Does anyone else think this is a bug in CB?

[Kingreaper]

You are wielding a staff-group weapon in each hand. However, you are NOT wielding a quarterstaff in each hand. You are wielding a single quarterstaff in two hands.

A staff-group weapon is only a staff-implement IF it is a quarterstaff.

 

[Teemu]

There really is no mention of inherent bonuses being 'enhancement' in the DMG2. However, if they weren't, it would wreck the math because you're still supposed to give magic items or boons even if not as many. So at, say, level 7 you could wield a +2 magic weapon and get an unnamed +2 bonus from the variant. As enhancement bonuses, the inherent stuff still works with magic weapons since you can't get the extra critical damage from the variant bonuses alone.

 

[Oldtimer]

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...
<snip>
Enhancement bonus has two meanings based on the rules context in which it is used. Either type or bonus but never both.

This is where you are wrong. Enhancement bonus can mean the general type of bonus or a specific enhancement bonus value. In both cases the type is "enhancement". It doesn't lose its type just because it has a value. Nothing in the rules tells us that bonus values have no type. After all, it's the bonus values that stack or not based on type, so they must retain there type. Saying that all numerical values are untyped is just absurd.

 

[DracoSuave]

You are wielding a staff-group weapon in each hand. However, you are NOT wielding a quarterstaff in each hand. You are wielding a single quarterstaff in two hands.

A staff-group weapon is only a staff-implement IF it is a quarterstaff.

A staff is a staff. Any attempt to claim otherwise is not based in logic.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

A staff is a staff. Any attempt to claim otherwise is not based in logic.

That a staff implment == quarterstaff is already spelled out in the PHB1 P240/241.

Staffs
A staff is a shaft of wood as tall or slightly taller than
you are, sometimes crowned with a decorative crystal
or some other arcane fetish. Fashioned either as a
quarterstaff or a walking staff, it is also imbued with
arcane enchantments so that you can channel your
spells through it. Unlike other implements, a staff also
functions as a melee weapon (treat it as a quarterstaff ).
When used in melee, a staff applies its enhancement
bonus and critical damage dice just as a weapon does.
However, you must be a member of a class that can
use a staff as an implement to apply the enhancement
bonus of a staff to the attack rolls and the damage rolls
of any of your powers from that class that have the
implement keyword and to use a staff ’s properties and
powers. If your class can’t normally use staffs as implements,
or if you’re not using an implement power, a
staff is simply a magic quarterstaff.

 

[Oldtimer]

Double weapons: Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon in each hand.
(Basically you are wielding the staff in each hand)

Not quite. It is like you are wielding the staff in each hand. You are not actually doing that.

Since you are now wielding a staff in each hand and a staff is an implement, you are wielding an implement in each hand.

No. The rules don't say that. You are wielding a double weapon, which is like wielding a weapon in each hand. It doesn't say that you are actually wielding the weapon in each hand. Nor does it say that it's like wielding an implement in each hand.
You might think it's a small jump to go from "like wielding a weapon in each hand" to "actually wielding the weapon in each hand", but there is no support for that in the rules.

 

[circadianwolf]

This whole thread has become ridiculous, but I must say that Oldtimer's last post is absolutely hilarious.

"It says to treat yourself 'like' you're doing this. That doesn't mean you're doing it. Even if the rules say you are for the purposes of the rules. Your physical hands are still not holding two staves. They are, in fact, holding dice."

 

[Kingreaper]

A staff is a staff. Any attempt to claim otherwise is not based in logic.

I guess the RAW is wrong because you disagree with it?

A mace is a mace isn't it? So a Club, which is a mace, must deal 1d8 damage?

And a greatclub must be weilded one handed. It is a mace after all.

 

[CovertOps]

This is where you are wrong. Enhancement bonus can mean the general type of bonus or a specific enhancement bonus value. In both cases the type is "enhancement". It doesn't lose its type just because it has a value. Nothing in the rules tells us that bonus values have no type. After all, it's the bonus values that stack or not based on type, so they must retain there type. Saying that all numerical values are untyped is just absurd.

So by your logic this:

Property: Add this weapon's enhancement bonus to the amount healed by your healing word.

and this:

Property: When you use a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points, add the brooch's enhancement bonus to the hit points gained.

are both also "enhancement bonuses" and don't stack. Also all the people in this thread are wrong about said items stacking.

By your logic any game element that grants you a bonus based on "enhancement bonus" (the value of) is therefore of the "enhancement bonus" type. This breaks the basic tenet of 4e exception based design. It would require you to declare the "type" of every bonus explicitly including "untyped". The whole point of "untyped" is that it's type isn't declared and it isn't declared on purpose.

I'm not sure which English language you're using. Multiple meanings are just like words that can be multiple parts of speech like noun or verb. Such words never take on more than one part of speech within a given sentence. That's just not the way language works.

As a last thought..."enhancement bonus value" is a phrase that is never used in the rules, but if it had I could see "enhancement bonus" = type and "enhancement bonus value" = quantity.

Not quite. It is like you are wielding the staff in each hand. You are not actually doing that.


No. The rules don't say that. You are wielding a double weapon, which is like wielding a weapon in each hand. It doesn't say that you are actually wielding the weapon in each hand. Nor does it say that it's like wielding an implement in each hand.
You might think it's a small jump to go from "like wielding a weapon in each hand" to "actually wielding the weapon in each hand", but there is no support for that in the rules.

And if THIS is true then you've broken all the OTHER feats that rely on "wielding something in each hand" such as two-weapon fighting, two-weapon defense, etc.

 

[CovertOps]

I guess the RAW is wrong because you disagree with it?

A mace is a mace isn't it? So a Club, which is a mace, must deal 1d8 damage?

And a greatclub must be weilded one handed. It is a mace after all.

You're playing games with a word that has 2 uses. Mace as a weapon group/category and Mace as a named weapon. I really which they had avoided that nonsense. What is an "attack"?

A staff (implement) is both an implement AND a weapon as quoted directly from the PHB errata by me. It specifically is treated as a quarterstaff which is a member of the "Staff" weapon group. Staff Fighting allows you to treat a Staff (weapon group) as a double weapon so you treat it as if you're wielding it in each hand. Please stop playing word games.