10 Questions for the Quarterstaff Implement contreversy

[Primitive Screwhead]

I think the new monk rules are a new category meant to recreate 'monk weapons' rules without laying out specific weapons.

I think a rules article on the different categories and how things work together would be a great thing to see.

 

[DracoSuave]

Man I hope wizards clears this up and does it intuitively. Allowing weapon focus to apply to spells channeled through the weapon is ridiculous.

Swordmages and Blade Channeling Sorcerers disagree very muchly. Given both classes are centered around skiill with the weapons being part of the casting process, it's pretty hard to believe that skill with a tool doesn't correspond to skill with a tool.

But regardless, it's not like Weapon Focus actually mentions weapon attacks in any way.

 

[Thundershield]

The staff behaves differently depending on how you use it: 1-handed as an implement, 2-handed as a weapon, but it is still the same item and unless modifiers apply only to implement or weapon powers, they can be used with the item, regardless of whether it is being used as a weapon or implement.

Feats and abilities, such as Nimble Blade or Weapon Focus, are effective regardless of whether an item is being used as one or the other. And while the latter feat is admittedly called "Weapon Focus", the description doesn't limit its use to weapon powers. Similarly, Two-Weapon Fighting isn't limited to weapon powers.

However, to show when you cannot use an item as both one and the other, Heavy Blade Opportunity is quite clear in its description: This feat only applies to weapon powers.

 

[N0Man]

The staff behaves differently depending on how you use it: 1-handed as an implement, 2-handed as a weapon, but it is still the same item and unless modifiers apply only to implement or weapon powers, they can be used with the item, regardless of whether it is being used as a weapon or implement.

Actually, this is what I have said and believed, but since seeing the Eberron Guide, I'm not so sure. I created a new discussion on this (linked and quoted below) since I thought it was kind of a different topic than the core topic here.

Staff 2-Handed Implement according to Eberron Player's Guide

I know that many (including myself, and the character creator) considered a staff implement to be usable as a 1-Handed item when used as an implement, even if it might require 2 hands to use it as a weapon. However, there is a little quote in Eberron that caught my eye.

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

Is it unable to be embedded because it is also a 2-handed weapon, or does this imply that it should be used as a 2-handed implement afterall? If so, then does that mean that a staff as at a disadvantage compared to 1-handed implements, when you consider Dual Implement Mastery?

I wasn't sure if I should have added this to the current discussion regarding whether or not a Quarterstaff is an Implement, however since this is really a different issue (though it's 1-handed / 2-handed status was a subject of debate in the other topic).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

because it looks just too stupid if you "embed" a 6 feet long pole...

It just refers to the size...

Reason for beeing able to use a staff as a ne handed implement:
You just don´t need to hands to channel the magical energy...you can perfectly hold a staff in one hand.

But you can´t use it as an effective weapon in one hand. thats it. Here the rules somehow follow out of game logic...

 

[N0Man]

because it looks just too stupid if you "embed" a 6 feet long pole...

It just refers to the size...

Reason for beeing able to use a staff as a ne handed implement:
You just don´t need to hands to channel the magical energy...you can perfectly hold a staff in one hand.

But you can´t use it as an effective weapon in one hand. thats it. Here the rules somehow follow out of game logic...

The fact that the fluff makes sense for it not to be able to be embedded does not change the fact that rule specifically refers to it as a "two handed implement."

Furthermore, your explanation to back it up is a fluff interpretation, and not supported by rules or even "official" fluff.

Before this entry, the rules never stated one way or the other on the subject if a staff required one hand or two hands to be used as an implement. Here it clearly refers to it as a two handed implement.

Also, please keep in mind, they could have just have easily have said, "a two-handed weapon being used as an implement", which would have avoided suggesting that it needs to be used two-handed when being used as an implement.

In addition, the fact that they refer to it as a two-handed implement also hurts the argument made by some that there is an implied difference between a Staff Weapon (which is two-handed) and a Staff Implement (for which the lack of two-handed requirement as implement was cited as an implication that implement staffs were one-handed and special versus magical weapon staffs).

 

[Thundershield]

We also need to keep in mind that 4E is exceptions-based, so it's possible they only consider the staff 2-handed for the purpose of embedding or attaching it.

 

[N0Man]

We also need to keep in mind that 4E is exceptions-based, so it's possible they only consider the staff 2-handed for the purpose of embedding or attaching it.

Except they specifically said "two-handed implement, such as staffs", as opposed to "a two-handed weapon used as an implement" or similar.

I think they need to provide clarification.

 

[Caliban]

Except they specifically said "two-handed implement, such as staffs", as opposed to "a two-handed weapon used as an implement" or similar.

I think they need to provide clarification.

I think it is a mistake to try and apply a section about attaching warforged implements in a supplement to a campaign setting as errata to the core rules.

That section already has other obvious errors (adding or removing an attached component is both a minor action and takes 5 minute?), so I wouldn't take that as anything authoratative.

 

[N0Man]

I think it is a mistake to try and apply a section about attaching warforged implements in a supplement to a campaign setting as errata to the core rules.

That section already has other obvious errors (adding or removing an attached component is both a minor action and takes 5 minute?), so I wouldn't take that as anything authoratative.

I'm not trying to be a rules lawyer here and enforce anything based on a supplement. On the other hand, considering how it's all supposed to be part of "core", I don't want to dismiss it off-hand either.

I'm merely pointing it out as something that I think that WotC needs to provide some clarification on, and that it gives at least some room for doubt.