Does anyone else think this is a bug in CB?

[Kingreaper]

t I still question if you even need Staff Fighting at all because CB doesn't require it. Yes I know CB isn't a rules reference, but that's a pretty obvious/blatant bug if it wasn't intended to work that way.

CB is full of blatant bugs.

There are feats that don't even display a short description on the character sheet. Bonus damage you only get Vs. foes you have combat advantage on is applied at all times, etc.

 

[CovertOps]

A quick search on the compendium finds me: Blessed Shifter
Divine Assault
Imaginative Reaction
Tactical Feint
Saving Breath
Tactical assault
Saving Grace
Touch of Salvation
Tacticians Word
Iron Hands
and
Guiding Rebuke


However, I will note that these are all referring to stat modifiers


OH, looking through items:
Marauders Armor is the first I find (and it refers to enhancement bonus)

I guess I should have clarified. I'm specifically looking at "Properties" of items. Powers are templated differently so I don't feel they make a valid comparison in this case.

 

[Kingreaper]

I guess I should have clarified. I'm specifically looking at "Properties" of items. Powers are templated differently so I don't feel they make a valid comparison in this case.

So static feats aren't acceptable for comparison, and powers aren't acceptable for comparison? It has to be, specifically, an item's static property?

You're getting awfully specific in what you require to prove that it's a POSSIBLE wording that they COULD have used.


Fortunately I'm rather good at searching: Slick armour. Property: Gain a bonus to Acrobatics checks to escape actions equal to twice the armor’s enhancement bonus.

 

[CovertOps]

So static feats aren't acceptable for comparison, and powers aren't acceptable for comparison? It has to be, specifically, an item's static property?

You're getting awfully specific in what you require to prove that it's a POSSIBLE wording that they COULD have used.


Fortunately I'm rather good at searching: Slick armour. Property: Gain a bonus to Acrobatics checks to escape actions equal to twice the armor’s enhancement bonus.

At this point it doesn't matter much...there is a CS response in the other thread dating a year ago that says it's legal.

 

[Kingreaper]

At this point it doesn't matter much...there is a CS response in the other thread dating a year ago that says it's legal.

Saying that the Staff thing is legal. Nothing about the Healing items issue.

And if customer service had never been known to contradict itself, or the rules, that'd be fine.

Hell, it's even possible that CS is right as regards Rules as Intended. But the statement is wrong as regards RAW.

Look, you believe what you want. You will anyway, clearly, with how you've posted completely fallacious arguments, and done a wild goose chase on phrasing that you have no interest in following up.
I'll stick with believing what's true.

 

[Oldtimer]

So by your logic this:

and this:

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

If those are the exact rule quotes, then obviously they don't stack.

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.

Not if is gives a bonus based on something's enhancement bonus. But if it allows you to apply said enhancement bonus in a non-standard way, that enhancement bonus is still an enhancement bonus. To me it's quite rediculous to argue that it suddenly is not.

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.

No, it doesn't. And no, it doesn't require that. It seems you don't understand the concept of typing.

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.

First of all, I'm using the English I was taught in school. It's not my native language.

Secondly, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I am somewhat acquainted with formal grammars and quite a few natural languages. It seems you are saying that a single element cannot convey more than one atomic piece of information and it's therefore impossible for the phrase "your implement's enhancement bonus" to refer to a typed value. However, this is wrong. Not only can I find many examples (one of which was the phrase "my weight") where such is the case, but this would completely invalidate the stacking rules in 4e, since you would always be adding untyped values if that was true.

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.

No, not at all. The word "like" means that you fulfil two-weapon requirements. But you cannot chain it further. Otherwise you'll end up with all cats having three tails.

 

[webrunner]

Well I'll give you that you're close.
All staff implements are Quarterstaves
Quarterstaves are part of the Staff weapon group.
Therefore Staff Implements are part of the Staff weapon group.
Staff Fighting applies to weapons in the Staff Weapon group.
Therefore Staff Fighting applies to Staff Implements.

This is the problem:
"Therefore Staff Implements are part of the Staff weapon group."

Implements cannot be part of a weapon group as they are not weapons.

They may be able to be used as weapons, and things that apply to implement that can apply to the weapon and vice versa are applicable, but things which only apply to weapons or implements do not cross-apply (for example weapon damage dice and range, properties that say 'when you attack with this weapon' or somesuch).

Double weapon rules would not apply, as they all expressly use the term 'wielding a weapon' which you are not doing if you are using it as an implement.

This is similar to the issue with halflings: A halfling can wield a staff implement in one hand, but cannot use it as a weapon as such.

 

[CovertOps]

This is the problem:
"Therefore Staff Implements are part of the Staff weapon group."

Implements cannot be part of a weapon group as they are not weapons.

They may be able to be used as weapons, and things that apply to implement that can apply to the weapon and vice versa are applicable, but things which only apply to weapons or implements do not cross-apply (for example weapon damage dice and range, properties that say 'when you attack with this weapon' or somesuch).

Double weapon rules would not apply, as they all expressly use the term 'wielding a weapon' which you are not doing if you are using it as an implement.

This is similar to the issue with halflings: A halfling can wield a staff implement in one hand, but cannot use it as a weapon as such.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention when I quoted the PHB errata that directly contradicts your assertion. Staff implements are BOTH implement AND weapon.

And really as I was corrected above by KingReaper:
Staff Fighting only applies to Quarterstaffs so the corrected chain looks like this:

All staff implements are Quarterstaffs
Staff Fighting applies to Quarterstaffs
Therefore Staff Fighting applies to Staff Implements.

 

[DracoSuave]

This is the problem:
"Therefore Staff Implements are part of the Staff weapon group."

Implements cannot be part of a weapon group as they are not weapons.

Please understand what you are talking about before you make a statement that directly contradicts the entry on staffs.

In both the mundane staff implement description, and the magic staff entry, it states unequivocably that staff implements are treated as quarterstaffs.


Seriously, if you're going to weigh in on the 'staff as implement is not staff as weapon' debate, please for gossake, open the PHB and read a few pages first. I'm fine for presenting an opposing view, but an opposing view that blatantly contradicts the rules text is not one that a debate against is necessary.

 

[Samir]

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.

This is, of course, why the CB implements them that way. But the fact remains, the CB implementation is not RAW from any source.

The OP asked: CB inherent bonuses don't give a damage bonus from DIS, is this a bug?

I ask: there is no written precedent, so how could it be a bug?

No, DIS in CB is not consistent with CB's inherent bonuses. If you equip a +1 Magic Dagger in your offhand to fulfill the "magic implement" requirement, DIS will not give you +6 to damage, it'll give you +1, even though inherent bonuses is classified as an enhancement bonus and DIS gives you "the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus to damage rolls."

If you think the CB's inherent enhancement bonuses are working as they should, then yes, DIS not giving +6 damage with a +1 offhand implement is a bug.
If you think that CB's inherent enhancement bonuses are not RAW since they have no written precedent, then no, there is no bug.