Staff Fighting and Dual Implement Spellcaster

[Kingreaper]

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]

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?

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

 

[Kingreaper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.