Does anyone else think this is a bug in CB?

[D'karr]

Yes.
Quarterstaff is a weapon.
With Staff Fighting you are treated as wielding it in each hand.
Quarterstaff is also an implement.
Since you are already wielding it in each hand, then you are holding an implement in each hand.

WEAPON is not equal to IMPLEMENT.

I will leave it at that.

 

[CovertOps]

WEAPON is not equal to IMPLEMENT.

I will leave it at that.

I never said that WEAPON == IMPLEMENT. I said
Quarterstaff == WEAPON
AND
Quarterstaff == IMPLEMENT

Based on Staff Fighting you are wielding it in both hands which allows you to now meet the requirement of DIS (wielding an implement in each hand). Where do you disagree?

 

[webrunner]

A Quarterstaff is not an implement.

A Staff is an implement, which can be used as a quarterstaff as a weapon.

Staff > Quarterstaff
not
Staff = Quarterstaff
or
Quarterstaff > Staff.


So yes, you can use a staff as a double weapon as, when used as a weapon, it functions as a quarterstaff. However, no 'weapony' effects transfer to it's implentitude.

 

[Oldtimer]

"If...blah blah blah, then you can add your weight to damage rolls."

So for this sentence it's important (and makes sense) that it be "82 kilograms" added to damage rolls and not just 82?

I really need to get some of what you are smoking...

I showed you an example of how one english phrase can mean both quantity and type. Then you write nonsense about adding my weight to damage rolls???!! Have you totally lost it? Why am I even debating anything logical with you?

You are wrong! This is not a bug in CB! Give it up now!

 

[DracoSuave]

A Quarterstaff is not an implement.

A Quarterstaff is of the weapon group 'staff'. It is a staff by the definition of 'staff'.

Those that use staffs as implements find that the quarterstaff, which is a staff, is completely a staff.

Or are you saying a staff is not a staff?

A Staff is an implement, which can be used as a quarterstaff as a weapon.

Staff > Quarterstaff
not
Staff = Quarterstaff
or
Quarterstaff > Staff.

I don't think if you cannot read the weapon table and see CLEARLY that a Quarterstaff is a staff, then you cannot be an expert on this subject. It's... just not correct.

So yes, you can use a staff as a double weapon as, when used as a weapon, it functions as a quarterstaff. However, no 'weapony' effects transfer to it's implentitude.

A staff is a double weapon. Double weapons are wielded in each hand. You are therefore wielding a staff in each hand. Therefore it satisfies DIS...

...except that that staff's enhancement bonus has the same name as that staff's enhancement bonus. -That- is the reason they don't stack.

However, pre the 'same-name game element' rule, they stacked.

This isn't difficult to understand.

Moreover, DIS says directly, explicitly, verbatim, that you are adding the off-handed implement's enhancement bonus.

It's not saying 'A bonus equal to its enhancement bonus.' It says, explicitly that it is that enhancement bonus that you add. Are you saying that you can add the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus without actually adding the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus? Is that possible?

Please explain how.

You need two meet 2 criteria for DIS to work. 2 implements equipped and the implements need to be MAGICAL. A staff is a single implement, not two. So that is problem one. Second, using the optional rules for Inherent Bonus does not make a non-magical implement into a magical one. So you do not meet the criteria for DIS to work on both counts.

In the first count, you need to wield a magic implement in both hands. That is what DIS says. While, I agree that if you're wielding two implements, you ARE likely wielding an implement in both hands, you are not necessarily wielding an implement in both hands, nor is it required to wield two implements to wield an implement in both hands. The two are not logically equivalent.

Example:

If you are wielding a holy symbol and a staff, you do not satisfied Dual Implement Spellcaster.
If you are wielding a wand and a ki focus, you do not satisfy Dual Implement Spellcaster.
If you are wielding a rod, a holy symbol, and a ki focus, you do not satisfy Dual Implement Spellcaster.

On the second point, however, you are correct. The inherent bonus is an enhancement bonus to your powers; it is not the same as wielding a magic implement, or even two.

 

[webrunner]

A Quarterstaff is of the weapon group 'staff'. It is a staff by the definition of 'staff'.

Those that use staffs as implements find that the quarterstaff, which is a staff, is completely a staff.

Or are you saying a staff is not a staff?

A Staff is an implement, which can be used as a quarterstaff as a weapon.

Staff > Quarterstaff
not
Staff = Quarterstaff
or
Quarterstaff > Staff.[/qipte]

I don't think if you cannot read the weapon table and see CLEARLY that a Quarterstaff is a staff, then you cannot be an expert on this subject.



A staff is a double weapon. Double weapons are wielded in each hand. You are therefore wielding a staff in each hand. Therefore it satisfies DIS...

...except that that staff's enhancement bonus has the same name as that staff's enhancement bonus. -That- is the reason they don't stack.

However, pre the 'same-name game element' rule, they stacked.

This isn't difficult to understand.

One of the most confusing issues in 4e is that named game elements aren't exclusively named. For example, the term "attack" refers both to attack rolls, primary/secondary attacks, and entire attack powers, making the phrase "when you attack" ambiguous.

Another such example is "staff" - staff is both a weapon group AND an implement type. A Staff implement counts as a Staff weapon but a Staff weapon does not necessarily count as a Staff implement.

A "quarterstaff" staff, refers to a weapon such as that what Donatello uses.

A staff implement is what gandalf uses, but he can bash people over the head with it and swing it around because, when you get down to it, it's a big long wooden stick.

 

[DracoSuave]

Another such example is "staff" - staff is both a weapon group AND an implement type. A Staff implement counts as a Staff weapon but a Staff weapon does not necessarily count as a Staff implement.

There exists no text to infer that 'staff' as a weapon group does not satisfy 'staff' as an implement requirement for those that have that. In fact, if you were to speak of inferences, the existance of 'light blade' and 'heavy blade' as implements indicate to a reasonable degree that a weapon group can also be an implement type.

This, of course, ignores the existence of such implement types as 'dagger' and 'weapon you're proficient with' which are also valid implement types.

Is there a single solitary piece of evidence to support your claim that a quarterstaff will not function as a staff implement despite being of the staff weapon group? Do you have a single iota of game rule text that would hint that 'staff' in the implements allowed entry of a character class excludes the weapon group of the same name?

Moreover, assuming said text exists, then implement types mentioned in class entries, if they cannot be refering to weapon groups even if called by name... where then is the list of implements a swordmage, sorcerer, or monk would use?

A "quarterstaff" staff, refers to a weapon such as that what Donatello uses.

A staff implement is what gandalf uses, but he can bash people over the head with it and swing it around because, when you get down to it, it's a big long wooden stick.

But where does it say, infer, or otherwise hint that Gandalf couldn't pick up donatello's staff and beat people with it?

That's the problem, you're making points involving rules text that simply does not exists, is not hinted at, and is not supported by precidents in the rules.

Fact: Weapon groups can be implement types.
Fact: Staff is a weapon group.
Fact: Quarterstaff is of the staff weapon group.
Fact: Zero text indicates that the staff weapon group and the staff implement type are not, in fact, the same concept.

What IS an exception is that you can have specific implement enchantments for staffs... however quarterstaffs still qualify for those enchantments.

-------------------------

More importantly, if quarterstaves could not be used as staffs for implement powers, then you'd get around that by using a staff implement anyways. The staff implement qualifies as a quarterstaff which means that all your feats that work with quarterstaffs still work with the staff implement. And... the cost in gold is exactly the same. So, in practice, you'll have two types of staff-users: Those using staff implements to do both without any penalty... so no one would be using a straight up quarterstaff because it would offer no advantage whatsoever.

So really, the 'quarterstaff is not a staff implement' is completely irrelevant even if it were true, because the staff implement IS a quarterstaff.

 

[CovertOps]

I really need to get some of what you are smoking...

I showed you an example of how one english phrase can mean both quantity and type. Then you write nonsense about adding my weight to damage rolls???!! Have you totally lost it? Why am I even debating anything logical with you?

You are wrong! This is not a bug in CB! Give it up now!

What I was trying to point out is that your example is not a valid comparison to the issue at hand. 82 Kilograms is indeed both quantity AND type, but "Enhancement bonus" is not.

Either you're talking about the bonus type "enhancement bonus" in which case there is no reference to quantity, OR you are talking about the quantity of the bonus in which case "enhancement" tells you WHICH bonus...it could have said:

[the off-hand implement's item bonus]
OR
[the off-hand implement's feat bonus]

Would that still be type and quantity or would "item" (or "feat") in that phrase tell you WHICH bonus quantity to use?

OR
[the off-hand implement's bonus]

And which fracking bonus do we use here...the damn thing didn't even tell us so do we guess????

Really and truly...the best explanation of all this I did in post 32. I cited the use of "enhancement" and "enhancement bonus" within the rules text and talked about it's meaning. Enhancement bonus has two meanings based on the rules context in which it is used. Either type or bonus but never both. And the comment from Nichwee about healing items using the "enhancement bonus" and how they are untyped...just icing on the cake.

 

[Samir]

Nowhere in DMG2 (which is the only rules reference that mentions it) are the inherent bonuses classified as enhancement bonuses. In fact, nowhere in DMG2 are they even called "inherent bonuses." The only place you can find "inherent bonuses" by name is the CB, and the CB implements them as enhancement bonuses.

Keeping that in mind, what's actually being argued about is a roughly outlined house rule in DMG2 that was implemented differently in the CB--which, as we know, isn't a rules reference.

So you'll have to forgive me if I think this debate is a little misguided.

 

[Aegeri]

They are put as an enhancement bonus because it's an either or system. Either you have a magical item or you have an inherent bonus. If they weren't the same bonus they could stack, making for unexpected and silly results.

But again, inherent bonuses do not in any way make your weapons magical. DIS requires you to be wielding two magical implements. This is the core reason why it doesn't work and it is not a bug.