to justify allowing weaplement users bypassing the rule.


----------



## Siran Dunmorgan (Jul 3, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> Do you know the reference for this Nifft?




If by this you mean the reference for Dual Implement Spellcaster working with Staff implements, the customer service ruling is quoted  at the top of the second page of this thread.

That said, if Customer Service agrees with the implementation of Dual Implement Spellcaster in the Character Builder, it seems unlikely that this interpretation will be considered a bug. 

—Siran Dunmorgan


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 3, 2010)

abyssaldeath said:


> Nothing in the PHB3 rules override the AV1 rules. It says you gain the weapons properties, but it doesn't say you don't follow the rules for weapon properties.
> 
> WotC CharOp usually agrees on what is the most beneficial for them and they look for any loophole possible to gain an advantage. They completely ignore the AV1 rule because they don't like it. They completely ignore the AV1 rule for weapon users too, so you can not use their stance on it to justify allowing weaplement users bypassing the rule.




Where does it say that the rules for weapon properties apply for implement properties? You are using an implement which happens to be a weapon. There is no restriction like that for implements, AFAIK.

CharOp has become more reasonable regarding rulings since the start of 4E. Still, you can distrust them - as one can distrust a single opinion on another board.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 3, 2010)

Siran Dunmorgan said:


> If by this you mean the reference for Dual Implement Spellcaster working with Staff implements, the customer service ruling is quoted  at the top of the second page of this thread.
> 
> That said, if Customer Service agrees with the implementation of Dual Implement Spellcaster in the Character Builder, it seems unlikely that this interpretation will be considered a bug.
> 
> —Siran Dunmorgan




No...that ruling states that DIS works with a double weapon.  Nifft was talking about a Staff implement not needing "Staff Fighting" (a feat) to work with DIS.


----------



## Aulirophile (Jul 3, 2010)

abyssaldeath said:


> Subtle is a WEAPON enchantment. The rules for weapon enchantments don't change just because you are using it as an implement. Two completely separate rules that have nothing to do with each other.



Well, there are two completely separate rules that have nothing to do with each other at work here, that is true.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 3, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> Well, there are two completely separate rules that have nothing to do with each other at work here, that is true.




It does not work because, despite the fact that dual implement spellcaster allows you to add a second enhancement bonus to damage, it does not present an exception to the 'same named game element rule.'

That being, that two elements of the same name cannot stack their bonuses.

The staff you are using's enhancement bonus has a name.  I don't know what it is because it depends on the staff you are using, but there it is.  Let's call that name X.

Dual Implement Spellcaster says you can apply X to your damage rolls, but you're already applying X to that roll.  You cannot apply X twice, so even if it could in theory work, it cannot work.

The only way it could work is if the implement in question could, somehow, have both ends enchanted separately.  Then both ends would have different names and it would work smoothly.

The question of whether the staff is a double weapon is moot;  The rules simply do not allow you to add the exact same bonus twice.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 3, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> It does not work because, despite the fact that dual implement spellcaster allows you to add a second enhancement bonus to damage, it does not present an exception to the 'same named game element rule.'
> 
> That being, that two elements of the same name cannot stack their bonuses.
> 
> ...




Just a consideration:  This disagrees with the CS ruling found on page 2, but of course that ruling is about a year old.  The question becomes did they intend for the outcome that they got the way you present it.  I still contend that DIS grants an untyped bonus equal to the enhancement bonus of the item in question.

Edit:  Forgot to ask...what's the reference on the "same named game element rule".  PHB2?


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 3, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> Edit:  Forgot to ask...what's the reference on the "same named game element rule".  PHB2?



March? rules update.


> Some bonuses are untyped. Bonuses that have no type add together. However, if you gain multiple untyped bonuses from the same named game element (a power, a feat, a class feature, and the like), only the highest bonus applies, unless stated otherwise. For example, if you spend an action point and can see two warlords who have the Tactical Presence class feature, you gain the bonus to attack rolls from only one of the warlords, whichever one provides the higher bonus.”


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 4, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> It does not work because, despite the fact that dual implement spellcaster allows you to add a second enhancement bonus to damage, it does not present an exception to the 'same named game element rule.'
> 
> That being, that two elements of the same name cannot stack their bonuses.
> 
> ...




I was talking about off-handing a subtle weapon (used as implement) and using a totally different mainhand implement. It has nothing to with staffs and doubleweapons/etc. In my case there will be no same game element twice.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 4, 2010)

Hmmm, same named game element rule by RAW only applies to untyped bonuses. I'd forgotten that.

So it can't really interfere with adding two enhancement bonuses from the same source.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 4, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> Just a consideration:  This disagrees with the CS ruling found on page 2, but of course that ruling is about a year old.




The rule didn't exist a year ago.  I'd expect conflicts to arise between a recent rules update, and an outsourced company's employee's ruling from a year ago.



> The question becomes did they intend for the outcome that they got the way you present it.  I still contend that DIS grants an untyped bonus equal to the enhancement bonus of the item in question.




State evidence for this 'untyped bonus' thing.  You've contended it, but the text does not exist.  However, the bonus doesn't need to be 'whitewashed' as the feat directly contradicts the same bonus type rule and therefore supercedes it.


----------



## Aulirophile (Jul 4, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> It does not work because, despite the fact that dual implement spellcaster allows you to add a second enhancement bonus to damage, it does not present an exception to the 'same named game element rule.'
> 
> That being, that two elements of the same name cannot stack their bonuses.
> 
> ...



As pointed out above, the March rules update _only applies to untyped bonuses. _Same Named Game Element bonuses of the same type don't normally stack anyway, so the rule did not include them. DIS supercedes this, causing two Enhancement Bonuses to stack.

Again, works fine.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 4, 2010)

So, if Customer Service can over-rule RAW, DIS works with a single quarterstaff if you have Staff Fighting.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 4, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> As pointed out above, the March rules update _only applies to untyped bonuses. _Same Named Game Element bonuses of the same type don't normally stack anyway, so the rule did not include them. DIS supercedes this, causing two Enhancement Bonuses to stack.
> 
> Again, works fine.




If this is true, then I do agree, because you are wielding an implement in both hands; any other concern is explicitly excepted by the feat.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 4, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> If this is true, then I do agree, because you are wielding an implement in *both *hands; any other concern is explicitly excepted by the feat.



Read the text of the feat. You must wield an implement in _*each *_hand.

If I pick up the laptop I'm on, using both hands, am I holding a laptop in each hand?
No.
I'm holding one in both hands.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 4, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> State evidence for this 'untyped bonus' thing.  You've contended it, but the text does not exist.  However, the bonus doesn't need to be 'whitewashed' as the feat directly contradicts the same bonus type rule and therefore supercedes it.




My contention is just the usage of the phrase "enhancement bonus" anywhere you find it in the rules text.  I've contended that it takes on the meanings of quantity and type discretely.  For example if you look at PHB p 275 it talks about bonuses and penalties at the bottom and, among others, "enhancement bonus" is listed.  This is clearly a listing of bonus "types" as if you try to read this some other way it doesn't make sense.  On the next page at the top of the right column it talks about modifiers to damage rolls and again listing all the possible types.

The only other uses of Enhancement I've see are the magic item template:
Enhancement: +x (rolls to which it applies such as AC)

and in various feats and items used in various ways (examples):



			
				Subtle Weapon (item) said:
			
		

> Property: Deal extra damage equal to this weapon's enhancement bonus when attacking with combat advantage.



Obviously untyped due to the "equal to this..." phrasing, but clearly used only as a quantity.


			
				Warding Blade (item) said:
			
		

> Property: While you wield this weapon in your off hand, you gain an item bonus to AC against opportunity attacks equal to the blade's enhancement bonus.



Also untyped..."equal to..." phrasing and clearly referring to quantity only.


			
				Holy Healer's Weapon (item) said:
			
		

> Property: Add this weapon's enhancement bonus to the amount healed by your healing word.





			
				Healer's Brooch (item) said:
			
		

> Property: When you use a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points, add the Brooch's enhancement bonus to the hit points gained.





			
				Dual Implement Caster (feat) said:
			
		

> When you use an arcane attack power and you are wielding a magic implement in each hand, you can add the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus to damage rolls.



I was going to say here that it matters which way you read it whether or not the healer's items stack, but in considering it I think they stack either way.

If I'm wrong, then those items are granting an exception to the enhancement stacking rules.

If I'm right, they grant an untyped bonus from different "named game elements" and still stack.

I'm sure you can find hundreds of others but my DDI subscription is currently inactive, so I don't have any good search tools.  I just picked a few at random.


----------



## Aulirophile (Jul 4, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> So, if Customer Service can over-rule RAW, DIS works with a single quarterstaff if you have Staff Fighting.



1. CS doesn't overrule RAW.
2. Staff Fighting+DIS works by RAW, because Double Weapons are considered to be wielding two separate weapons. That satisfies the requirement of holding two implements, because each end of a double weapon counts as a separate weapon (and therefore a separate Implement, PHB3 weapiliment defintions yada yada yada).


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 4, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> Obviously untyped due to the "equal to this..." phrasing, but clearly used only as a quantity.




This is definately untyped, it does launder a bonus.



> Also untyped..."equal to..." phrasing and clearly referring to quantity only.




AN ITEM BONUS EQUAL TO ANYTHING IS NOT AN UNTYPED BONUS



> I was going to say here that it matters which way you read it whether or not the healer's items stack, but in considering it I think they stack either way.




Neither of these items are adding 'a bonus equal to.'  Both flat out state 'Add this item's enhancement bonus.'  And therefore, it IS a typed bonus, enhancement.

When something tells you to add something, it is not changing what that something is.

The difference:

'Add an item bonus equal to the enhancement bonus'

This is adding a number, y, that is equal to x.

'Add the enhancement bonus'

This is adding x directly.

There's a world of difference here.



> If I'm wrong, then those items are granting an exception to the enhancement stacking rules.




And an unstated exception at that.  I'd not allow it at my table because they are adding same typed bonuses directly.



> If I'm right, they grant an untyped bonus from different "named game elements" and still stack.




If you're right, they'd have to say 'Add a number of hitpoints equal to the enhancement bonus' which they do not.



> I'm sure you can find hundreds of others but my DDI subscription is currently inactive, so I don't have any good search tools.  I just picked a few at random.




Bear in mind, you just did say an item bonus was an untyped bonus... so please reconsider your point very carefully.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 5, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> 1. CS doesn't overrule RAW.
> 2. Staff Fighting+DIS works by RAW, because Double Weapons are considered to be wielding two separate weapons. That satisfies the requirement of holding two implements, because each end of a double weapon counts as a separate weapon (and therefore a separate Implement, PHB3 weapiliment defintions yada yada yada).



In order to count as a staff implement, a weapon must be a quarterstaff.

The off-hand end of a quarterstaff is not, of itself, a quarterstaff. Just like the spear end of an urgrosh is not, by itself, an urgrosh.

Thus, even when weilding a quarterstaff as two weapons, you are only wielding one quarterstaff: IOW you are only wielding one Staff Implement.

If you were a Hybrid Monk, and therefore able to use any weapon (rather than just a quarterstaff) as an implement, it would work.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 5, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> In order to count as a staff implement, a weapon must be a quarterstaff.
> 
> The off-hand end of a quarterstaff is not, of itself, a quarterstaff. Just like the spear end of an urgrosh is not, by itself, an urgrosh.
> 
> ...



I was trying to stay out of it, but this is just the most ridiculous statement I've heard on this subject.  The entire argument is built off of a false statement.

1: In order to count as a staff implement it has to be part of the staff group. A quarterstaff is part of the staff group and that is why it can be used as an implement.

2: Wielding double weapons is like wielding a weapon in each hand.

3: The Staff Fighting feat turns a quarterstaff into a double weapon. As a double weapon each end will be part of the staff weapon group because a quarterstaff is part of the staff group. Nothing about this feat changes that.

4: When enchanting a double weapon both ends gain all benefits of the enchantment.

Using the *facts* stated above it is safe to assume that when a Wizard has the Staff Fighting feat, Dual Implement Spellcaster and is wielding a quarterstaff they will get the benefit of the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat. This assumption is not a fact, but an assumption based on facts.


----------



## Aulirophile (Jul 5, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> In order to count as a staff implement, a weapon must be a quarterstaff.
> 
> The off-hand end of a quarterstaff is not, of itself, a quarterstaff. Just like the spear end of an urgrosh is not, by itself, an urgrosh.
> 
> ...



....

All Double Weapons, without a single exception, their primary and secondary ends both belong to the weapon groups of the primary end. So the second end of a Double Quarterstaff is a Staff. I can Wield Staffs as Implements. Done. 

Do you have some personal objection to this working? Because your arguments are getting progressively stranger.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 5, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> AN ITEM BONUS EQUAL TO ANYTHING IS NOT AN UNTYPED BONUS
> Bear in mind, you just did say an item bonus was an untyped bonus... so please reconsider your point very carefully.




Sorry about that...I was looking back and forth between them all and I must have read the wrong one.  What I meant was...equal to (not untyped) because it's an item bonus, but this usage clearly only refers to the quantity.

My general point is that in every instance of "enhancement bonus" it is either indicating quantity or type, but not both.  I see the other side of it though.  I guess my only point would be that this is just another term like "attack" which is ambiguous due to it's multiple usages.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 5, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> ....
> 
> All Double Weapons, without a single exception, their primary and secondary ends both belong to the weapon groups of the primary end. So the second end of a Double Quarterstaff is a Staff. I can Wield Staffs as Implements. Done.
> 
> Do you have some personal objection to this working? Because your arguments are getting progressively stranger.



Perhaps I missed a rules change.

In PHB1 it is stated that a Staff Implement is a Quarterstaff Weapon.


*Where* is it stated that all Staff Weapons (not just Quarterstaffs) are Staff Implements?


----------



## Aulirophile (Jul 5, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Perhaps I missed a rules change.
> 
> In PHB1 it is stated that a Staff Implement is a Quarterstaff Weapon.
> 
> ...



Is there another kind of Staff in 4e? Nope. Is the secondary end of a Double Quarterstaff a Staff? Yep. What does the Implement Proficiency for Wizards say? Staff. 

Or, to turn you argument around, where is it stated that "Staff" is _not _an Implement group? Because Light Blades and Heavy Blades are, for instance, Implement groups all by their lonesome, in addition to being a weapon type. 

Asking the same question, do you have some personal objection to this working? "This weapon, which is a Staff, is not the right kind of Staff, even though there is only one kind of Staff" is, as I said, what your argument has slowly come to. Progressively stranger.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 5, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> Is there another kind of Staff in 4e? Nope.



Other than a quarterstaff? Yes, see below



> Is the secondary end of a Double Quarterstaff a Staff? Yep.



Yes, it is a different staff from a quarterstaff.



Look, we know that WotC overload words. For example: Mace. My argument is based solely on RAW. Your argument requires that the word "staff" not be overloaded; that it refers to precisely one thing; a weapon-group that is also an implement-group.

Heavy Blade and Light Blade are only ever defined as Weapon Groups, so the Swordmage implement section can't refer to anything other than the weapon groups in question.

Imagine though that there was a MaceMage. They have the Mace implement. Later in the book the Mace implement is defined as being specifically only the Mace weapon, not any Mace-group weapon.
Would such a macemage be able to use a greatclub as an implement?


----------



## Aulirophile (Jul 5, 2010)

Pfftt, your argument is based on your _opinion _of what the word "Staff" means. An opinion for which you have _zero _text support. A Staff Implement is also a Quarterstaff. Superb. A Double Weapon Quarterstaff is a Quarterstaff at both ends, assuming it functions like _every other double weapon. _Which, as has been pointed out to you time and again, is actually a reasonable assumption, since that is how every other item of the same type also works. 

As opposed to your argument, which is that there is an unidentified mystery Staff, that is not a Staff. Right.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 5, 2010)

Aulirophile said:


> Pfftt, your argument is based on your _opinion _of what the word "Staff" means. An opinion for which you have _zero _text support. A Staff Implement is also a Quarterstaff. Superb. A Double Weapon Quarterstaff is a Quarterstaff at both ends, assuming it functions like _every other double weapon. _Which, as has been pointed out to you time and again, is actually a reasonable assumption, since that is how every other item of the same type also works. .



So, when I hold an Urgrosh, I'm holding an urgrosh (a double weapon) in each hand?


----------



## webrunner (Jul 5, 2010)

Hypothetically if the staff said that it counted as an ugrosh and not a quarterstaff, would you still consider it to count for DIS?


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 5, 2010)

webrunner said:


> Hypothetically if the staff said that it counted as an ugrosh and not a quarterstaff, would you still consider it to count for DIS?




What possible gain could there be from this?  The rules don't say this and even if we were to play along with your hypothetical, you still wouldn't be able to apply that logic back onto the Staff (weapon group)/Staff (implement)/Quarterstaff debate.

It doesn't matter what the stats are for the "off-hand end" of a quarterstaff.  All that matters is that a Quarterstaff double weapon is wielded in each hand which meets the requirement for DIS since the wielded item is a Staff


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 5, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> What possible gain could there be from this?  The rules don't say this and even if we were to play along with your hypothetical, you still wouldn't be able to apply that logic back onto the Staff (weapon group)/Staff (implement)/Quarterstaff debate.
> 
> It doesn't matter what the stats are for the "off-hand end" of a quarterstaff.  All that matters is that a Quarterstaff double weapon is wielded in each hand which meets the requirement for DIS since the wielded item is a Staff



The quarterstaff is wielded in* both hands*.

There is a weapon wielded in each hand (an end of the quarterstaff) but the quarterstaff itself is wielded in both hands,


If I promised you ten thousand bags, each containing $10, how much money would you expect to end up with?


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 5, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> The quarterstaff is wielded in* both hands*.
> 
> There is a weapon wielded in each hand (an end of the quarterstaff) but the quarterstaff itself is wielded in both hands,
> 
> ...




You play your way and I'll play according to RAW and CS.  I'm obviously not going to convince you.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 5, 2010)

CovertOps. Do you WANT what you're arguing to be true?

If so, try imagining a world where you wanted it to be false. Would you still believe it? Would you still believe that one quarterstaff=a quarterstaff in each hand?

I know what I would argue if I wanted my current belief to be false, and was willing to be mildly dishonest with myself: I would argue that all staff-weapons must be staff-implements, because otherwise it's just silly.
I would STILL know that you are wrong in believing you can wield an urgrosh in each hand.


----------



## webrunner (Jul 5, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> You play your way and I'll play according to RAW and CS.  I'm obviously not going to convince you.




The rule as written is that you need to be wielding a "an" implement in "each" hand. AS WRITTEN that is TWO implements.  That is what it says, that is what it means, and that is what it implies.  You only have one Staff implement: the one that's being used as a double weapon quarterstaff.  Therefore you cannot use dual implement spellcaster as written with a double quarterstaff.

CS does not override RAW, although it can give us an insight into RAI in some cases.


----------



## frogged (Jul 5, 2010)

webrunner said:


> The rule as written is that *you need to be wielding a "an" implement in "each" hand*. AS WRITTEN that is TWO implements.  That is what it says, that is what it means, and that is what it implies.  You only have one Staff implement: the one that's being used as a double weapon quarterstaff.  Therefore you cannot use dual implement spellcaster as written with a double quarterstaff.
> 
> CS does not override RAW, although it can give us an insight into RAI in some cases.




By your argument, a ranger using a double sword could never use a power  such as Twin Strike because it has "*Requirement*: You must be  wielding two melee weapons or a ranged  weapon."

Except for the fact that:

AV page 10 (AV update document page 1)


> Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon in each hand.



The Staff Fighting feat causes a player using a quarterstaff to be treated like they were wielding a staff in each hand.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 5, 2010)

frogged said:


> AV page 10 (AV update document page 1)
> The Staff Fighting feat causes a player using a quarterstaff to be treated like they were wielding a staff in each hand.



Wielding a staff-group weapon, that isn't a quarterstaff, (it is in fact part of a quarterstaff) in each hand.

If staff-group weapons are all staff-implements, then it works.

But staff-implements state that they are quarterstaffs. So you can't have a staff-implement that is "the offhand end of a quarterstaff"


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 5, 2010)

webrunner said:


> The rule as written is that you need to be wielding a "an" implement in "each" hand. AS WRITTEN that is TWO implements.  That is what it says, that is what it means, and that is what it implies.  You only have one Staff implement: the one that's being used as a double weapon quarterstaff.  Therefore you cannot use dual implement spellcaster as written with a double quarterstaff.




I'm wielding a staff implement in my left hand and I'm wielding a staff implement in my right hand.  I am wielding "an" implement in "each" hand.  It just so happens that it is the SAME implement.

As frogger said.  If you want to go with that phrase meaning you have to be wielding two weapons then you've just broken the other side of this equation.  Namely Rangers/twin-strike etc.



Kingreaper said:


> Wielding a staff-group weapon, that isn't a quarterstaff, (it is in fact part of a quarterstaff) in each hand.
> 
> If staff-group weapons are all staff-implements, then it works.
> 
> But staff-implements state that they are quarterstaffs. So you can't have a staff-implement that is "the offhand end of a quarterstaff"




Really this argument is wrong no matter how many times you trot it out.  I want to see you wield JUST the off-hand end of a double sword without wielding a double sword.  You're trying to call the main hand/off-hand end of double weapons their own separate parts.  That's like saying I have an upper leg (thigh) and a lower leg (calf) on each side so therefore I have 4 legs.  Your position is lunacy.

Edit: couple typos.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 5, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Wielding a staff-group weapon, that isn't a quarterstaff, (it is in fact part of a quarterstaff) in each hand.
> 
> If staff-group weapons are all staff-implements, then it works.
> 
> But staff-implements state that they are quarterstaffs. So you can't have a staff-implement that is "the offhand end of a quarterstaff"




Alright.

"staff-implement" as you mean it is an item available in the PHB's equipment section for 5 gold pieces.  It has the ability to be used as a staff implement, and also qualifies as a quarterstaff.

Quarterstaffs are members of the staff group of weapons.

What you are saying then is that somehow a feat could turn a five-gold piece stick into a double ended quarterstaff, and because each end has the weapon type staff, that therefore they are that five-gold piece stick... logically extended that must mean that you have an infinite recursion and an infinite number of staffs and five gold sticks...


Sorry.  Your misunderstanding of what's going on here has caused you to go into a rediculous direction, and use that rediculous direction as the source of an argument against something.

The problem here, is that you think that 'Anything that can be used as a staff' must therefore be a five gold stick available in the Player's Handbook.  The very existance of superior implements says, no, that is not the case.  A 30 gold stick is not also a 5 gold stick.

What IS happening is:

You have a 5 gold stick called a quarterstaff that is of the staff weapon group.  You have a 5 gold stick called a staff that can be used as a quarter staff.

A member of the staff weapon group is not the same thing as that 5 gold stick in exactly the same way that a weapon of the mace group is not the same thing as the weapon 'mace'.

If you can understand 'mace' you can understand 'staff'.  It isn't hard.

The thing is, class features don't mention the five gold stick.  They simply mention 'staff.'  As staff is a weapon group, the same as 'light blade' and 'heavy blade' and no text exists to the contrary, you therefore have no exceptions to the general rules 'Quarterstaff is a staff' and 'wizards can use staffs.'

Seriously.  If there IS no exception, APPLY THE DAMN RULE.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 5, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> The thing is, class features don't mention the five gold stick.  They simply mention 'staff.'  As staff is a weapon group, the same as 'light blade' and 'heavy blade' and no text exists to the contrary, you therefore have no exceptions to the general rules 'Quarterstaff is a staff' and 'wizards can use staffs.'



The text in the implement section about staffs would beg to differ about it referring to a weapon group.

It states that a staff is an implement type, that corresponds to the quarterstaff. Not any weapon of the staff weapon group; it specifically states the quarterstaff.

At the time, there was no difference between the staff weapon group and the quarterstaff. The staff fighting feat creates that difference.



> The problem here, is that you think that 'Anything that can be used as a  staff' must therefore be a five gold stick available in the Player's  Handbook.  The very existance of superior implements says, no, that is  not the case.  A 30 gold stick is not also a 5 gold stick.



It is, however, still a quarterstaff.

All staff implements are quarterstaffs, according to the PHB1. Therefore, nothing that is not a whole quarterstaff can be a staff implement (unless it specifically states it is an exception to that rule)

EDIT: and it's not ME who claimed that each end of a quarterstaff was a quarterstaff. That was CovertOps. I claimed it WASN'T
A little bit of reading comprehension goes a long way.


----------



## webrunner (Jul 5, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> I'm wielding a staff implement in my left hand and I'm wielding a staff implement in my right hand.  I am wielding "an" implement in "each" hand.  It just so happens that it is the SAME implement.




You seem to be confused as to the meaning of "one each".  If you go to the store and are told "it's a quarter for each pop", do you take two pops and say "well it's the same quarter for each pop"?  No, that's ridiculous.

"each" infers a counting meaning.  You need one of one thing for every one of the other thing.

You need one implement for every hand.

As for the insistance that it breaks double weapons, no, it explicitly doesn't because using a double weapon counts as wielding a weapon in each hand, but the weapons it counts as wielding are different than the main weapon

 ie, the main hand of an ugrosh and the offhand f an ugrosh are not in themselves full ugroshes, but they share things such as keywords from their 'parent'.  The same goes for quartersaffs.  Aquarterstaff is not made up of two quarterstaffs.  If it were each of those would also be made up of two quarterstaffs, etc

If however you are wielding, ie, a double sword, and can use a sword as an implement (wizard of the spiral tower?  would that work?) then you CAN use DIS, as you are counted as wielding two things which are implements: one end of the double sword, and the other end of the double sword.

The only thing that confuses the rules is that the word 'staff' refers to both a weapon group and an implement type.  This is really an irreconcilable argument in that case, as the rules aren't clear whether "staff" as a weapon group and "staff" as an implement are the same rules term.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 5, 2010)

Take a look at the wording at the implement entry of swordmages in the FRPG. It says light blades and heavy blades. It nowhere states that this refers to the weapon group. Still everyone knows that they are weapon groups and are meant.

Wizards are proficient with staff implements. There is a staff weapon group. 

Why would you assume that they are talking about a weapon group once and about something else another time?



Staff fighting allows you to treat the quarterstaff as a double weapon.
Both ends belong to the staff group (nowhere is said that they are in the staff group but this is a save assumption b/c there is nothing that indicates that they are not).
You are proficient with all implements in the staff group.
Wielding a double weapon counts as wielding a weapon in each hand.
If a weapon group or specific weapon is identical with an implement we can use that weapon as an implement if we are proficient with that implement.
DIS wants us to wield an implement in each hand which we are doing, we wield a weapon in each hand that is at the same time an implement.
This should work by RAW. 

On a side note:
If you feel like, this is a stretch of the rules, ask yourself, is this stretch OP? If the answer is no, why don't you allow it.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 5, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> Take a look at the wording at the implement entry of swordmages in the FRPG. It says light blades and heavy blades. It nowhere states that this refers to the weapon group. Still everyone knows that they are weapon groups and are meant.



Indeed. Because there is no other definition of a heavy blade or light blade than as a weapon group.



> Wizards are proficient with staff implements. There is a staff weapon group.



There is also a type of implement called a "staff" with it's own section of description.


> Why would you assume that they are talking about a weapon group once and about something else another time?



Because in one case the only option is that they are talking about a weapon group. In the other case I have to ask: "are they talking about the weapon group or the implement type"
If the Wizard uses the Staff weapon group, then why is there a Staff implement type at all?


> On a side note:
> If you feel like, this is a stretch of the rules, ask yourself, is this stretch OP? If the answer is no, why don't you allow it.



If one of the players I trust with such things asked, I might let them try it. Especially if they were building something that was otherwise suboptimal.


----------



## webrunner (Jul 5, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> Why would you assume that they are talking about a weapon group once and about something else another time?




Because "Implement" and "Weapon" are not synonymous.  There are cases that let you use the weapons in a weapon group as an implement.  There is a case where you can use a specific implement as a specific weapon.

Implements aren't groups, they're analogous to actual weapons.  A +1 quarterstaff = +1 staff, not +1 staff = +1 staff group.  It's the same issue with "mace" being both a weapon and a weapon group.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 5, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> There is also a type of implement called a "staff" with it's own section of description.



 Does that directly contradict what I'm saying.



> Because in one case the only option is that they are talking about a weapon group. In the other case I have to ask: "are they talking about the weapon group or the implement type"



 Actually you don't have to do that. They can talk about both.



> If the Wizard uses the Staff weapon group, then why is there a Staff implement type at all?



 To clarify things. Weapliments weren't that common in PHB1.



> If one of the players I trust with such things asked, I might let them try it. Especially if they were building something that was otherwise suboptimal.



 Nice to hear that.



webrunner said:


> Because "Implement" and "Weapon" are not synonymous.  There are cases that let you use the weapons in a weapon group as an implement.  There is a case where you can use a specific implement as a specific weapon.
> 
> Implements aren't groups, they're analogous to actual weapons.  A +1 quarterstaff = +1 staff, not +1 staff = +1 staff group.  It's the same issue with "mace" being both a weapon and a weapon group.




If you can use staffs as implements and something (staff fighting) says treat the quarterstaff as wielding a staff weapon in each hand. And I can use staffs as implements DIS' requirement is fulfilled.

You argue that the staff weapon group =/= staff implement. Is there anything that proves that? The light blade weapon group is identical to the light blade implement. Ask a sword mage if you don't believe me. It the very same structure with staffs.

Where is the difference in the "staff implement" or the "staff implement group". Your example proves nothing b/c there is no +1 heavy blade group. But actually this has nothing to do with the question at hand.


----------



## webrunner (Jul 5, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> You argue that the staff weapon group =/= staff implement. Is there anything that proves that? The light blade weapon group is identical to the light blade implement. Ask a sword mage if you don't believe me. It the very same structure with staffs.
> 
> Where is the difference in the "staff implement" or the "staff implement group". Your example proves nothing b/c there is no +1 heavy blade group. But actually this has nothing to do with the question at hand.




This is actually precisely what i'm saying.  There is no "staff implement group".  There is a "staff weapon group" and a "staff implement".  That you can't get a +1 heavy blade group suggests you can't get a +1 staff weapon group either, but you can have a "+1 staff".  If they were the same thing, there wouldn't be this distinction.

Individual "items", such as "longsword" or "greatspear" have their own specific stats, rules, adn such.  Weapon groups, such as "spear", "light blade" contain these items.  "mace", for instance, is the name of both a weapon group and a weapon: as a result you can say "I have a mace that counts as a mace" and although it sounds stupid is a statement of valid rule interactions and is not a the tautalogy it seems.  The same is true for staffs: I ahve a staff that counts as a quarterstaff that is a member of the staff weapon group.  That doesn't mean all members of the staff weapon group are staff implements, just the other way around.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 5, 2010)

webrunner said:


> I ahve a staff that counts as a quarterstaff that is a member of the staff weapon group.  *That doesn't mean all members of the staff weapon group are staff implements*, just the other way around.




And why do you assume that?
The only thing you have got is that the staff implement is treated as the specfic weapon quarterstaff if you use it as a weapon. This does not automatically mean that all other staff weapons are not staff implements.

You can turn that argument around and use it against me. That only proves that it is ambiguous.

Implement profiency staffs means at least the implement staff but can also mean the staff weapon group at the same time. And there would be nothing wrong if it did, it wouldn't be something new, it would be something that has already happened (compare w/ sword mage implements).

So as long as the one point above remains ambigue neither you nor I can prove which is right. But you should ask yourself is the staff implement more like a rod implement for a warlock or more like a light/heavy blade weaplement for a swordmage. If you conclude it is more like the latter you're welcome on my side.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 5, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> Does that directly contradict what I'm saying.



Yes. *According to that section, all staff implements are quarterstaffs*

So, syllogism time:

If all A are B
And C is not B
Then C is not A

If all staff implements are quarterstaffs
And half a quarterstaff is not a quarterstaff
Then half a quarterstaff is not a staff implement.

Is the primary end of a quarterstaff a quarterstaff? Of course not.

Is the secondary end of a quarterstaff a quarterstaff? Of course not.

So, it follows that neither of those is a staff implement.


----------



## Squire James (Jul 5, 2010)

Here's my thoughts, starting from scratch since I don't feel like reading 6 pages on what I think is a fairly simple point.

The text of the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat specifies "a magic implement in one hand and a magic implement in the other hand".  As I read it, this implies two separate objects.  If one object can satisfy both conditions, then you don't even need Staff Fighting!  That +1 Magic Staff is in one hand and is in the other.

Okay, let's assume the DIS feat requires two implements.  The argued point, as I see it, is that the Staff Fighting feat makes it a double weapon and since a staff is also an implement it becomes a "double implement" that can trigger DIS.  Well, if "double implements" existed elsewhere in the game I'd be inclined to agree.  However, they don't, so I have to question whether the Staff Fighting feat bifurcates (fancy word for "divides into two") the implement as it does for the weapon.  There is no language I can see in the feat that does so.  The default state of the staff implement is that it's a regular weapon that can act as an implement, so in my mind all the feat does is transform the staff into a double weapon that ... acts as an implement.  You still need another one for DIS.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 6, 2010)

Squire James said:


> The text of the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat specifies "a magic implement in one hand and a magic implement in the other hand".  As I read it, this implies two separate objects.  If one object can satisfy both conditions, then you don't even need Staff Fighting!  That +1 Magic Staff is in one hand and is in the other.



 That seems to be consistent with the interpretation that the Character Builder is using, so perhaps you're on to something here.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 6, 2010)

While I don't usually like to say 'Character Builder allows it' as a basis for a ruling because of possible bugs, I will say this:

You can have a superior implement enchanted as a weapon.  'Vicious Quickbeam Staff +1' is something specifically programmed into that system.  Someone had to take time to make that occur.

That said...

Alright.  Here we go again.

First:

The 'staff implement' referred to in the PHB equipment section refers to two different things; the non-magical staff implement on page 221:

_Arcane Implement: 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._

This is a -very- specific item.  This is not all implements that could be called 'staff.'  This is a very -specific- item, listed on the adventurer's equipment list for five gold pieces.  This text comes from the description of -that exact item-.  It is not correct to assume that anything described as a staff is this item except for that 5 gold stick.

The other reference is:

_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._

This refers to the sorts of magic items called 'Staffs' that have enhancements such as Thunderwave, Ruin, etc.  This heading covers all those items.

Now notice that neither heading has any text whatsoever mentioning that quarterstaffs cannot be used thusly.  All you have here is all text stating that specific 'staff implements' can be treated as quarterstaffs for the purpose of melee weapon use.

Thusly, if you have the premise 'I am using a magic staff or the 5 gold stick' and the premise 'My item is a quarterstaff', then the following:

A -> B 

is true.

To suggest, however, without evidence that 'My item is a quarterstaff' implies 'it is not a staff implement' does not logically follow.

A -> B =/> B -> ~A 

So one needs evidence other than the above to suggest such a premise.

By the same token, A -> B does not imply B -> A either. 

Thusly we need other evidence to indicate B -> A... and that evidence exists.  And not just in Character builder.

First:
_Quarterstaff +2 1d8 — 5 gp 4 lb. Staff —_

That 'Staff' is from its weapon group, indicating that Quarterstaff is, in fact, a staff.

Continuing on, 4th edition has a design around 'specific beats general'.  If you have a contradicting specific rule, you do not follow the general;  by converse, if you do NOT have a contradicting specific rule, you DO follow the general.

Ignoring wizards for a moment, let's look at the swordmage's implement list:

*Implements:  light blades, heavy blades*

This indicates that yes, weapon groups can be used to describe implements one can use.  One can list weapons in the implement area and it'll totally count.

As well:

*Implements: daggers, staffs*

from the Sorcerer shows us again, we can have a weapon in the implement area.  And there is that staff entry... so... as it's already proven implement areas can include weapons, and it is also shown there is no evidence to indicate the staff weapon group is exempted from being in the implement entry, the only cogent and rational conclusion is that the staff weapon group CAN be mentioned in implement entries, and be refered to.

On top of that....

A quarterstaff costs 5 gold and is a staff.  The arcane implement staff is 5 gold and counts as a quarterstaff.  They are interchangeable by any reasonable logic, and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.... in fact, the only evidence that DOES exist on the matter indicates that they are meant to be completely interchangeable.

The only argument against it is 'I don't feel it should be that way.'  Which is a legitimate reason to exclude it in a game you are running, but as an argument strictly based on 'believe' and 'emotion' has no real place in a logical debate.

But yeah.  For something that is so 'obviously not the same thing' someone took a lot of time to make sure that all the magical superior implements could be either enchanted with staff enhancements or with weapon enhancements.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 6, 2010)

Squire James said:


> Well, if "double implements" existed elsewhere in the game I'd be inclined to agree.




Double Swords.  Swordmages.  It's not only two weapons, it's two different implement types.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 6, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Thusly, if you have the premise 'I am using a magic staff or the 5 gold stick' and the premise 'My item is a quarterstaff', then the following:
> 
> A -> B
> 
> ...



No. A->B => ~B->~A

All staff implements are quarterstaffs means that anything that isn't a quarterstaff isn't a staff implement.

You really need to stop trying to refute arguments which no-one is making. While it is technically possible (by raw) to have a quarterstaff that isn't a staff implement, to do so would be ludicrous.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 6, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> No. A->B => ~B->~A
> 
> All staff implements are quarterstaffs means that anything that isn't a quarterstaff isn't a staff implement.
> 
> You really need to stop trying to refute arguments which no-one is making. While it is technically possible (by raw) to have a quarterstaff that isn't a staff implement, to do so would be ludicrous.




This is true if you develop the arguement from the staff implement side to the quarterstaff/staff weapon group side.

Let's try the other way round:
There is no rules text that says that the quarterstaff is the only weapon that can be a staff implement. Profiency w/ staff implements can be read as all weapons in the staff weapon group can be staff implements.

You can argue but now you have a staff implement that I have to treat as a quarterstaff that isn't/can't be a quarterstaff. There is nothing wrong with that. Some things can't be reversed.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 6, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> This is true if you develop the arguement from the staff implement side to the quarterstaff/staff weapon group side.
> 
> Let's try the other way round:
> There is no rules text that says that the quarterstaff is the only weapon that can be a staff implement.



If all staff implements are quarterstaffs that is IDENTICAL to stating that only quarterstaffs can be staff implements.

Its like the fact that if all computers are electronic*, only electronic things can be computers

(*this isn't actually true for every definition of computer, but is so nearly true that most people wouldn't notice: mechanical computers have existed, and quantum computers may exist)


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 6, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> If all staff implements are quarterstaffs that is IDENTICAL to stating that only quarterstaffs can be staff implements.
> 
> Its like the fact that if all computers are electronic*, only electronic things can be computers
> 
> (*this isn't actually true for every definition of computer, but is so nearly true that most people wouldn't notice: mechanical computers have existed, and quantum computers may exist)




As long as the only weapon in the staff weapon group is the quarterstaff it doesn't matter from which perspective you're looking at it.

The moment you add an aditional weapon to the staff weapon group that is not a quarterstaff, perspective matters.

And who decides which perspective is the one to be applied first or the more important one?

Perspective A:
This is a staff implement -> it is a quarterstaff -> a quarterstaff belongs to the staff weapon group

Perspective B:
I can use staffs as implements -> this is a weapon in the staff weapon group (not necessarily a quarterstaff) -> I can use this weapon as an implement


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 6, 2010)

If you can apply all the relevant rules, and get a consistent result, you should apply all the rules and get a consistent result.

Perspective A applies all the rules. And gets a consistent result

Perspective B invents the rule "all staff weapons are staff implements" and gets an inconsistent result, so it ignores the rule "all staff implements are quarterstaffs".


----------



## webrunner (Jul 6, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Double Swords.  Swordmages.  It's not only two weapons, it's two different implement types.




Although it is true that a double sword counts as two implements for swordmages, the importance here is how you arrive at this fact.

There is no such rule as a "double implement".  The arrival at the swordmage fact is as thus:

A: The two ends of the double sword are light blades
B: Wielding a double weapon is  wielding a weapon in each hand
A+B: Wielding a double sword is wielding a light blade in each hand
C: I am wielding a double sword
A+B+C: I am wielding a light blade in each hand.
D:A swordmage can use a Light Blade as an implement
E: I am a swordmage
D+E: I can use a light blade as an implement
A+B+C+D+E: I am wielding a light blade in each hand.

This logic does not allow DIS for staves because of this:
X: The two ends of a quartersatff are of the staff weapon group when using Staff Fighting
Y: I have staff fighting
A=X+Y: The two ends of a quarterstaff are of the staff weapon group
B: Wielding a double weapon is  wielding a weapon in each hand
A+B: Wielding a quarterstaff is wielding a member of the staff weapon group in each hand
C: I am wielding a quartersatff
A+B+C: I am wielding a staff weapon group item in each hand
D: A staff weapon group item is an implement *** this is contradicted by the rules, which states that a staff implement is a quarterstaff:
A+B+C+D: I am wielding a staff implement in each hand.

Take a look at the following logic:
1: the two ends of a quarterstaff are members of the staff weapon group
2: A staff weapon group item is a staff implement
1+2:  The two ends of the quarterstaff are staff implements
3: All staff implements are quarterstaffs
4: The two ends of a quarterstaff aren't themselves quarterstaffs: they're halves of a quarterstaff
3+4: The two ends of a quaterstaff aren't staff implements as they are not quarteatffs.
1+2+3+4: ??? Contradiction

The only debatable point is #2, as the argument is valid it must be a false premise.
3+4 is a logically sound argument.  As said before:
All A are B
X is not B
therefore
X is not A

is logically valid.  If X could be A, then X could be both A and not B, but there are no things which are A and not B.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 6, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> If you can apply all the relevant rules, and get a consistent result, you should apply all the rules and get a consistent result.
> 
> Perspective A applies all the rules. And gets a consistent result
> 
> Perspective B invents the rule "all staff weapons are staff implements" and gets an inconsistent result, so it ignores the rule "all staff implements are quarterstaffs".




Invent sounds like the idea that a weapon group becomes an implement has never existed before but it does exist, compare to sword mage implements.

So perspective B contradicts only "all staff implements are quarterstaffs".

Your reading ignores/contradicts that any staff group weapon can be an implement.

Therefore, I ask you again, why is your reading taking precedence over mine? B/c yours can run in circles which it can't unless you ignore that all staff weapon group weapons are staff implements.


----------



## webrunner (Jul 6, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> Invent sounds like the idea that a weapon group becomes an implement has never existed before but it does exist, compare to sword mage implements.
> 
> So perspective B contradicts only "all staff implements are quarterstaffs".
> 
> ...




If a non-quarterstaff staff weapon group item is an implement, it cannot be a staff implement because a staff implement cannot be a non-quarterstaff.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 6, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> Invent sounds like the idea that a weapon group becomes an implement has never existed before but it does exist, compare to sword mage implements.



Which came afterwards, but yes, point taken. It's not very inventive.



> So perspective B contradicts only "all staff implements are quarterstaffs".
> 
> Your reading ignores/contradicts that any staff group weapon can be an implement.



Either the wizard uses staff-group weapons as implements; or they use staff implements as implements.


> Therefore, I ask you again, why is your reading taking precedence over mine?



If wizards use staff group weapons as implements, why do staff implements exist?

There are no "heavy blade implements" because Swordmages use heavy blade group weapons.

If your argument is correct then the no class uses Staff Implements. If mine is correct, several classes do. Would WotC include an implement type that no class used?

IOW: yes, your argument is technically possible, and consistent, but only if you assume that no-one, at all, ever, uses staff implements.
Oh, and a double-weapon staff still wouldn't be able to get the benefits of Superior Implement properties.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 6, 2010)

webrunner said:


> If a non-quarterstaff staff weapon group item is an implement, it cannot be a staff implement because a staff implement cannot be a non-quarterstaff.




I could ask you again why do you assume that your rule part you like to cite trumps mine.

And all that logic stuff is fine.

Let's try this:
General Rule: All weapons in the staff weapon group can be used as implements.
Specific Rule: All staff implements are quarterstaffs.

Specific beats general. It is sad b/c they still use different view points and leave unecessary space for thoughts when they could have written:
Implements: Quarterstaff.


----------



## webrunner (Jul 6, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> I could ask you again why do you assume that your rule part you like to cite trumps mine.
> 
> And all that logic stuff is fine.
> 
> ...




I honestly don't know what that has to do with what I was saying.

One reading of the rules makes the entire staff implements-are-quarterstaffs rule invalid.  Specific or not, i don't think a reading of the rules which explicitly breaks them can be considered correct.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 6, 2010)

I have to say that if you find using a staff as a double weapon in regards to the Dual Implement feat is overpowered that you probably should just declare the whole feat overpowered.  Two Weapon Fighting only gives a +1 .  Why isn't Dual Implement the same?


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 6, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Either the wizard uses staff-group weapons as implements; or they use staff implements as implements.
> 
> If wizards use staff group weapons as implements, why do staff implements exist?
> 
> ...



Maybe the game has evolved and the "staff implements are quarterstaffs" part is a leftover rules text. But I don't want to argue that this is true.



> IOW: yes, your argument is technically possible, and consistent, but only if you assume that no-one, at all, ever, uses staff implements.
> Oh, and a double-weapon staff still wouldn't be able to get the benefits of Superior Implement properties.



Unless staff implement == staff weapon group for all instances/purposes.




webrunner said:


> I honestly don't know what that has to do with what I was saying.
> 
> One reading of the rules makes the entire staff implements-are-quarterstaffs rule invalid.  Specific or not, i don't think a reading of the rules which explicitly breaks them can be considered correct.




I was trying to point out that the "staff implements are quarterstaffs" part is used by you to trump the part I noted down as general rule before someone came up with the specific beats general arguement.

Of course, my reading breaks your part in half. But the opposite is true as well. But if you apply the specific vs. general principle you know why you can trump my reading. And that is an important point.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 6, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> Maybe the game has evolved and the "staff implements are quarterstaffs" part is a leftover rules text. But I don't want to argue that this is true.



That's not an issue of RAW anyway, but one of RAI, until they actually change the rule.




> Unless staff implement == staff weapon group for all instances/purposes.



Which is a contradiction, as we have already discussed. If that were true, and all staff implements were quarterstaffs, all quarterstaffs would consist of an infinite number of quarterstaffs.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 6, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> That's not an issue of RAW anyway, but one of RAI, until they actually change the rule.



 I never wanted to touch RAW with this statement.




> Which is a contradiction, as we have already discussed. If that were true, and all staff implements were quarterstaffs, all quarterstaffs would consist of an infinite number of quarterstaffs.




I assumed that you drop the part that "all staff implements are quarterstaffs". 



> I have to say that if you find using a staff as a double weapon in  regards to the Dual Implement feat is overpowered that you probably  should just declare the whole feat overpowered.  Two Weapon Fighting  only gives a +1 .  Why isn't Dual Implement the same?




I think no one said staff fighting + DIS is OP. 

Honestly I don't want to explain the whole difference between DIS and TWF. I suggest you take a look at some melee dual wielding builds and their single target dpr and then examine some caster (=implement user) builds.


----------



## webrunner (Jul 6, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> Maybe the game has evolved and the "staff implements are quarterstaffs" part is a leftover rules text. But I don't want to argue that this is true.
> 
> 
> Unless staff implement == staff weapon group for all instances/purposes.
> ...




There are no direct rule contradictions/assumed obsolescence/redundancy if we assume staff weapon group is not the same as staff implement, although I admit there is a lot of confusion as to the multi-use of the word "staff".  

Assuming they are the same completely and irrevocably breaks the staff implement entry in the PHB.

I am inclined to go with the reading which the rules work over the one in which they do not.

That said, the rules could use a lot of clarification as to the "kind" of category being used in a lot of cases.  A proficiency line can include individual weapons ("daggers"), weapon groups ("light blades"), or weapon categories ("simple melee")  and when a word can refer to either (mace, light blade) then we end up with an argument like this.


----------



## eamon (Jul 6, 2010)

If a PC shifts towards a monster with threatening reach, does he provoke an OA?

This question is relevant since it highlights different approaches to reading RAW.  On the one hand, the PHB says that "No opportunity attacks: if you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don't provoke an Opportunity Attack" and read closely, that suggests that shifting does not protect from opportunity attacks if you shift out of a non-adjacent square.  Read more broadly however, the PHB only ever speaks of OA's for movement from adjacent squares, and the specific wording is just a coincidence of the attempt to be clear where those OA's might come from.

I'm firmly in the second camp; RAW should be read like common English text and not like a precise legal document or even a computer program (and on shifting, the MM FAQ seems to be too).

*Concerning staves then:* The PHB simply does not clearly distinguish between staff weapons and staff implements.  When in a clearly weapon context (e.g. the weapons table) they treat it as a weapon; when in a clearly implement context (the small blurb on the 5gp basic staff implement anyone can buy) they call it an implement though mention it doubles as a quarterstaff.  They _never_ spell out that certain staffs are only weapons or only implements, and they _frequently_ fail to make the distinction at all (such as in the most relevant bit of text - the wizard blurb).

As such, the interpretation that pries a distinction from the text by examining the detailed wording of an non-primary bit of text - namely the description on the basic non-magical staff implement in the gear section - and deducing from the fact that it mentions the quarterstaff specifically (the only staff weapon in the book) that weapons and implements are distinct is an interpretation I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot staff.

As an aside; using propositional logic inference rules (such as A->B => ~B=>~A) is tricky and shouldn't be something you base your ruling on.  If someone says you can have an apple or you can have an orange, and you pick both - are you doing what they meant?  Yet in logic A v B is satisfied when both A and B hold.  If you will, predicate logic is not homomorphic to english text .  If you combine two facts from a text but ignore the context linking the two, you might not be reading what the author meant.

The text is supposed to help you play the game, not trick you.  When it says you can use a staff as an implement, the most straightforward interpretation is that any staff will do.  If you can dual-wield a quarterstaff and treat it as if you were holding a staff in both primary and off hand, and if you can use a staff as an implement, then DIS kicks in; you are wielding a magic implement (a staff) in either hand.  Of course, as others have pointed out, this is what the character builder permits, and it's obviously something they explicitly added - a double sword does the same, but an orb does not.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 6, 2010)

eamon said:


> As an aside; using propositional logic inference rules (such as A->B => ~B=>~A) is tricky and shouldn't be something you base your ruling on.  If someone says you can have an apple or you can have an orange, and you pick both - are you doing what they meant?  Yet in logic A v B is satisfied when both A and B hold.  If you will, predicate logic is not homomorphic to english text .  If you combine two facts from a text but ignore the context linking the two, you might not be reading what the author meant.




Yeah, but if you know your symbolic logic, then you know that 'You can have an apple or you can have an orange' means the use of the exclusive or, A xor B which becomes (A or B) and not (A and B).  They DO teach the exclusive or where I come from.  I fully agree on maintaining the context.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 6, 2010)

webrunner said:


> If a non-quarterstaff staff weapon group item is an implement, it cannot be a staff implement because a staff implement cannot be a non-quarterstaff.




This is based on an incorrect premise.

The following is true:

All items marked 'Arcane Implement' in staff form are quarterstaffs.
All items enchanted with 'Staff Implement' enchantments are quarterstaffs.

No where does it say that all items that can be used as staff implements are quarterstaffs.

Here's the argument defeated by reductio ad absurdum:

All items marked 'Staff implement' cost 5 gold.
All quickbeam staffs cost 30 gold.

Therefore, a quickbeam staff is not a staff implement.

Notice... the argument uses the same form, using a single member of the staff set and claiming that its properties apply to ALL members of the staff set.

Also, the argument is defeated another way:

Your logic is:

A quarterstaff is a staff
Staff fighting makes it a double weapon.  Each end is also a staff.
Each staff must therefore be a quarterstaff.

Therefore it does not work.

ALL you have done is proven a quarterstaff is, in fact, a quarterstaff and that each end of the quarterstaff can be used as a quarterstaff.

To which I say 'Well, thanks for proving a tautology.'

Moreover, it is possible to have a staff implement that is not capable of being used as a quarterstaff:

_Corellon’s Implement (11th level): Choose an arcane implement that you specialize in, whether the wand, staff, or orb. You can use a longsword as if it were that type of arcane implement when casting your spells._

In this case, the longsword does not benefit from staff fighting, does not become a +2 proficiency bonus.  However, it is still, should you choose it, a staff implement.  Nor does it contradict the rule saying that the 5 gold implement you buy in the PHB equipment guide can be used as an implement.

Therefore, it does act as proof that 'all staff implements must be entire quarterstaffs' is utterly incorrect which means that yes, you -can- have two ends of a weapon that are both staffs and not have both be quarterstaffs, and have them both be useable as seperate implements.

tl;dr:  The text refering to 'staff implements being quarterstaffs' refers to a -very specific object- that is available on a very specific table that costs 5 gold.  You cannot take the text that refers to that specific object and claim with any rationality that it applies to all objects ever.


----------



## webrunner (Jul 6, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> This is based on an incorrect premise.
> 
> The following is true:
> 
> ...




it does, in the PHB: The definition of a staff implement in explicitly says that a staff implement can be used as a quarterstaff. 

All Staff Implements are Quarterstaffs, that much we can't deny.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 6, 2010)

webrunner said:


> it does, in the PHB: The definition of a staff implement in explicitly says that a staff implement can be used as a quarterstaff.
> 
> All Staff Implements are Quarterstaffs, that much we can't deny.




Except when a Wizard of the Spiral Tower is using a sword as a staff implement...

...so no.  We -can- deny your statement because it is not true, disproven by counterexample.  

Besides, you cannot in good faith use the entry for a -specific item- or a -specific magic item- and claim that 'all items that have this quality must follow these rules' and then use -that- to say 'if an item does not follow those rules it must not have this quality.'

It's based on a fallacious argument form and fallacious premise.

It is not a rational argument.

The specific item called 'staff' in the 'arcane implement' section (notice, the term 'staff implement' does not exist in the rules) can be used as a quarterstaff.  Magic items that are enchanted by staff enchantments can be used as a quarterstaff.

But that does not logically mean that all implements that are staffs must be used as quarterstaves, especially when presented with the existance of one that is not.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 6, 2010)

Try this easy exercise at home.  Get an object (I'll use a pen) and hold it with both hands.  Ask yourself two questions:
1.  What am I holding in my left hand? (A pen)
2.  What am I holding in my right hand? (A pen)

Each end of said pen probably has some different attributes...such as you can use the ball point end to write on paper with and the other end might have the clicker thing to extend/retract the ball point, BUT at the end of the day you're still holding a pen.  Those differing attributes do not change the object you are holding into something else.  How you hold something does not change the nature of the object itself, *only in how you can use it*.

Can you use a pen if you're holding it with both hands to write on paper?  Well maybe, but it will be pretty awkward since it's designed to be used with one hand.

Pretend you own an urgosh:
1.  What am I holding in my left hand? (An urgosh)
2.  What am I holding in my right hand? (An urgosh)

The same can be said of a Staff.  You can hold it with one or two hands and all that really changes is how it can be used.  Your basic premise seems to be this:


I'm wielding a quarterstaff with both hands (Staff Fighting).
Each end of said quarterstaff has some stats associated with it (d8 damage, "Staff" weapon group, etc.)
*These properties "create" a new "Staff" weapon group item.*
Said item can't be a quarterstaff because it creates an infinite loop so it must be some "new" item that belongs to the "Staff" weapon group.
A "Staff implement" is always treated as a quarterstaff, therefore neither end of said quarterstaff can be an implement.
This also explains why you believe that while all staff implements are "Staff" weapons, not all "Staff" weapons are implements because of your "newly" manufactured "Staff" weapon group item.

Does that about hit it on the head for your position?
And quite frankly, doesn't my example above show you exactly how silly that position is?

The problem with this logic is with the line I highlighted.  No new "weapon" is created.  The game is describing the (weapon) mechanics that apply to both ends of said "item" be it a pen, or an urgosh, or a quarterstaff.  For purposes of an implement I don't care about what weapon properties the staff has, only that I am now "wielding it in each hand".


----------



## webrunner (Jul 6, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> Try this easy exercise at home.  Get an object (I'll use a pen) and hold it with both hands.  Ask yourself two questions:
> 1.  What am I holding in my left hand? (A pen)
> 2.  What am I holding in my right hand? (A pen)
> 
> ...






1. Both of my hands are holding on to a pen, but it is not true that i am holding a pen in each hand, unless you are wishing to redefine the word 'each'

one X for each Y means you need another X for every another Y.  There's no way around that fact.

As for an urgrosh: by the rules you are not 'wielding' an ugrosh in your left hand and an urgrosh in your right.  You're wielding one end of a ugrosh in your left hand and the other in your right.  

So no, I see no problem with the highlighted line or how 'silly' it is.  The rules consider a double weapon to count as two one handed weapons, and those one handed weapons aren't two handed weapons themselves, obviously.  It's silly to think otherwise.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 6, 2010)

webrunner said:


> 1. Both of my hands are holding on to a pen, but it is not true that i am holding a pen in each hand, unless you are wishing to redefine the word 'each'
> 
> one X for each Y means you need another X for every another Y.  There's no way around that fact.




It seems you can't apply your adjectives correctly.

I am holding a pen in each hand.

Each (dictionary.com)
adjective: every one of two or more considered individually or one by one

You have more than one hand so when you say "each hand" you are describing two.  That does not therefore imply that you have more than one pen, simply that both your hands are holding a pen.  Unless you wish to redefine the English laugauge so that adjectives can now modify words that appear in a sentence before them. The sentence doesn't say "each pen" or "two pens".


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 7, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> It seems you can't apply your adjectives correctly.
> 
> I am holding a pen in each hand.
> 
> ...



Is your left hand, considered individually, wielding a quarterstaff? Of course not, you're wielding it in both hands.
Is your right hand, considered individually, wielding a quarterstaff? Of course not, you're wielding it in both hands.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 7, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> It seems you can't apply your adjectives correctly.






Kingreaper said:


> Or are you not a native english speaker?




Good lord, not a "reading comprehension" thread. Things never go well from here.

IMHO the distinction *CovertOps* is trying to draw is that while "each" hand is indeed distinct -- which I think is the point *Kingreaper* wants to make, that "in each hand" refers to two distinct "in hand" predicates -- the relation "in hand" does not imply unique containment in the same way that "in a cup" does imply unique containment.

"A penny in each cup" -> there must be two pennies, since a penny cannot be "in cup A" and "in cup B".

"There's an anaconda in my back yard" -> the anaconda may be in several yards simultaneously without contradiction.

"I have a staff in each hand" -> implies that you have two staves, but technically, you could have one staff in each of your two hands. It's misleading, but technically correct.

Some would call that the best kind of correct. Others would not.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 7, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Good lord, not a "reading comprehension" thread. Things never go well from here.
> 
> IMHO the distinction *CovertOps* is trying to draw is that while "each" hand is indeed distinct -- which I think is the point *Kingreaper* wants to make, that "in each hand" refers to two distinct "in hand" predicates -- the relation "in hand" does not imply unique containment in the same way that "in a cup" does imply unique containment.
> 
> "A penny in each cup" -> there must be two pennies, since a penny cannot be "in cup A" and "in cup B".




Actually, a penny can be in cup A and in cup B. Cup A just has to be in cup B.

However, to be WIELDING a quarterstaff in each hand, each hand must be wielding a quarterstaff.

That is, considered individually, every hand must be wielding a quarterstaff. The left hand, considered individually, is not capable of wielding a quarterstaff. Nor is the right hand.

Much like it would be a lie to say "Each worker in this car factory has built 5,000 cars" when the factory has 1,000 workers, and has built 5,000 cars.

All the workers, put together, have built 5,000 cars. No individual worker has done so.


----------



## webrunner (Jul 7, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> It seems you can't apply your adjectives correctly.
> 
> I am holding a pen in each hand.
> 
> ...




No, you are not.

Your two hands are sharing the duty of "holding" the pen, they are not individually both holding the entire pen.  Each hand does not have a pen, each hand has half a pen.

Again I say, if you go to the store and they're selling things for "$2 each" how much do you expect to spend if you buy two?


----------



## Nifft (Jul 7, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Much like it would be a lie to say "Each worker in this car factory has built 5,000 cars" when the factory has 1,000 workers, and has built 5,000 cars.
> 
> All the workers, put together, have built 5,000 cars. No individual worker has done so.



 However, it would *not* be a lie to say "each worker has built this car", especially if it were in answer to "which worker has built this car?"

Similarly, each hand holds this staff, I have this staff in each hand, etc.

"Each" specifies that a set be considered as individuals, but it does not require that the specified set elements attach uniquely to whatever follows. If you then operate on a shared element -- or even a single element, as in this case -- it's incongruous, because of the implied individual element iteration, but it's not incorrect.

"_IMHO_", -- N


----------



## Squire James (Jul 7, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Double Swords.  Swordmages.  It's not only two weapons, it's two different implement types.




I do not agree with your premise that the mere existence of Swordmages and double weapons proves the existence of "double implements".  In this instance, I think you still have a swordmage with a double weapon that can be used as a SINGLE implement.  Of course, this could be defined as a "grey area" since I don't think I see a section on "Swordmages and Double Weapons" anywhere in a rulebook.

At any rate, regardless of explanations, I choose to use Occam's Razor on the whole matter and simply rule that Dual Implement Spellcaster requires the use of two unconnected objects.  Of course, this decision is easier since I allow neither swordmages nor double weapons in my campaign (for flavor reasons, not balance reasons).


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 7, 2010)

Nifft said:


> However, it would *not* be a lie to say "each worker has built this car", especially if it were in answer to "which worker has built this car?"




Yes it would be a lie.

For that answer to be true, each worker would need to have built the entire car, by him or herself.

For the statement "each X is Y" or "Each X has done Y" to be true, the statement "Xi is Y" or "Xi has done Y" must be true for every X.

It is not true that "worker number 12 has built this car". That makes the statement false.

A true, and similar, statement could be "each worker has worked on this car"


Likewise if I stated "each worker is paid $10,000 an hour" and no individual worker is paid that much (although all the workers pay put together may add to that sum) I would be lying

That is what the word means. Trying to creatively redefine it so that you can lie and claim you're not lying doesn't work.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 7, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Actually, a penny can be in cup A and in cup B. Cup A just has to be in cup B.
> 
> However, to be WIELDING a quarterstaff in each hand, each hand must be wielding a quarterstaff.
> 
> ...




Pretending for a moment that you are correct, it could explain why CB works like it does.  Since a "staff implement" is a ONE handed item if you hold it "two handed" then you are indeed "wielding" a staff implement in each hand individually (without the benefit of Staff Fighting).

That said we must go back to the phrasing of the rules for double weapons:
* Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon in each hand.

You are not "literally" wielding a weapon in each hand, you are only treated as if you are.  In other words, wielding ONE double weapon is LIKE wielding a weapon in each hand (even though you are not actually doing so).


----------

