Staff Fighting and Dual Implement Spellcaster

[DracoSuave]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.