rule question: dual-implement spellcaster
- Thread starter evilbob
- Start date
renau1g
First Post
evilbob
Adventurer
Clearly I'm out by myself here, at least as far as 3 judges are concerned, but I honestly don't understand why people think it's so incredibly broken to pay 1 feat instead of 1 item cost for a bonus to damage. Really? I mean, that's really so horribly insane? I just don't get it.
renau1g
First Post
Example: level 6th PC should have approx. a 7th, 6th, and 5th item + 5th gold. If they're a DIS they can use their 7th/6th to get 2 +2 implements, but then they're stuck with +1 armor and Neck slot.
If they're using a staff they can get a +2 implement and +2 armor or neck. I don't think its insane, just not what the feat is meant for.
If they're using a staff they can get a +2 implement and +2 armor or neck. I don't think its insane, just not what the feat is meant for.
ryryguy
First Post
I also think the feat-for-item tradeoff would be unbalanced in favor of the feat. Not horribly insanely unbalanced, but yes unbalanced. Especially when you look over the lifetime of the PC, where the bonus to damage you're getting from the feat will scale up higher than any other bonus to damage granted by a feat (say from a +3/+4 staff at paragon where Weapon Focus is only giving +2, and a +5/+6 staff at epic vs +3 from Weapon Focus). And it's effectively an untyped bonus to boot!
In fact, even with two wands the feat seems pretty uber, but the opportunity cost of keeping that second item up to par is at least somewhat higher than the opportunity cost of a single feat. There may also be an opportunity cost to not having the off hand free for a different item (though it's not clear to me how it would work with the staff if allowed, perhaps you'd have to hold it in two hands as well?).
In fact, even with two wands the feat seems pretty uber, but the opportunity cost of keeping that second item up to par is at least somewhat higher than the opportunity cost of a single feat. There may also be an opportunity cost to not having the off hand free for a different item (though it's not clear to me how it would work with the staff if allowed, perhaps you'd have to hold it in two hands as well?).
elecgraystone
First Post
A: Staff weapons can be used as implements. (Page 4 of errata, using a staff of fire)
B: An enchanted double weapon gains all benefits of the enchantment on each. (page 32 of errata)
C: Staff fighting doesn't change the weapon category. (dragon annual and AV)
So A + B + C = both ends of an enchanted weapon staff are 1-handed magic weapon staves and magic weapon staves can be used as implements. Every requirement for the feat is met.
Quite frankly, I find talk of "using a loophole ..." and "deliberately misinterpret the intent of the rules" to apply to the side of the argument that said it's RAW that staff fighting and a magic staff doesn't equal 2 implements. I can't see anything in the current rules that backs up that theory. In fact everything I see is just as I've laid it out.
Not that I'm opposed to a house rule to stop the 'abuse' some seem in this. I just see it as just that, a house rule and not RAW.
As far as 'not what the feat was meant for' by renau1g, look at the many feats that allow you to make your weapon your implement. That also saves you big gold by not having to buy both. What is SO out of whack that this feat allows a second implement if you spend a feat? Seems right in line with the other feats to me. If I can use a double weapon as an implement, why shouldn't I be able to use both weapons as implements? That seems exactly what the feats for; using both ends of the staff in combat.
B: An enchanted double weapon gains all benefits of the enchantment on each. (page 32 of errata)
C: Staff fighting doesn't change the weapon category. (dragon annual and AV)
So A + B + C = both ends of an enchanted weapon staff are 1-handed magic weapon staves and magic weapon staves can be used as implements. Every requirement for the feat is met.
Quite frankly, I find talk of "using a loophole ..." and "deliberately misinterpret the intent of the rules" to apply to the side of the argument that said it's RAW that staff fighting and a magic staff doesn't equal 2 implements. I can't see anything in the current rules that backs up that theory. In fact everything I see is just as I've laid it out.
Not that I'm opposed to a house rule to stop the 'abuse' some seem in this. I just see it as just that, a house rule and not RAW.
As far as 'not what the feat was meant for' by renau1g, look at the many feats that allow you to make your weapon your implement. That also saves you big gold by not having to buy both. What is SO out of whack that this feat allows a second implement if you spend a feat? Seems right in line with the other feats to me. If I can use a double weapon as an implement, why shouldn't I be able to use both weapons as implements? That seems exactly what the feats for; using both ends of the staff in combat.
renau1g
First Post
How is a two handed weapon magically turn into 2 1 handed implements?
It is not logical as you can't hold one in each hand therefore not one-handed. You can hold 2 staffs, one in each hand but it is physicallly impossibly to hold a two handed weapon in each hand at the same time.Well unless you can show me that then I will be amazed.
It is not logical as you can't hold one in each hand therefore not one-handed. You can hold 2 staffs, one in each hand but it is physicallly impossibly to hold a two handed weapon in each hand at the same time.Well unless you can show me that then I will be amazed.
elecgraystone
First Post
It all in the double weapon rules. that's exactly what the rules say you are doing. "Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon in each hand." (errata pg 32)
If you can show me how it's possible to holding two weapons with a double weapon? The rules say I can any that's what matters. The weapon 'magically' turns into 2 magic weapons and weapons can be used as implements.
Can you say that the player isn't holding 2 magic staves? They can use powers that require 2 weapons right? They both have the same enchantment correct?
Or are you saying that magic weapon staves can't be used as implements, because the errata gives an example of just that.
EDIT: One thing to keep in mind that by default, implement users can use the weapon group staff as implements, much like swordmages can use heavy blades. As such, they can use weapons not enchanted as an implement and use them as implement. As such they fall under the exact same rules as double swords.
If you can show me how it's possible to holding two weapons with a double weapon? The rules say I can any that's what matters. The weapon 'magically' turns into 2 magic weapons and weapons can be used as implements.
Can you say that the player isn't holding 2 magic staves? They can use powers that require 2 weapons right? They both have the same enchantment correct?
Or are you saying that magic weapon staves can't be used as implements, because the errata gives an example of just that.
EDIT: One thing to keep in mind that by default, implement users can use the weapon group staff as implements, much like swordmages can use heavy blades. As such, they can use weapons not enchanted as an implement and use them as implement. As such they fall under the exact same rules as double swords.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
