Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="elecgraystone" data-source="post: 5134107" data-attributes="member: 74232"><p>A: Staff weapons can be used as implements. (Page 4 of errata, using a staff of fire)</p><p><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px">B: An enchanted double weapon gains all benefits of the enchantment on each. (page 32 of errata)</span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px">C: Staff fighting doesn't change the weapon category. (dragon annual and AV)</span></span></span></span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px">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.</span></span></span></span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px">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.</span></span></span></span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px">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.</span></span></span></span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px">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.</span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'MentorSansStd'"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification

Top