# Staff implement one-handed?



## Torebo (Jul 14, 2008)

Is there a page ref from the PHB that says you can "wield" a staff implement one-handed? I've seen it suggested somewhere, but couldn't find any mention of it. Visually, I can see the wizard wielding the staff with both hands, but mechanically it just wouldn't jive if Staff wizards were left out of the "second implement mastery" party.

So what's up with that?


----------



## Snotboy (Jul 14, 2008)

I can't speak for RAW, but here's a couple things to consider.

I'm not sure if you have to wielding both implements at the same time strictly to benefit from Second Implement Mastery, and

Since a staff is two-handed as a weapon, requiring two hands as an implement means that a halfling wizard, or any other small-size wizard, would never be able to use a staff as an implement.  Since it's reasonable to assume that this would not have been an intended result, you could say that using a staff as an implement does not require two hands.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 14, 2008)

Torebo said:


> Is there a page ref from the PHB that says you can "wield" a staff implement one-handed? I've seen it suggested somewhere, but couldn't find any mention of it. Visually, I can see the wizard wielding the staff with both hands, but mechanically it just wouldn't jive if Staff wizards were left out of the "second implement mastery" party.
> 
> So what's up with that?



I spoke with player in my group about that.  I said it allows you to be like Gandalf in TT or RotK using a sword in one hand and his staff in the other (Spiral Tower).  Specifically, since the Wizard can use the staff as an implement, it allows the wizard to "not have to swing it like a staff" freeing his other hand for a second implement (Orb or Wand).  In essence, it means you can use your staff to cast the spell (because it's a better implement for the purposes of this example) but your Wand of Accuracy power to make help you hit.


----------



## Oompa (Jul 14, 2008)

As said by officials and cutserv, wielding is using, an staff is the same as an q-staff and to use it you use it two handed..

You can hold an wand and orb in both hands, but you only gain the effects of the implement if you use it..

To use the staff you need two hands..

So the staff needs two hands.. and the rest one hand..


----------



## grimslade (Jul 14, 2008)

No. If you wield a staff implement as a weapon, you treat it as a quarterstaff and use two hands. A staff can be used as a quarterstaff, quarterstaves are not implements. Cust Serv. has given two different answers to this question depending on how the question is phrased. The only RAW talks about wielding the staff as a weapon, there is no mention of the staff implement needing two hands. There is a clear and specific delineation to when you can use 'weapon' magic powers with implements, i.e. Wizard of the Spiral Tower. There is no specific rule about the staff as implement. The general rule for implements is that they are one handed. All of the art of staff wielding mages show them using it one handed. Its not rules but it shows some design theory.
Until there is errata saying otherwise, staffs (sic) can be wielded one handed at my tables.


----------



## Andur (Jul 14, 2008)

Implement != weapon.

If you are using a staff as an implement then you can wield it in one hand.

If you wish to whack someone with it you must use two hands and cannot be a halfling.

The description of a staff even describes it as "... a walking stick..."  which can be wielded in one hand and can "be used as a quarterstaff to make melee attacks" which needs two hands to do.

Heck even the art in the PHB has the wizard wielding the staff in one hand...


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 14, 2008)

I think the important thing to remember is that a staff is not a quarterstaff. I think this is where the confusion comes in right away. People assume they are the same thing.

If a wand could be used as a two handed sword, it does not mean that it is one.


----------



## Bigwilly (Jul 14, 2008)

I think I would give wizard's at least the following options for a staff implement:

Quarterstaff - can be used as an implement when held in one hand, needs to be held in both hands to wield as a weapon (too big for small characters to wield as a weapon).

Shortstaff - can be used as an implement when held in one hand, treat as a club when wielded as a weapon  (small characters can wield as a two-handed weapon).

While weapon sizes could be a PITA in 3.x, it is one of the few things about 4e that really bothers me. Did all the halfling smiths, bowyers, etc get killed in the changeover?


----------



## Midknightsun (Jul 14, 2008)

I'm with Andur on this.  Custserv must be smoking crack.  Too many fantasy troupes that just don't jive with that to make it acceptable to me.
IMHO one hand to use as an implement should be fine.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Jul 14, 2008)

Since the main benefit of the staff is as a defensive bonus - I don't see like as effective when only used in one hand.

I would allow it to be used as an implement in one hand but to gain the implement effect I would require both hands (or do we want Wizards with a light shield in one hand and a staff in the other).


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 14, 2008)

jodyjohnson said:


> Since the main benefit of the staff is as a defensive bonus - I don't see like as effective when only used in one hand.
> 
> I would allow it to be used as an implement in one hand but to gain the implement effect I would require both hands (or do we want Wizards with a light shield in one hand and a staff in the other).




But then why would you not allow any PC to carry a staff in two hands and get a defensive bonus from it?

The bonus is not combative in nature, otherwise, anyone could do it.

It's magical in nature. Even another Wizard cannot gain that bonus if he is not able to use the Staff implement. Think of it as a mini invisible force field that Staff Wizards can put up.

And yes, if a Staff Wizard takes Str 13 and the Light Shield feat, I would allow him to have +2 to AC. Why not? He paid for it and gave up something else to acquire it.


----------



## icarusfallz (Jul 14, 2008)

A wizard's staff is a walking stick.  It doesn't HAVE to be able to be used like a quarterstaff.  I have seen lots of short walkingsticks.  They are called canes.  Perfect for the Halfling wizard, and great flavor.  Maybe even a cane sword.  It's a game, do it however it's fun for you AND the other players.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 14, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> I think the important thing to remember is that a staff is not a quarterstaff. I think this is where the confusion comes in right away. People assume they are the same thing.
> 
> If a wand could be used as a two handed sword, it does not mean that it is one.




I would personally think that' a bit of a stretch. If it requires two hands to use in battle, I don't think it suddenly shrinks down to a one handed stick when your not hitting people with it. The reason they say counts as a quarterstaff instead of is a quarterstaff is because quarterstaves can't be used as implements.

Not that this necesarily answers the final question of if you can just hold it one hand while your casting a spell. I personally think evidence points to no, but I grant it's still a grey area.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 14, 2008)

FadedC said:


> I personally think evidence points to no, but I grant it's still a grey area.




What evidence might that be?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 14, 2008)

FadedC said:


> I would personally think that' a bit of a stretch. If it requires two hands to use in battle, I don't think it suddenly shrinks down to a one handed stick when your not hitting people with it.




Why do you think that is a bit of a stretch? 

In order to use it effectively in battle, sure you've got to have two hands available to swing your 6ft staff.

But most of the day you carry it in one hand, using it like a big walking stick (see every wizard picture ever drawn ). When using it as an implement, I'd be completely happy with the wizard just presenting the staff strongly in his hand (c.f. Gandalf in LotR, cf Dragonslayer where it is sometimes held in two hands and sometimes in one hand).

It seems reasonable to me that using the staff as an implement doesn't have to be the same as using it to duel with someone.

Cheers


----------



## FadedC (Jul 14, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> What evidence might that be?




The primary evidence are the custserv rulings. There is also the fact that you have to wield an implement to gain it's bonuses, the fact that quarterstaves require two hands to wield and the fact that all staves count as quarterstaves.

But like I said I acknowledge it's a grey area, especially given that the custserv rulings are sometimes unreliable. I just feel there is some evidence to support no, and no evidence to support yes.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 14, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Why do you think that is a bit of a stretch?
> 
> In order to use it effectively in battle, sure you've got to have two hands available to swing your 6ft staff.
> 
> ...




Like I said it's not the wizard holding the staff in one hand that's a stretch from a logical perspective. It's claiming that it's just a short one handed staff that morphs into a 2 handed quarterstaff when you whack somebody with it that is. 

As for using a 2 handed staff in 1 hand while casting spells, If you go back and read what I said, you will note I had no problem with that from a logic perspective.


----------



## Anthony Jackson (Jul 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> But then why would you not allow any PC to carry a staff in two hands and get a defensive bonus from it?



I would allow any PC to take a feat to get a +1 shield bonus to AC with a staff, and I would rule that a staff wizard has that feat. I can't see any easy abuses for that rule (in fact, I can't see anyone ever bothering to take the feat).

The encounter power, however, I would call magical.


----------



## toxicspirit (Jul 15, 2008)

> There is also the fact that you have to wield an implement to gain it's bonuses, the fact that quarterstaves require two hands to wield and the fact that all staves count as quarterstaves.



I would have thought that if Halflings were barred from using the Staff as an Implement, it would have been stated somewhere. Being that it is not, and therefore Halflings can indeed wield the Staff as an Implement (even though it can also be used as a quarterstaff, but a quarterstaff itself cannot be wielded by a Halfling), then that would lead me to believe that wielding a Staff Implement is not quite the same as wielding a quarterstaff in the normal two-handed offensive manner.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 15, 2008)

FadedC said:


> Like I said it's not the wizard holding the staff in one hand that's a stretch from a logical perspective. It's claiming that it's just a short one handed staff that morphs into a 2 handed quarterstaff when you whack somebody with it that is.




Why would it have to morph though?


----------



## Fedifensor (Jul 15, 2008)

I see this primarily as a balance issue.  If the staff takes two hands to use as an implement, but the wand and orb only take one hand, there's an issue.  Especially since the functionality of the orb exceeds that of the staff for most wizards.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 15, 2008)

FadedC said:


> The primary evidence are the custserv rulings. There is also the fact that you have to wield an implement to gain it's bonuses, the fact that quarterstaves require two hands to wield and the fact that all staves count as quarterstaves.
> 
> But like I said I acknowledge it's a grey area, especially given that the custserv rulings are sometimes unreliable. I just feel there is some evidence to support no, and no evidence to support yes.




How does one wield an Orb?

The fact that the word wield is used is not evidence of anything other than "hold and use".

The staff vs. quarterstaff issue is a red herring. A staff is not a quarterstaff. It merely uses the quarterstaff rules when being wielded as a weapon. It does not use the quarterstaff rules when being wielded as an implement. There are no rules for that.


----------



## Anthony Jackson (Jul 15, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> I see this primarily as a balance issue.  If the staff takes two hands to use as an implement, but the wand and orb only take one hand, there's an issue.



Remember, a staff counts as a melee weapon in hand, and thus allows opportunity attacks and flanking. This is not an enormously potent benefit, but it's non-zero. For a wand or orb wizard to do the same thing, they would need to wield a weapon in their primary hand and an implement in their off hand.


----------



## Mort_Q (Jul 15, 2008)

Anthony Jackson said:


> Remember, a staff counts as a melee weapon in hand, and thus allows opportunity attacks and flanking.




You don't need to be armed to flank in 4e...  but I will grant that an OA with a staff is slightly better than an unarmed OA (treated as an improvised weapon).


----------



## Fedifensor (Jul 15, 2008)

Anthony Jackson said:


> Remember, a staff counts as a melee weapon in hand, and thus allows opportunity attacks and flanking. This is not an enormously potent benefit, but it's non-zero. For a wand or orb wizard to do the same thing, they would need to wield a weapon in their primary hand and an implement in their off hand.



So, I can either have a simple weapon that takes two hands and can be used as an implement, or I can have an implement in one hand and *any* one-handed weapon (including a bastard sword) in the other.  I'd rather have a longsword in my other hand for more damage and a better proficiency bonus (go, Eladrin!).  Sorry, that's not an advantage at all.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 15, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> So, I can either have a simple weapon that takes two hands and can be used as an implement, or I can have an implement in one hand and *any* one-handed weapon (including a bastard sword) in the other.  I'd rather have a longsword in my other hand for more damage and a better proficiency bonus (go, Eladrin!).  Sorry, that's not an advantage at all.




Actually, there is a slight advantage there in not having to have two magical items.


----------



## AtomicPope (Jul 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> Actually, there is a slight advantage there in not having to have two magical items.



If there is any advantage, it's clearly too slight for providing examples (based completely on the lack thereof).

If you're suggesting that it's an advantage to only have one magical item then you must also believe that Wizards will never want to, nor come across, additional magical implements - all of which provide very different benefits. There are many magical Orbs and Wands whose abilities far outstrip the bonuses of an Int-based dump stat Str class from engaging in an embarrassing round of melee. It's hardly an advantage for a wizard with Implement Mastery and Secondary Implement feat to use a single implement - in fact it's counter productive.

Many wizards want a second implement because the salient bonuses, although low, are untyped and therefore stack with any other bonuses. Gaining a +3 to hit once per encounter is always a safe bet.

If staves required two-hands as an implement (which they do not) they simply wouldn't be used.  There are more reasons to not use a staff as a two handed implement, than to use a Wand and an Orb.


----------



## Rowe (Jul 15, 2008)

They way our campaign handled implements like Staff of Defense, Orb and Wand is this.

Staff of Defense can count as your quarter staff.  Your character has studied defensive tactics with Quarter staffs and can use all powers inherint in the impliment.

Orbs can be fastened on top of your quarter staff and don't need to be wielded separating to be used.

Wands can be grafted into your quarter staff for the same effect if you choose.

We added a bit of Custome staff making for the wizard class.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 15, 2008)

AtomicPope said:


> If there is any advantage, it's clearly too slight for providing examples (based completely on the lack thereof).




I did not phrase that clearly. I meant that there is a slight advantage for not having to own two magical items in the case of using a single magical Staff instead of using a magical Orb and a magical Sword.

It is more party resources to supply the Wizard with two magical items (a weapon and an implement) instead of just one (an implement that can also be used as a weapon).

Like Anthony said: "This is not an enormously potent benefit, but it's non-zero".

It does have an associated cost for the Wizard to have a separate magical weapon and magical implement, and that cost is that the Wizard might not have a second magical implement (or some other helpful magical item) because he has a magical Sword instead (for little gain because Wizards rarely engage in combat except for a few special builds anyway).

With a staff, he gets two uses (implement and weapon) for the price of one magical item. That's an advantage. Not a huge one, but an advantage nonetheless.


Btw, my staff Wizard (up to level two) has twice hit on an OA because some NPC thought it was relatively safe or advantageous to move away from him. At higher level, this will happen less often, but it will still happen sometimes (i.e. a slight advantage).


----------



## Fedifensor (Jul 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> I did not phrase that clearly. I meant that there is a slight advantage for not having to own two magical items in the case of using a single magical Staff instead of using a magical Orb and a magical Sword.
> 
> It is more party resources to supply the Wizard with two magical items (a weapon and an implement) instead of just one (an implement that can also be used as a weapon).



Not really.  The extra +1 proficiency bonus a longsword has over a staff compensates for using a magic sword that is five levels lower than the character.  With the pricing of magic items in 4E, you can get an item 5 levels lower for next to nothing...especially if it is the fighter's hand-me-down sword that he no longer uses because he got a new one.  By using a staff in two hands, you can't use a second implement or a shield, and you do less damage than the longsword.

Granted, most wizards won't bother using a weapon, because their at-will powers are better.  However, Eladrin get longsword proficiency for free.  It'd be nice to see them be able to use their proficiency without restricting their implement choice or forcing them into Wizard of the Spiral Tower.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 15, 2008)

Fedifensor said:


> Not really.  The extra +1 proficiency bonus a longsword has over a staff compensates for using a magic sword that is five levels lower than the character.  With the pricing of magic items in 4E, you can get an item 5 levels lower for next to nothing...especially if it is the fighter's hand-me-down sword that he no longer uses because he got a new one.  By using a staff in two hands, you can't use a second implement or a shield, and you do less damage than the longsword.




Less damage?

A +3 Staff with a 10 Str Wizard does D8+3 damage and is lvl/2+5 to hit. A +2 Longsword with a 10 Str Wizard does D8+2 damage and is also lvl/2+5 to hit.

So, the +3 Staff does more damage unless the +2 Longsword is used two handed. In that case, the Wizard typically cannot use a second implement either.

The +3 Orb (9000 GP) and +2 Longsword (1800 GP) is worth more than the +3 Staff (9000 GP). Granted, the +2 Longsword can only be sold for 360 GP, but that's still 360 GP.

Just a small difference, but "not zero".



Fedifensor said:


> By using a staff in two hands, you can't use a second implement or a shield, and you do less damage than the longsword.




While mostly true (the longsword does not do more damage unless it is the same plus, in which case it would be 9000 GP implement plus 9000 GP longsword in the above example), it's somewhat irrelevant in some cases. Some Wizards do not use a shield or a second implement, nor have the feat to use a longsword.

One reason to take a Staff Wizard is because the player is not planning on using a shield or using a longsword. And if a Staff can be used as an implement one handed, then a Wizard could use a shield with it (he just couldn't OA or attack with it, but, who cares?).

Even a player planning on taking a second implement is not really at a significant disadvantage. It only takes a minor action to pull a second implement out and another to put it back away again. Since Wizards tend not to fight in melee, it is relatively rare for one to use a Staff that way anyway. Usually, any melee attack from a Staff Wizard is an OA.



Fedifensor said:


> Granted, most wizards won't bother using a weapon, because their at-will powers are better.  However, Eladrin get longsword proficiency for free.  It'd be nice to see them be able to use their proficiency without restricting their implement choice or forcing them into Wizard of the Spiral Tower.




True.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 15, 2008)

KarinsDad said:


> How does one wield an Orb?
> 
> The fact that the word wield is used is not evidence of anything other than "hold and use".
> 
> The staff vs. quarterstaff issue is a red herring. A staff is not a quarterstaff. It merely uses the quarterstaff rules when being wielded as a weapon. It does not use the quarterstaff rules when being wielded as an implement. There are no rules for that.




A valid point on the orb, my point is just that clearly a staff is for intents and purposes identical to a big two handed quarterstaff in every way except for it's name and the fact that it can be used as an implement. It even has the same weight, and is described as being at least long as the person carrying it, if not longer. It's clearly not a short walking staff.

As for the rest, your right there are no rules for wielding implements which is why I say it's a grey area. There is no evidence for a staff taking 1 hand, and only very marginal evidence for 2. I'll still take marginal evidence over no evidence, especially when there is a custserv response to back it up.



Plane Sailing said:


> Why would it have to morph though?




How else would it go from being a small one handed staff to a large 2-handed weapon only when it's being used in combat?


----------



## der_kluge (Jul 15, 2008)

I require two hands to wield my staff. 

(couldn't resist)


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 15, 2008)

der_kluge said:


> I require two hands to wield my staff.
> 
> (couldn't resist)




You poor thing. 

(couldn't resist)


----------



## evileeyore (Jul 15, 2008)

der_kluge said:


> I require two hands to wield my staff.



I hire hench, ahem, persons for that duty.  





> (couldn't resist)



Ditto.


----------



## Mystery Man (Jul 15, 2008)

der_kluge said:


> I require two hands to wield my staff.
> 
> (couldn't resist)




Pics or your lying.


----------



## A2Z (Jul 15, 2008)

der_kluge said:


> I require two hands to wield my staff.
> 
> (couldn't resist)



So you can't 'handle' your orb(s) at the same time?


----------



## toxicspirit (Jul 15, 2008)

FadedC said:


> There is no evidence for a staff taking 1 hand, and only very marginal evidence for 2.



The only 'evidence' for two-handed wielding comes from the weapon section of the book. How then do you explain the Halfling conundrum I posted earlier? 

A quarterstaff is a two-handed weapon. Halflings cannot wield two-handed weapons, yet they are not barred in any way from wielding a staff as an implement. This suggests that, even though a Staff can be used as a quarterstaff if required, and uses those rules when doing so, it does not act as a quarterstaff when wielded as a weapon, or the Halfling would be restricted when wielding a Staff as an implement.


----------



## Midknightsun (Jul 15, 2008)

> I require two hands to wield my staff.
> 
> (couldn't resist)



Small hands?


----------



## der_kluge (Jul 15, 2008)

Mystery Man said:


> Pics or your lying.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 15, 2008)

toxicspirit said:


> The only 'evidence' for two-handed wielding comes from the weapon section of the book. How then do you explain the Halfling conundrum I posted earlier?
> 
> A quarterstaff is a two-handed weapon. Halflings cannot wield two-handed weapons, yet they are not barred in any way from wielding a staff as an implement. This suggests that, even though a Staff can be used as a quarterstaff if required, and uses those rules when doing so, it does not act as a quarterstaff when wielded as a weapon, or the Halfling would be restricted when wielding a Staff as an implement.




First off the bit about staves being quarterstaves when used as a weapon is not from the weapon section, but from both the implement section (under equipment) and the magic stave section of the PHB.

There is no question that a halfling could not use a staff as a weapon because it's too big for him. As for him using it as an implement, well if it counts as a two handed wepaon while being used as an implement then no he couldn't use it as an implement. This doesn't change anything because I am unaware of any rules to either support or deny halflings being able to use staves. I suspect this is something that rarely came up in playtest given that halfling wizards are likely to be rare.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 15, 2008)

FadedC said:


> How else would it go from being a small one handed staff to a large 2-handed weapon only when it's being used in combat?




It doesn't.

It's big enough to be used as a two-handed weapon.  If you want to smack someone over the head with it, you can't do it with one hand.

But that doesn't mean you can't hold it in one hand, just as you can hold an orb or a wand in one hand.

When you wield a staff as a weapon, you treat it as a quarterstaff.  You need both hands to be effective, and halflings can't do it.  When you wield a staff as an implement, however, you're not trying to smack someone over the head with it.  You're just channeling arcane energies through it - two hands aren't required for that.  It's the same chunky six-foot piece of wood - that hasn't changed - but since leverage isn't an issue for using an implement, holding it in one hand works fine.

-Hyp.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jul 15, 2008)

I've always used two hands, but I base things upon personal experience rather than wish-fulfilling gameworld logic.  If you think you get pull it off with just one hand, don't sell yourself short.


----------



## Seeker_of_Truth (Jul 15, 2008)

I asked 







> Here are the two arguments
> 
> 1. When using a staff as an implement (not as a weapon) it only requires 1 hand to wield since nothing says it's different than any other implement.
> 
> ...




marc@custserv answered



> Thank you for contacting us. If you are using a staff as an implement it does not matter if you are using it with one hand or two hands. The player can choose. If the staff is being used as a melee weapon however, two hands must be used. I hope this helps clear things up for you. Please let me know if you need anymore help!
> 
> 
> Good Gaming!


----------



## FadedC (Jul 15, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> It doesn't.
> 
> It's big enough to be used as a two-handed weapon. If you want to smack someone over the head with it, you can't do it with one hand.
> 
> ...




Yes, if you go back and read what I said, you will noticed that this is exactly what I said as well. I say in several places that the fact that it's a 2 handed quarterstaff doesn't necesarily mean it can't be used one handed as a an implement (though at the time I felt there was more evidence for no then yes). My point is just that there is no denying that it is a 2 handed quarterstaff. 

Anyway we have a new custserv answer now, and I think the question was worded in a careful enough manner that I'm inclined to believe it over previous answers.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 15, 2008)

FadedC said:


> My point is just that there is no denying that it is a 2 handed quarterstaff.




Except:
_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)._  (PHB p240)

A staff can be fashioned as a 'walking staff', rather than fashioned as a quarterstaff; nevertheless, however the staff is fashioned, it can function as a melee weapon (treated as a quarterstaff).

If a player says to me "Can my dwarf have a sharpened battle-shovel?" I can say "Sure - treat it as a battleaxe."  That doesn't mean it looks like a battleaxe 'on camera'; but as far as game mechanics are concerned, it behaves as a battleaxe.  For interactions with feats, powers, attack rolls, etc, it's a battleaxe in all but name.

Similarly, my wizard has a walking staff... which can be used as a two-handed simple melee weapon from the Staff group, dealing 1d8 damage with a +2 proficiency bonus.

It's treated as a two-handed quarterstaff, and can be used like a quarterstaff, but it doesn't have to actually _be_ a quarterstaff.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Similarly, my wizard has a walking staff... which can be used as a two-handed simple melee weapon from the Staff group, dealing 1d8 damage with a +2 proficiency bonus.
> 
> It's treated as a two-handed quarterstaff, and can be used like a quarterstaff, but it doesn't have to actually _be_ a quarterstaff.



 Of course, that may mean it's treated as a two-handed weapon for the purpose of "attacks"... and we all know how well those are defined.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## FadedC (Jul 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Except:
> _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)._ (PHB p240)
> 
> ...




Hmmm......ok I agree with all of that although I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Your welcome to call your wizard's staff a walking staff, just like your welcome to call a quarterstaff a walking staff. It will still be a walking staff that is as long as and weighs the same as a quarterstaff in either case.


----------



## toxicspirit (Jul 16, 2008)

FadedC said:


> First off the bit about staves being quarterstaves when used as a weapon is not from the weapon section, but from both the implement section (under equipment) and the magic stave section of the PHB.



True, but the text describing two-handed use is only in the weapon section.



> There is no question that a Halfling could not use a staff as a weapon because it's too big for him. As for him using it as an implement, well if it counts as a two handed wepaon while being used as an implement then no he couldn't use it as an implement. This doesn't change anything because I am unaware of any rules to either support or deny halflings being able to use staves. I suspect this is something that rarely came up in playtest given that halfling wizards are likely to be rare.



If there is no rule denying Halflings the use of the Staff as an implement, then it is not at all ambiguous. If they could not normally use the Staff Implement, the rules would definitely mention that fact. Since the rules do not in any way bar Halflings from utilizing the Staff Implement, it must be able to be wielded as an implement in a different manner than when wielded as a weapon, or Halflings would not qualify. 

I hardly think it is credible to assume that the designers overlooked barring Halflings from using the Staff Implement simply because it rarely happens, or it just didn't occur to them.


----------



## FadedC (Jul 16, 2008)

toxicspirit said:


> If there is no rule denying Halflings the use of the Staff as an implement, then it is not at all ambiguous.




Actually if the staves required two hands to use as an implement then that would in fact be a rule denying them the use of staves as an implement.
There are plenty of items halflings can't use. They aren't all spelled out, except by nature of being two handed.

Regardless as I said above, I've reversed my opinion on the issue in light of the latest custserv response. So if the vague opnion of some random guy on the internet is that important to you, consider it changed .


----------



## Torebo (Jul 16, 2008)

Well, I'm satisfied. I just wanted to know whether the Second Implement Mastery feat was going to even be an option for me should this game last long enough for my Dwarven staff wizard to make it paragon.


----------



## Zurai (Jul 16, 2008)

FadedC said:


> Actually if the staves required two hands to use as an implement then that would in fact be a rule denying them the use of staves as an implement.




Incorrect. Small characters are only prevented from using two-handed or versatile *weapons*. Weapon has a very specific definition in 4E, and Implements are separate from Weapons.


----------



## Seeker_of_Truth (Jul 16, 2008)

Zurai said:


> Incorrect. Small characters are only prevented from using two-handed or versatile *weapons*. Weapon has a very specific definition in 4E, and Implements are separate from Weapons.




He's aware of that.  A staff is always a weapon though.  As far as I can tell everyone is agreeing so what exactly is the point of arguing here?


----------



## FadedC (Jul 16, 2008)

Zurai said:


> Incorrect. Small characters are only prevented from using two-handed or versatile *weapons*. Weapon has a very specific definition in 4E, and Implements are separate from Weapons.




Fair enough, so if a 2 handed implement is ever put in game, it's possible halflings will be able to use it. Though we won't know for sure until one is put in the game.


----------



## toxicspirit (Jul 16, 2008)

> Incorrect. Small characters are only prevented from using two-handed or versatile *weapons*. Weapon has a very specific definition in 4E, and Implements are separate from Weapons.



That was basically my point in a nutshell.


----------



## icarusfallz (Jul 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Except:
> 
> If a player says to me "Can my dwarf have a sharpened battle-shovel?" I can say "Sure - treat it as a battleaxe."  That doesn't mean it looks like a battleaxe 'on camera'; but as far as game mechanics are concerned, it behaves as a battleaxe.  For interactions with feats, powers, attack rolls, etc, it's a battleaxe in all but name.
> 
> -Hyp.




I used to play a Duergar Fighter named Calloway The Gravedigger (the only job he could get in the surface world) who wielded an adamantine spade.  (His style was fashioned after Mean Mark Calloway, AKA The Undertaker)

Give the darned Halfling a cane sized staff, and if he attacks, use club stats already.  it's becoming an argument for the sake of disagreeing.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Oct 7, 2008)

At my table, halfling wizards can "wield" a staff implement.  If they choose to whack something with it, it does damage as a club, being shorter than a standard quarterstaff.  Yes, I know that's a bit of return to 3.5 weapon sizing, but it seemed sensible.  Making the quarterstaff versatile seems a stretch.


----------



## Turtlejay (Oct 7, 2008)

toxicspirit said:


> I would have thought that if Halflings were barred from using the Staff as an Implement, it would have been stated somewhere. Being that it is not, and therefore Halflings can indeed wield the Staff as an Implement (even though it can also be used as a quarterstaff, but a quarterstaff itself cannot be wielded by a Halfling), then that would lead me to believe that wielding a Staff Implement is not quite the same as wielding a quarterstaff in the normal two-handed offensive manner.




Didn't anybody read this?  This should have been the last post in this thread.  Why is there still argument?  Read it until you get it.

Staff != Quarterstaff, and while it may be cool to imagine it as such, it does not mean that a wizard has to hold it in 2 hands to cast spells through it.  This does not make a lick of sense.

Jay


----------



## Milambus (Oct 7, 2008)

Mort_Q said:


> You don't need to be armed to flank in 4e...  but I will grant that an OA with a staff is slightly better than an unarmed OA (treated as an improvised weapon).




I know this response is late.. but who says you would have to make an unarmed attack even?  I don't recall any rules saying you can't poke someone with a wand or bash them over the head with a magic orb.  It would still just be an improvised weapon, but a wizard could be wielding an orb and wand and still be able to make OA.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 16, 2009)

"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."​​​​
Actually this suggests, that a staff fashioned for a halfling is a bit taller or smaller as said halfling and works perfectly fine as implement and Quarterstaff (d8 damage)​


----------



## Mort_Q (Jan 16, 2009)

Milambus said:


> Mort_Q said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need to be armed to flank in 4e...  but I will grant that an OA with a staff is slightly better than an unarmed OA (treated as an improvised weapon).
> ...




The last sentence of the Orbs description ( PH 238 ) specifically says you can't use one for a melee attack, and the Rods description says the same, including the notion that most implements are also disallowed.  

That said, I'd allow an improvised attack, but without the proficiency bonuses, most wizards won't even come close to hitting a STR vs AC, and even if you do there isn't much damage.


----------



## Caliban (Jan 16, 2009)

*Subject*Does a staff require 2 hands when used as an implement? 
*Discussion Thread** Response (Support Agent)*11/20/2008 08:52 AM

Caliban,

A wizard does not need to be wielding a staff in two hands to use it as an implement. He only needs two hands if using it as a weapon. As such, he can use it with a shield just fine.



Thanks, and please let me know if you need anymore help!

Josh
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST

*Customer (Caliban)*11/20/2008 05:32 AM

Does a wizard need to wield a staff in two hands to use it as an implement?

Can a wizard use a shield and still gain the benefits of staff specialization (+1 AC, adding Con to defense 1/encounter) while holding the staff in one hand?

Thank you.

********************
Page Number: Page 157
Book Name: 4e Player's Handbook


----------



## evilbob (Jan 16, 2009)

These seem to be pretty consistent responses.  I would rule that a wizard with a staff could wield it as an implement in one hand, but could not use it as a melee weapon (take opportunity attacks) with one hand.  So a dual-implement-wielding wizard (or one with a staff and a shield) could use both implements but couldn't take opportunity attacks or make other basic melee attacks with the staff (which is quite a fair trade).  Perhaps they could use an unarmed attack, however?  Or use the staff as an improved weapon?  I doubt it would come up very often, though.

I can't remember if such a wizard would still give flanking bonuses or not when adjacent to a target - I remember those rules changed a bit but not exactly how they changed...


----------



## OpsKT (Apr 12, 2010)

Just to avoid the confusion in my games, and not take away 50% of the _weapons_ for small wizards, I just added the 'small' property to staffs. 

Problem fixed.


----------



## DracoSuave (Apr 12, 2010)

Going away from 'RAW' for a moment:

You only need to hold an implement, and make general motions with it to use it as an implement.

Staffs weigh one single pound.

I own a cane that weighs more than that, and I can point it at things single handed.

It's a damn stick, and a very light stick; holding it in one hand is just fine.

However, if I want to take that stick and hurt someone with it *because it is light* I'd have to use it in two hands because the stick's weight doesn't work in my favor, I have to use the extra hand as a fulcrum.


----------

