Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 4334581" data-attributes="member: 1879">Then why is it explicitly stated on page 234 that the Holy Avenger does not provide a proficiency bonus to hit when used as an implement if it was as clear as you fondly imagine?Why, exactly is a pact blade a weapon when used to cast spells but a staff is not? Please cite the passage you're referencing..Because what I see is : "This blade functions as a warlock implement, adding it's enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls for warlock powers that use implements." and "Special: You do not gain your weapon proficiency bonus to attack rolls when using the Pact blade as an implement."I also note that on page 240 2nd to last paragraph it states "Unlike other implements, a staff also functions as a melee weapon (treat as a quarterstaff). When used in melee, a staff applies its enhancement bonus and critical damage dice just as a melee weapon does." There is exactly no difference between a magic staff as listed on page 241 vs page 235. Both function as either an implement (for a wizard) or a melee weapon. The enhancement bonus functions with either a melee attack or a spell power explicitly. Do you pretend that a wizard does not get his +2 proficiency bonus when wielding his staff in melee? Or that Weapon focus would not apply? On page 219 it simply state "Proficiency with a weapon gives you a proficiency bonus to attack rolls with, which appears in this column if applicable." There is not one damm syllable about only applying when the weapon is being used as a weapon and not as an implement. Likewise the Weapon focus feat.There are 4 places in the rules where weapons and implements overlap. The staff. The Holy avenger. The Pact blade. And the Wizard of the spiral tower. The Holy avenger and pact blade explictly remove the proficiency bonus (but not weapon feat bonuses) from the equation. The other 2 do not. Are you saying this was a mistake? Or do you feel it was deliberate obfuscation? Or could it simply be that the RAW are the RAW?Incidently on page 87 the Kensai class powers don't say a damm thing about not applying when used as implements. As for 'doesn't make sense to me' that's nothing more than a failure of imagination on your part. I'm perfectly capable of conceiving of a wizard becoming more magically proficient with a staff by studying it's martial applications. Or by spending years studying it's wood grains and how they channel the flow of power for that matter.But if you're going to insist that 4e makes perfect sense to you, then by all means explain martial dailies to me. Or why expanded spell book helps with attack spells, but not utility spells. Or why I can spend a feat to learn magic missile, or meteor storm, but not prestidigitation. Or why a Paladin of Pelor needs to spill the blood of his foes before he can heal someone. Or explain why you can swallow all that but a wizard persueing a paragon path that studies the staff and actually benefiting from it is going one yard too far for you.Oh wait:Yeah, I'm sure you are actually taking a moral stand rather than trolling and leaving yourself a weaslly excuse for why you aren't defending your indefensible position.</blockquote>

Verification