D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
10 Questions for the Quarterstaff Implement contreversy
1) What's so special about a "Staff" that separates it from a "Quarterstaff" (which is of the group "Staff", and of the same weight and gold, and does the same damage)?
2) If "you can use implement powers without an implement, and wielding a non-magical implement confers no benefit", then is there a difference between using a non-magical quarterstaff and a non-magical staff?
3) If there is a difference, does that mean that if you buy a non-magical orb, rod, or tome from Ye Old General Store, that each of those items must also each have a tag saying, "Implement" or they don't count as implements either?
4) Does a Cleric have to use a Holy Symbol that is specifically a Holy Symbol Implement?
5) If both a "Pact Blade" are both specifically designed items that are specially made to be implements, why does the PHB italicize "pact blade" (to emphasize that it's a special dagger) and explicitly say it is "a special magic dagger", while never mentioning that a "Staff" is a special "staff" or (or italicizing, captalizing, etc.)
4) Does Eladrin Sword Wizardy require a special "implement long sword"?
5) Sorcerers use "daggers and staffs" for implements. Does the Sorcerer have to use special "implement daggers" as well?
6) If the Sorcerer can use any standard magical dagger, does this mean that they have to follow different rules for "staffs" than "daggers"?
7) Does the Swordmage need a special "implement light blade" or "implement heavy blade" too?
8) If you compare the purchase costs of a magical "implement staff" with the costs of a magical "weapon staff", aren't they exactly the same, and furthermore doesn't an "implement staff" function in every way like the "weapon staff" for the same price, but with the advantage of also being an implement?
9) If 6 is true, then why would anyone ever make a magical staff that wasn't an implement? It doesn't cost any extra, and there no other change, then why would anyone ever make a magical staff that also wasn't usable as an implement?
10) Can you upgrade a magical weapon staff into a magical implement staff using Enchant Ritual? Would the cost be 0?
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
In my opinion, the original cause of this controversy stems from the designers trying to give the stave weilding mage the ability to smack things in melee without granting them the additional bonus of gaining the weapon proficiency/feats stacking with implement proficency/feats.
Since then, it appears someone decided that wasn't such a bad thing.
They way I still read it is that the stave has a meta-tag that says "implement" and a Staff has a meta-tag that says "weapon", and you use the appropriate rules based on each type.
There are some items that add both tags, such as the Pact Blade and some classes/feats that add the implement tag to an existing weapon {sorcerer, swordmage}
I beleive my version has been since changed by WoTC via FAQ/errata/something or other... but I don't read those
__________________
"Words take on strange and wonderful powers when they are written down.
Context and intonation disappear, and the words sit in a void to be construed according to the mood, intelligence and socio-political leanings of the reader."
--- Siri Agrell
Don't you hate it when you accidentally misspell something, and it's in the title where you can't change it? "Controversy"
Has there been an errata or FAQ on this subject that I've missed? I've seen several mentions on this subject recently. Usually the context is someone assuming you can use a quarterstaff as an implement and then someone interjecting, "you can't do that".
The way I read it, and the way I believe it was intended, was that the difference between a staff as an implement and a staff as a weapon, is if you are using it as an implement or using it as a weapon.
Different rules do apply in these situations, and I don't think the PHB left too much implied. The PHB2 is certainly more clear when it comes to daggers for sorcerers being like that, but fell short of adding clarification such as, "oh yeah, staffs work the same way for the sorcerers and always have".
However, treating the category of staffs as being mysteriously different than daggers for the sorcerer would seem rather silly to me.
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
In my opinion, the original cause of this controversy stems from the designers trying to give the stave weilding mage the ability to smack things in melee without granting them the additional bonus of gaining the weapon proficiency/feats stacking with implement proficency/feats.
Since then, it appears someone decided that wasn't such a bad thing.
The main reason it changed was because having implements and weapons being treated differently by feats that weren't explicit was because doing so made the swordmage an ungrokkable class. Generally, people thought 'Well, this is a heavy blade, I get +1 to damage with heavy blades' and didn't think 'This means that I don't get +1 to damage with it for Implement powers.'
It leads to confusion and generally, in design, you want to make things so that a player's first instinct is right.
So, going back to the staff. If I have a feat that makes staffs better, and it doesn't say 'weapon attacks' or whatever, then I'm naturally going to assume it also means for staff implement stuff. It's simpler and more flexible that way, and it opened up design space where you have daggers as implements, and more staff users than you can shake a stick at.
Every implement class now has -some- way to 'weaponize' their implements should they choose, and that's not a bad thing.
It leads to confusion and generally, in design, you want to make things so that a player's first instinct is right.
My first instinct is that a staff (whether it's a quarter staff, half staff or whole staff), is two-handed, which means it can't be used in one hand.
The ruling against this, is the root of all my problems with the staff.
For all other weapons that can be used as implements, it is very clear whether the implement is used in one hand or both hands. If you are a swordmage with fullblade implement, it is two handed. If you are a sorcerer, a dagger implement is one handed. If you are a dwarf warlock with a mordenkrad pact hammer, it is two handed. Why they had to go and make an exception for the staff is completely beyond me.
__________________ Warning: This post may contain sarcasm.
Because Gandalf wouldn't look half as cool if he didn't have a sword AND staff in his hands when telling the Balrog that he was out of luck on the bridge.
My first instinct is that a staff (whether it's a quarter staff, half staff or whole staff), is two-handed, which means it can't be used in one hand.
The ruling against this, is the root of all my problems with the staff.
For all other weapons that can be used as implements, it is very clear whether the implement is used in one hand or both hands. If you are a swordmage with fullblade implement, it is two handed. If you are a sorcerer, a dagger implement is one handed. If you are a dwarf warlock with a mordenkrad pact hammer, it is two handed. Why they had to go and make an exception for the staff is completely beyond me.
Because to do so is to deny an entire category of implement to every single Small character capable of using staffs?
__________________ ++++++++++++
Travis Stout
"An absolute monarchy is one in which the sovereign does as he pleases so long as he pleases the assassins."
--Ambrose Bierce
My first instinct is that a staff (whether it's a quarter staff, half staff or whole staff), is two-handed, which means it can't be used in one hand.
The ruling against this, is the root of all my problems with the staff.
For all other weapons that can be used as implements, it is very clear whether the implement is used in one hand or both hands. If you are a swordmage with fullblade implement, it is two handed. If you are a sorcerer, a dagger implement is one handed. If you are a dwarf warlock with a mordenkrad pact hammer, it is two handed. Why they had to go and make an exception for the staff is completely beyond me.
That problem is simple to solve.
This how I treat staffs (and interpret the rules):
A Quarterstaff can be used as an implement.
When used as an implement, it can be used 1-handed.
When used as an implement, Weapon Proficiency does not apply.
When used as an implement, Weapon Skill Focus does not apply.
Can only apply implement bonuses with a power that has the implement keyword.
When used as a weapon, it must be used 2-handed.
When used as a weapon, weapon proficiency and weapon focus applies.
When used as a weapon, implement focus does not apply.
Can only apply weapon bonuses with a power that has the weapon keyword.
Did I miss anything?
As a kind of houserule, I would allow for someone to use the staff 1-handed (using it as an implement) as a weapon 1-handed, but I'd treat it like an improvised weapon of 1D6 damage and no proficiency bonus.
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
For all other weapons that can be used as implements, it is very clear whether the implement is used in one hand or both hands. If you are a swordmage with fullblade implement, it is two handed. If you are a sorcerer, a dagger implement is one handed. If you are a dwarf warlock with a mordenkrad pact hammer, it is two handed. Why they had to go and make an exception for the staff is completely beyond me.
Actually, there is no reason to believe you need to use two hands for a full blade or mordenkrad when using them as an implement. The rules say nothing on the subject that these objects as implements follow any rules similar to that of weapons. (please! correct me if i'm wrong!) Unless somewhere in the description of pact hammer or swordmage implements feature it says "you must weild these as a weapon to use as an implement" or "if its a two handed weapon you must use two hands to use as an implement" then by the same rules that staves don't need two hands, fullblade/bighammers don't need two hands. It may seem like they should, but there is really no rules precedent for it. Weilding implements and wielding weapons are two different things, you don't need the same level of 'hands on control' of an implement as you do with a weapon.
If anything there should be a feat that gives bonuses for two handing your implement! (only useable one staves or versatile/twohanded weapons)
Because to do so is to deny an entire category of implement to every single Small character capable of using staffs?
That's not the implement's problem. That's a small character problem, which needs its own fix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0Man
This how I treat staffs (and interpret the rules):
When used as an implement, Weapon Skill Focus does not apply.
When used as a weapon, weapon proficiency and weapon focus applies.
The problem is, weapon focus *does* apply to implement powers (at least per Character Builder). However, when it applies seems to be a question of debate. There are 2 main categories of opinions:
1. Weapon focus applies if you use the staff as a weapon (two hands) using a weapon or implement power.
2. Weapon focus applies regardless of how you use the staff (one or two hands), when using an implement power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrin
Actually, there is no reason to believe you need to use two hands for a full blade or mordenkrad when using them as an implement.
By this token, Swordmage Warding should grant a +3 bonus for two-handed weapon users because you're not really using your off hand for a two-handed weapon, it's just an implement.
__________________ Warning: This post may contain sarcasm.
The problem is, weapon focus *does* apply to implement powers (at least per Character Builder). However, when it applies seems to be a question of debate. There are 2 main categories of opinions:
I think the Character Builder is wrong on this point. There are many rules the CB has wrong, particularly in this month's build.
Anyway, wasn't this even explicitly covered in the PHB with Sorcerers and using daggers as implements?
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
By this token, Swordmage Warding should grant a +3 bonus for two-handed weapon users because you're not really using your off hand for a two-handed weapon, it's just an implement.
Again, if the rules don't say you don't get the +3 to warding bonus to swordmages using two handed weapons as an implement, there is no reason to think they can't. But sword mages also have plenty of weapon powers, which do require you to use both hands, which is when the warding falls down to +1. The argument of whether after making a two handed weapon attacks with a sword you can let go with one hand, thus getting back up to +3 warding is an argument for another thread. I know not what the clear answer to that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0Man
I think the Character Builder is wrong on this point. There are many rules the CB has wrong, particularly in this month's build.
Anyway, wasn't this even explicitly covered in the PHB with Sorcerers and using daggers as implements?
Its been said a lot that weapon focus transfers to implements, by relatively official people. At least one "ask the Sage" or whatever said basically this. I think its a bad call to allow it. I will see if the PHB2 says anything with Sorcerors and daggers, but i'm betting it just gives the standard "you get no proficiency bonus when using daggers as implements" which sadly doesn't really intersect with weapon focus.
By this token, Swordmage Warding should grant a +3 bonus for two-handed weapon users because you're not really using your off hand for a two-handed weapon, it's just an implement.
I see no problem with that with the following caveat. If you get your +3 ac bonus, you can't use a weapon power until your next turn. (Including the MBA the aegis of assault would grant).
Edit: Called away midresponse. Larrin said it better anyways.
My first instinct is that a staff (whether it's a quarter staff, half staff or whole staff), is two-handed, which means it can't be used in one hand.
The ruling against this, is the root of all my problems with the staff.
For all other weapons that can be used as implements, it is very clear whether the implement is used in one hand or both hands. If you are a swordmage with fullblade implement, it is two handed. If you are a sorcerer, a dagger implement is one handed. If you are a dwarf warlock with a mordenkrad pact hammer, it is two handed. Why they had to go and make an exception for the staff is completely beyond me.
What ruling? I've yet to see any rule of any implement requiring 2 hands.
There's no rule that even a staff has to be used 2-handed as an implement. It does say that you can use it for melee, and for melee, treat it like a quarterstaff. I take that to mean that it requires 2 hands as a weapon.
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
There's no rule that even a staff has to be used 2-handed as an implement. It does say that you can use it for melee, and for melee, treat it like a quarterstaff. I take that to mean that it requires 2 hands as a weapon.
I apologize. It never occurred to me that a mordenkrad or fullblade could be used in one hand as an implement. So I guess a gnome could use a pair of fullblade implements, one in each hand.
Am I the only one who thinks this is NOT intuitive?
__________________ Warning: This post may contain sarcasm.
Every implement class now has -some- way to 'weaponize' their implements should they choose, and that's not a bad thing.
Oh? How do I give my shaman a weapon implement ? As apparently waving a sword instead of a totem means I'll suddenly become able to channel my spirit in a more damaging way (weapon focus) ...
Man I hope wizards clears this up and does it intuitively. Allowing weapon focus to apply to spells channeled through the weapon is ridiculous. But according to the monk playtests, weapon and implement expertise are about to be rolled into one.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
