Does anyone else think this is a bug in CB?

[CovertOps]

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.

What I am getting is I'd like to see errata so that the CB implementation of "Inherent" become the actual rule...something like "With inherent bonuses you can treat any weapon or implement you are wielding as having an enhancement bonus (based on your level)" so that it doesn't break game elements that are based on enhancement bonus. The other (less preferred) option is to reword any feat/ability/power/item so that it works with either "real" enhancement bonuses or "Inherent", but that seems like a lot more work.

 

[Katana_Geldar]

CB has a strange bug for me, it changes all the portraits to generic class ones and erases the names when it opens...but when I go to the screen to change it no matter what race/class it is the name and portait is always Raistilin (spell?).

It is getting VERY annoying.

Also had 100 defences sometime and AC.

 

[Aulirophile]

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

.....

Swordmages, Sorcerers, Wizards, Warlocks, Invokers, Shaman, Monks, Psions, Artificers, Assassins, Arcane Implement Profiency, Moonbow Dedicates, Songblades, Holy Avengers, Verdant Staff, Alfsair Spear, Vigilant Blade, Scepter of Bane, Weapon of Oaths Fulfilled, Disrupting Weapon, Unforgettable Cudgel, Symbol of Sonnlinor, Songbows, Sehanine Dedicate, Wizard of the Spiral Tower, Crossbow Caster, Spell Commander, and Euphonic Bow would all like a word with you. Just for starters.

 

[Katana_Geldar]

Take the songblade for example, it doubles as an implement and the weapon but not at once. It depends on what power you use.

They prevent bards from shifting between wands and swords.

 

[webrunner]

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.

I apologise, I didn't state what I meant clearly:

Staffs are weird, really: They're not just treated as weapons, they're treated as an entirely different item which is a weapon.

Unlike other weapon-implements, a Staff is actually has varying properties and names depending on what purpose they are being used. A staff is treated a quarterstaff, which means it's both a "Staff (Implement") and a "Quarterstaff (Weapon)" of the "Staff (Weapon group)" group. A longsword, for instance, is still a longsword when it is an implement, but a Staff is no longer a Staff (although it is in the same-named Staff group) when it is a weapon, as there are no stats for a Staff (Weapon) item in the game at all.

What I was saying before is that an implement cannot be a weapon, but an item can be an implement AND a weapon at the same time, with the same properties, or in the case of the Quarterstaff, be two items at the same time: one a weapon and one an implement.

Additionally, a staff is a one-handed implement, but a quarterstaff is a two-handed weapon. As such, it has completely different properties when treated as one or the other: You can wield two implement staffs, but not two weapon staffs, but you can wield two weapon staff ends if you are treating the quarterstaff as a double weapon. However, this doesn't change the fact that the entire staff, the entire item which is now a 'double weapon', is still considered to be wielded in one hand by the implement rules as there is still only one Staff implement (which is treated as a Quarterstaff and therefore treated as a double weapon) and staff implements are one handed.

The alternative is this strange logic:

A Staff is a Quarterstaff
A Quarterstaff is a Double Weapon
Therefore each end of the quarter staff is it's own weapon
therefore each end is an implement
Therefore each end is a staff
there are two ends
therefore there are two staffs
therefore you can use dual implement spellcaster

If one of your sub-conclusions (there are two staffs, a necessary condition for DIS) directly contradicts a premise (there is one staff, the one that the character is holding), then there is a fault in the logic somewhere.

 

[CovertOps]

If one of your sub-conclusions (there are two staffs, a necessary condition for DIS) directly contradicts a premise (there is one staff, the one that the character is holding), then there is a fault in the logic somewhere.

I have to reiterate AGAIN. DIS DOES NOT SAY YOU NEED TWO STAFFS. ONLY THAT YOU BE WIELDING AN IMPLEMENT IN EACH HAND. THIS IS NOT THE SAME. It is no different than Two-Weapon Fighting which says "you must be wielding a weapon in each hand".

Would you use the same logic on a double weapon?

A Double Sword is a Double Weapon
Therefore each end of the Double Sword is it's own weapon
Therefore each end is a sword
there are two ends
therefore there are two swords
therefore you can use Two-Weapon Fighting

What kind of ridiculous (unnecessary) logic is that???

 

[webrunner]

I have to reiterate AGAIN. DIS DOES NOT SAY YOU NEED TWO STAFFS. ONLY THAT YOU BE WIELDING AN IMPLEMENT IN EACH HAND. THIS IS NOT THE SAME. It is no different than Two-Weapon Fighting which says "you must be wielding a weapon in each hand".

Would you use the same logic on a double weapon?

A Double Sword is a Double Weapon
Therefore each end of the Double Sword is it's own weapon
Therefore each end is a sword
there are two ends
therefore there are two swords
therefore you can use Two-Weapon Fighting

What kind of ridiculous (unnecessary) logic is that???

That.. follows logically? The double sword IS two swords, that's why it's called a double sword.

You do not need to be wielding a Double Sword in each hand to use Two-Weapon Fighting. But for DIS to work there needs to be two implements, but there is not: you are not wielding an implement in each hand, you are wielding a Staff Implement in one hand, and the other either has another implement in it, or is reserved for when you need to use the QS as a weapon.

Look at it this way: You're not treating the Staff as a double weapon. You're treating the quartersatff the staff counts as a double weapon.

As I said in the other thread, if the staff description said that it counted as an ugrosh, i suspect nobody would consider it to work as two implements in that case, but rules-wise, it would be exactly the same.

To put it another way: The rules say you can use a Staff as a Quarterstaff. It does not say you can use the end of a quarterstaff as a staff implement. If that was true, you could use each end of the quarterstaff as aa Staff, which would then each bet treated as it's own Quarterstaff, which would then each be treated as two Staffs, so hypothetically you would have an infinite number of sub-staffs. That's not exactly logical is it?

 

[CovertOps]

That.. follows logically? The double sword IS two swords, that's why it's called a double sword.

No. It is ONE weapon with two blades on it and a single area to grip the weapon in the middle.

You do not need to be wielding a Double Sword in each hand to use Two-Weapon Fighting. But for DIS to work there needs to be two implements, but there is not: you are not wielding an implement in each hand, you are wielding a Staff Implement in one hand, and the other either has another implement in it, or is reserved for when you need to use the QS as a weapon.

Apparently you can't read. It is really simple. DIS: "You must be wielding an implement in each hand". No where in that rules quote does it say you must be wielding TWO IMPLEMENTS.

Look at it this way: You're not treating the Staff as a double weapon. You're treating the quartersatff the staff counts as a double weapon.

I have already quoted the PHB rules on this several times.

The original rules from PHB p240:
"Unlike other implements, a staff also functions as a melee weapon (treat it as a quarterstaff)."
Per the PHB most recent errata:
"Using an Implement as a Weapon: Most implements cannot be used as weapons. However, an implement like the staff is expressly usable as both an implement and a weapon. When you wield such an implement as a weapon, you follow the normal rules for using a weapon."

You don't just "treat it as a weapon"...it IS a weapon (specifically a quarterstaff).

As I said in the other thread, if the staff description said that it counted as an ugrosh, i suspect nobody would consider it to work as two implements in that case, but rules-wise, it would be exactly the same.

To put it another way: The rules say you can use a Staff as a Quarterstaff. It does not say you can use the end of a quarterstaff as a staff implement. If that was true, you could use each end of the quarterstaff as aa Staff, which would then each bet treated as it's own Quarterstaff, which would then each be treated as two Staffs, so hypothetically you would have an infinite number of sub-staffs. That's not exactly logical is it?

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this non-truth. You don't just "use a Staff as a Quarterstaff". It IS a weapon and the rules/errata support that. It just so happens that the weapon it is to be treated as is the Quarterstaff as opposed to a club or something else.

 

[Kingreaper]

"Using an Implement as a Weapon: Most implements cannot be used as weapons. However, an implement like the staff is expressly usable as both an implement and a weapon. When you wield such an implement as a weapon, you follow the normal rules for using a weapon."

Note that you only use the rules for using it as a weapon when...
using it as a weapon.

DIS applies to using it as an implement. When using it as an implement you don't get to use the rules for using it as a weapon.

 

[CovertOps]

Note that you only use the rules for using it as a weapon when...
using it as a weapon.

DIS applies to using it as an implement. When using it as an implement you don't get to use the rules for using it as a weapon.

And the normal rules allow me to wield it "in each hand" as a double weapon. It doesn't suddenly stop being an implement because of that.

What I really want to know (since there is no rules text for it) is if CB is as intended or not which allows you to wield a staff with two hands and take advantage of DIS without having to get Staff Fighting. Personally I think it is, but as I said I'd prefer to see rules text on it.

I'd also like to see a list of bug fixes each month when they update CB to coincide with the rules updates.