rule question: dual-implement spellcaster

[stonegod]

While I agree with cov on principle on rules clarifications, such issues with the rules here are something that will pop up in character creation (and checking), not during a game. By the time you are in a game w/ a DM, its a bit late (no one wants to be told they can't use their combination of two feats that late in the game).

 

[evilbob]

... using a loophole ...
... deliberately misinterpret the intent of the rules ...

Yeah, I gotta tell you, you're not really making it better here. In fact, I think it's actually a bit worse since you seem to be continuing to say that I am "deliberately misinterpreting" the rules. Maybe I'm just reading you wrong; honestly, it doesn't matter. It's cool; I'm not asking for an apology - but I would kind of appreciate it if you stopped.


I agree with what stonegod just said, which is what I was trying to get across above as well.

 

[Kalidrev]

EB,

I don't think Cov is trying to deliberately goad you. I do not think he is trying to say that you are being manipulative in a way that undermines the rules in a malicious fashion. I think what he is trying to get across is that there is a certain assumption based on the principle of the feat that is being accidentally avoided based on your rules interpretation. The feat is called DUAL Implement spellcaster. The basic nature, or principle of this feat is that you are wielding two separate implements, and that you are able to use both AT THE SAME TIME to achieve a greater effect on a single spell.

Imagine these two scenarios:

1) A sorcerer is on a battlefield (and has DIS) wielding two wands. He points both wands at his enemy and recites the words that bring forth his power. The sorcerer channels the arcane energy within him into both wands at once and unleashes a powerful spell. This works exactly as the feat was written, and makes sense as such.

2) A wizard is on a battlefield (and has DIS) and is wielding a staff in two hands (he has the feat that allows the staff to be a double weapon [can't remember the name]). He channels the arcane energy within him into his staff and points it at his enemy, unleashing his spell...

Now... even giving that the staff is considered a double-weapon, and even giving that the caster is ABLE to use two implements at once, how is he going to point BOTH ends of the staff at his enemy AT THE SAME TIME? This, in my opinion, is why a staff (or any other double weapon) could not and should not be used in conjunction with DIS. It makes no sense. Once the spell is released from the implement, it has already come out of one end or the other. By the time you turned the staff around to use the other end, the attack was already made.

 

[renau1g]

I don't know if manipulative or malicious is the correct terms here. evilbob is bringing up a valid concern about the feat and WoTC crappy wording. It is one way of interpreting it and the CB also agrees with that (and apparently their CS service too). I still don't agree with that interpretation, but nobody singled out Oni for also having the same opinion, so we shouldn't be taking bob to task for it. I think it's actually a good idea to bring it up before you make the PC with the feat/option for potentially awkward language.

 

[covaithe]

Yeah, I gotta tell you, you're not really making it better here. In fact, I think it's actually a bit worse since you seem to be continuing to say that I am "deliberately misinterpreting" the rules. Maybe I'm just reading you wrong; honestly, it doesn't matter. It's cool; I'm not asking for an apology - but I would kind of appreciate it if you stopped.

I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to offend. The position that you've taken in this thread really isn't what I object to. I understand that you're acting in good faith, and not trying to be malicious or exploitative, and I respect that. I really do apologize if I've implied that you're being malicious; I didn't intend that at all.

 

[evilbob]

It's all good man, it's all good.


Well what about this circuitous option as a roundabout way to fix it: I could propose a house rule to add the following feat.

DIS Fix-It (name to be fixed later)
Prereq: Wis 13, Dual Implement Spellcaster
Benefit: Gain a +1 bonus to AC (this bonus does not stack with the defensive weapon property bonus). In addition, when wielding a single implement in your main hand and nothing in your off-hand, you are also considered to be wielding that implement in your off-hand for the purposes of satisfying the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat only.
Special: If WotC ever clarifies DIS, this feat immediately self-destructs.


That way, it's fair to all arcane casters of all implements, re: r1's concern. It still costs a feat. And it doesn't involve double weapons. I dunno. That doesn't really solve the issue but it gets at the heart of it. Thoughts?

 

[ryryguy]

One thing I don't understand... assume that the feat works like evilbob wants it to. Wouldn't you still have to enchant both ends of the staff to get any benefit from it? Or did they change "each end of a double weapon enchanted separately" when I wasn't looking?

If that's the case, you really end up with very little benefit at all over just holding two staffs. The only benefit would seem to be that you could also use the staff two-handed for melee attacks, but that's not something a wizard wants to be doing most of the time anyway.

 

[Kalidrev]

Ryry,

Yeah, the "enchange each end seperately" rule was a 3.5 thing. Now that we can't custom create magic items and each magic weapon can only have 1 enchantment, the enchantment applies to both ends of a double-weapon.

DIS Fix-It (name to be fixed later)
Prereq: Wis 13, Dual Implement Spellcaster
Benefit: Gain a +1 bonus to AC (this bonus does not stack with the defensive weapon property bonus). In addition, when wielding a single implement in your main hand and nothing in your off-hand, you are also considered to be wielding that implement in your off-hand for the purposes of satisfying the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat only.
Special: If WotC ever clarifies DIS, this feat immediately self-destructs.

Perhaps this was not your intent, but unless I'm mis-reading what you wrote, it seems to me that this feat would allow an arcane caster to grab one of the smaller implements (say a dagger, wand, or rod), NOT put anything into their off-hand, and gain the benefit of effectively DOUBLING their enhancement bonus for the same cost of the original implement... to this, I would say NO WAY!

 

[evilbob]

Kalidrev: yes, I think that sums it up nicely, actually. For the cost of two feats, you double your enhancement bonus. (Instead of costing 1 feat + extra magic item).

 

[Kalidrev]

EB,

While it seems that you liked my summary, I think you may be missing the point. Look at the cost of magic items, no seriously, take a look all the way through from level 1 to level 30. Where do you start seeing level 4 items? How much do they cost? What about level 6 items? How much do they cost?

From level 1 magic items to level 7 items, we're not talking about a HUUUUGE difference, but once you take a 6th or 7th level item (+2 enhancement bonus) and you bump it up to the equivalent of a 16th level item (+4 enhancement bonus), you're enabling WAAAY too much. A 6th level item costs 1,800 gp. A 16th level item costs 45,000 gp. And what about when you get to the point where you're wielding a magic implement with a +4 enhancement bonus? Now you're off of the charts as far as enhancement bonuses exist in the purchasing realm. It's better than a level 30 implement. And all of this, just for the cost of 2 feats. I seriously do not think that should be allowed.