Forked Thread: Arcane Power Excerpts: Cunning Weapons

[cdrcjsn]

The staff is described as "fashioned either as a quarterstaff or as a walking stick".
Although there are no explicit rules, I'd claim that a wallking stick is wielded by one
hand.

Then you will be using the improvised weapon line if the staff in question is used as a melee weapon then? Or does it suddenly transform into a quarterstaff when used in melee?

Walking sticks can be carried in one hand, but nothing states that they are wielded as a weapon in only one hand. You can carry a two handed sword in one hand as well, but you cannot wield it as a weapon.

Again, there are lots of inferences that people can make, but there are no rules that explictly state that staff implements can be wielded in one hand.

A walking stick can be carried in one hand, as can a quarterstaff. But a quarterstaff must be wielded in two hands to be used as a melee weapon. There are no rules that suggest that staff implements are to be wielded otherwise when used as an implement.

 

[Caliban]

A walking stick can be carried in one hand, as can a quarterstaff. But a quarterstaff must be wielded in two hands to be used as a melee weapon. There are no rules that suggest that staff implements are to be wielded otherwise when used as an implement.

You are correct in that the PHB rules do not clearly define how a staff implement is wielded. However, you can draw an inference from the fact that all other implements are wielded in one hand.

Additionally, Customer Service has been very consistent on this point, and it's indirectly referenced in the FAQ as I pointed out earlier.

A specific customer service response to a question I sent in:

Subject: Does a staff require 2 hands when used as an implement?
Discussion Thread Response (Support Agent)11/20/2008 08:52 AM

Caliban,

A wizard does not need to be wielding a staff in two hands to use it as an implement. He only needs two hands if using it as a weapon. As such, he can use it with a shield just fine.



Thanks, and please let me know if you need anymore help!


Josh
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST

Customer (Caliban) 11/20/2008 05:32 AM

Does a wizard need to wield a staff in two hands to use it as an implement?

Can a wizard use a shield and still gain the benefits of staff specialization (+1 AC, adding Con to defense 1/encounter) while holding the staff in one hand?

Thank you.

********************
Page Number: Page 157
Book Name: 4e Player's Handbook

 

[Wardo]

This has been the greatest problem with me so far in 4E. Many feats and items seem to have very bad game grammar. With game grammar being the defining trait of 4E (bringing a great part of MtG in the game that helps built a balanced game) it seems that many if not most designer fail to use that grammar correctly, especially when it comes to weapon properties translating into implement powers because of said crap grammar. I very much hope that at some point we will get a lot more errata nad than in a couple of years I will be able to get the latest print of PHB with weapon focus applying only to weapon powers and wintertouched only to implement powers.

Very nicely stated. Half the discussions on this board could be avoided if WotC would use their own keywords more often.

 

[cdrcjsn]

You are correct in that the PHB rules do not clearly define how a staff implement is wielded. However, you can draw an inference from the fact that all other implements are wielded in one hand.

Additionally, Customer Service has been very consistent on this point, and it's indirectly referenced in the FAQ as I pointed out earlier.

A specific customer service response to a question I sent in:

The FAQ states:
"21. I am using a weapon as an implement, like a long sword for a Wizard of the Spiral Tower or a staff implement held in two hands, do I gain the extra damage from feats like Weapon Focus?


Yes, you do gain this bonus to damage."

That statement can be seen to mean that you need two hands to wield properly when used as an implement, that staves need two hands if you want to apply weapon feats, or any number of things. Like you said, it can be inferred to mean what you say, but it can also be inferred to mean a great many things that contradict that.

As for customer service, you might have had better experience with them than I have, but I recall different answers on my questions depending on who's answering them and how I phrase my questions (commander's strike was funny because my friend and I both sent in the same question in a span of two hours and got two different answers...this was before they placed it in the FAQ).

I won't argue this with a DM, but I feel distinctly uncomfortable relying on customer service to basically create a new rule.

Maybe more of us should keep sending this question in to customer service so they can finally get it in the FAQ.

I would be ecstatic if halflings can "officially" wield staves.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I see what you're talking about that wasn't my point at all. My point was the discrepancy in the text between cunning weapon itself and the description of using cunning weapon in the start of the weapon section of AV. The off-hand property issue is a side one. For me, the main issue is whether a cunning weapon's property can apply to all powers or only to weapon powers, i.e. powers where the accessory is a weapon.

I'll quote again and spell out what I'm seeing there:



You could reasonably interpret this property text to apply in any scenario where the weapon is used, whether it is used as a weapon as an accessory for a weapon power or whether it is used as an implement as an accessory for an implement power. HOWEVER, we have this EXTRA text at the beginning of the weapon section which uses the cunning weapon as its example:



Forget the off-hand, main-hand issue for the moment. That section SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS weapon powers. By doing so, it strongly implies that the property can ONLY be used for weapon powers and not for implement powers. Now obviously, it doesn't specifically exclude implement powers in its example so maybe I'm reading the text too literally. However, we've had confusion and differing opinions on which weapon properties can be used for implement powers (CSR responses have leaned towards only weapon powers, so take that for what it's worth) and in my mind this pushes it towards the weapon power only camp.

Anyway, nothing is settled and this really just needs to be addressed once and for all. R&D needs to tell us what they mean when the use the word "weapon." Do they mean a weapon power or just an item that happens to be a weapon?

OK, its me that was unclear I think. This has nothing to do with off-hand or not. Here's the text of the Weapon Properties section in AV:

To gain the benefit of a weapon's property, you must be wielding the weapon. Unless specified otherwise, a property affects only the weapon to which it is attached. For example, a +2 cunning dagger, which bestows a -2 penalty to an enemy's saving throws against your weapon powers, affects only powers that are delivered using that weapon. You couldn't hold the weapon in your off-hand and gain the benefit of the property on powers delivered using a main weapon.

THIS section is inapplicable to the OP's question. He asked if the cunning property would apply if a cunning staff delivered a power when used as an implement. There is no question of off-hand vs on-hand use here. Thus the above quote is simply IRRELEVANT in its entirety. It is only explaining that the SPECIFIC weapon has to be the one that delivered the attack. In the case of the cunning staff, it is, and so this section doesn't apply.

I agree with you, the property entry for a cunning weapon is written in terms of 'powers delivered with this weapon' and not 'powers delivered with this item' and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to mean they must be weapon keyword powers, but it is pretty much ambiguous. In fact it is even ambiguous if a cunning staff CAN be used as an implement. If it can, would you get the enhancement bonus even? Apparently so. Then there is the whole question of if they would work if the staff was wielded in one hand as an implement or because they are 'weapon' properties do they only kick in if you wield it two handed like a staff-as-a-weapon must be.

Personally I would rule that the properties DO work. Here's my reasoning. The DM gave the mage a cunning staff. If he didn't want its properties to function, then he could have just given him a regular old +2 staff or one of the implement staves later in the book in the implements section. So basically the DM is asking for it to work if he gives it out.

 

[evilbob]

Regardless, I have sent many a question to Cust Serv so that I can come back and their responses be called lies and ridiculed.

Well, I have returned with Cust Serv answers, for what they're worth (i.e. half of zero rounded down). Behold the wisdom of some random guy:

======

- Is there any reason you cannot wield two staffs at the same time as implements, one in each hand? I assume you would not be able to use them as weapons in this case (for melee basic attacks or otherwise), correct? Would small characters be able to do this as well?

- When you use a Cunning Staff (AV, p67), since the PHB FAQ question #17 says that using weapons as implements gains you the properties of that weapon, am I correct in thinking that you can use a Cunning Staff's property for spells cast with the staff as an implement?

-----

You can use two staff implements, one in each hand, at the same time.

You cannot use the property from the cunning weapon because that does not apply to a staff implement, only to a quarterstaff (which are two different things).

======

For the staff-wielded-one-hand thing, this response pretty much fits in with what I hear are the consistent responses across the boards: staffs (however you want to think about it) can be wielded 1-handed as implements.

And secondly, even though my question was asked in a roundabout way, they immediately went to the "cunning cannot be applied to staff" response. Which fits with the character builder (again, not really a source) and is one reasonable interpretation of how staffs work.

So there you go! Let the ignoring begin!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

LOL@evilbob

CS loves you Bob, that's all there is too it! hehe.

I think they gave a perfectly good response. It is based on another line of reasoning, which I hadn't really seen addressed in this thread, at least so far. They're just basically saying a Cunning Staff magic weapon is simply NOT an implement, AT ALL. It is a totally defensible reading of the rules too. In that case the consistent ruling would be that wielding it is identical to wielding no implement.

I'm not overly fond of that interpretation because it pretty much precludes a staff wizard from ever using a magic weapon effectively. Maybe that is putting it too strongly, but it certainly means he's got to play switcheroo all the time, dropping his staff implement to whip out a (close to identical) staff weapon in order to melee and then switch back again to cast spells. Eh, perhaps it is all for the best to run it that way since staff wizard is head and shoulders above orb and wand wizards and they get an easier time having one-handed implements.

I guess then I agree it is a good rule, except trying to explain this to my players is going to be "interesting".

"No, your wizard cannot use the Cunning Staff as an implement, he has to switch to the OTHER staff. Yes, I know they look identical and that one CAN be used as a weapon, but see the warranty would be void if you cast a spell through the other one..." ARGH!

 

[CubeKnight]

LOL@evilbob

CS loves you Bob, that's all there is too it! hehe.

I think they gave a perfectly good response. It is based on another line of reasoning, which I hadn't really seen addressed in this thread, at least so far. They're just basically saying a Cunning Staff magic weapon is simply NOT an implement, AT ALL. It is a totally defensible reading of the rules too. In that case the consistent ruling would be that wielding it is identical to wielding no implement.

I'm not overly fond of that interpretation because it pretty much precludes a staff wizard from ever using a magic weapon effectively. Maybe that is putting it too strongly, but it certainly means he's got to play switcheroo all the time, dropping his staff implement to whip out a (close to identical) staff weapon in order to melee and then switch back again to cast spells. Eh, perhaps it is all for the best to run it that way since staff wizard is head and shoulders above orb and wand wizards and they get an easier time having one-handed implements.

I guess then I agree it is a good rule, except trying to explain this to my players is going to be "interesting".

"No, your wizard cannot use the Cunning Staff as an implement, he has to switch to the OTHER staff. Yes, I know they look identical and that one CAN be used as a weapon, but see the warranty would be void if you cast a spell through the other one..." ARGH!

Well... I can see the line of reasoning:

• A +5 (implement) staff can be used as a +5 (weapon) quarterstaff
• A +5 (weapon) quarterstaff can not be used as a +5 (implement) staff.

Just because A can function as B, it doesn't mean that B has to function as A as well.

This would allow a Wizard to be somewhat effective in melee, without breaking Spells by granting them Weapon Properties.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

its just an inclusion, not an equivalence relation

also weapon fokus quarterstaff won´t work when using the staff as implement. weapon fokus longsword is questionable even tough its listed as working in the FAQ...

 

[franzel]

its just an inclusion, not an equivalence relation

also weapon fokus quarterstaff won´t work when using the staff as implement. weapon fokus longsword is questionable even tough its listed as working in the FAQ...

The feat is actually Weapon Focus [Staves] since you pick a weapon group, not a particular weapon. It should work since if you are using a staff implement as a basic magic weapon, it's still a staff and, thus, a member of the staff weapon group.