rule question: dual-implement spellcaster

[Oni]

By the march update it was clarified that if you can use a weapon like as an implement, then weapon = implement. If you can treat the staff as two weapons (which you can via the staff fighting feat) then you should be able to treat it as two implements.

 

[stonegod]

So, just sorcs and wizards, then.

And bards, swordmages, warlocks, and artificers. I actually have an artificer in LEB that has Staff Fighting.

Also: I don't mean to be pushy, but what is your take on the +1 AC from the defensive property of the staff/quarterstaff with the Staff Fighting feat when the staff is used as an implement? Just curious.

A staff is still a weapon (a quarterstaff) so they gain the defensive bonus from just holding it (it doesn't come to play into powers). The question is if being a double weapon means becoming a double implement. They reason swordmages benefit from DIS from a double sword is they they have blades as implements (the weapon is treated as an implement). The issue is not symmetric: Staffs are implements first, weapons second (as per my quote from PH3 209 in the PH3).

I'm serious about the monk question above... I have no idea where that will go before it is all over.

I'm not sure what the question is: Monks use staff's as implements (as they use any weapon as an implement). If they took Staff Fighting, they'd get +1 to AC like everyone else (as it is still a weapon).

By the march update it was clarified that if you can use a weapon like as an implement, then weapon = implement. If you can treat the staff as two weapons (which you can via the staff fighting feat) then you should be able to treat it as two implements.

Which is clarified deeper in PH3 (pg. 219). They point out that weapon-implements only count part of their properties when they play in the other's role as I've mentioned before.

Staff Fighting turns a quaterstaff into a double weapon. Both sides are part of the staff weapon group but they are not both staff implements; the staff weapon group is not the same as the staff implement. This is why swordmages benefit from DIS: They treat items from the light blade and heavy blade weapon groups as implements (and each side of a double sword is treated as such).

 

[covaithe]

No swordmage wielding a double sword with the dual implement feat will ever make it into any game I run.

I hate double weapons.

I hate cheesy exploits.

This is both.

 

[renau1g]

Mmmmmm...cheesy exploitative double weapons.... sounds delicious

Oh, on a serious note, yeah I agree with you Cov, same as no Sorcerer/Daggermaster will either.

 

[evilbob]

Staffs are implements first, weapons second (as per my quote from PH3 209 in the PH3).

Maybe this is the heart of the disagreement? How can they be both at the same time and yet prefer one over the other?

The monk question is: if monks can use weapons as implements, then a monk could also just use a quarterstaff as an implement with DIS. Heck, they could use a Staff of Ruin as a quarterstaff with DIS. I don't even think they'd need an extra feat. Or would they? *brain melts*

I hate cheesy exploits.

I have to admit, I find it slightly offensive to have my opinion on how this combination of feats works be called a cheesy exploit. That's your opinion, and that's ok, but honestly I feel like paying an extra feat to hold 1 weapon instead of 2 for the DIS benefit is hardly exploitative. Bloodclaw weapons were exploitative (pre-fix). This is not.

 

[Oni]

The monk question is: if monks can use weapons as implements, then a monk could also just use a quarterstaff as an implement with DIS. Heck, they could use a Staff of Ruin as a quarterstaff with DIS. I don't even think they'd need an extra feat. Or would they? *brain melts*

Just for the record Dual Implement Spellcaster only works with arcane powers. So while a monk could use a staff of ruin and benefit from its property, they wouldn't be able to use DIS with their monk powers, regardless of how you treat staff fighting.



Regarding the rules and "cheese". Since this is a shared community there is an expectation for the rules to work as they are written, it's the common language we all work with. While I recognize that this particular question isn't necessarily cut in dried in terms of interpretation, just declaring that you wouldn't let it work in your game because it's cheesy isn't really the best way of handling it. The rulings should be based on RAW, and if something is found wanting a proposal should be needed to change it, so that everyone can be on the same page. That said there is also a certain social contract at work here, and players shouldn't try to be deliberately abusive, but others need to realize that not everyone has the same standard when it comes to judging such things and that is why it is important for a community such as ours to work from a standardized baseline.

 

[stonegod]

The monk question is: if monks can use weapons as implements, then a monk could also just use a quarterstaff as an implement with DIS. Heck, they could use a Staff of Ruin as a quarterstaff with DIS. I don't even think they'd need an extra feat. Or would they? *brain melts*

Oni has the right of it: DIS only applies to arcane casters, not others (psions, monk, and druids) w/o multiclassing.

Regarding the Staff of Ruin: Even if it could be treated as two implements with DIS as you would only be using one "side" as the implement through the power (the other is just an enhancement).

 

[renau1g]

Well, I can almost guarentee you won't get a consensus on this one as WOTC has many conflicting publications on this one and you can interpret it a few ways (stonegod's seems the most correct to me).

Two judges have already stated they feel it should be interpreted as you can't use a staff to gain the benefits of DIS. This also isn't a proposal so we aren't voting, but if it were, I'd be 100% for requiring the PC to have two implements.

 

[evilbob]

Well, I can almost guarentee you won't get a consensus on this one as WOTC has many conflicting publications on this one and you can interpret it a few ways...

Yeah, I agree. I think stonegod has some good points but I can still really see both sides of this one.

So I guess my next thought is: so where does this go, really? I mean, we are all DMs and potential DMs on this board, but I guess r1's implication is that effectively, "the judges" are the DMs whose final say determines rule questions that are cross-adventure (like character building)?

If that's the case, then how should I best put this up for clarification? I would guess making a proposal, but it's really less of an "I suggest this" and more of a "I would like to have a consensus on how this works for everyone" kinda thing. Is that what a proposal is for, as well?

 

[LadyLaw]

Mmmmmm...cheesy exploitative double weapons.... sounds delicious

Oh, on a serious note, yeah I agree with you Cov, same as no Sorcerer/Daggermaster will either.

Just out of curiosity (because I want to make sure that I understood properly), are you referring to the Sorcerous Blade Channeling feat, something else entirely, or SBC only when in combination with DIS?