Staff as implement (Do I need two hands?)

[Caliban]

The FAQ doesn't say that the staff can be used one-handed as an implement.

I never said that it did.

That's an inference based on a piece of phrasing in the question -- "or a staff implement held in two hands."

That is something you are inferring, not me. Although it is a reasonable and logical inference.

It seems to be common knowledge on these forums that staff implements can be wielded in one hand, and that's how it works in the CB, but where exactly does it say this in the rules?

The PHB doesn't state how many hands are required to use a staff as an implement. However, all the other implements use one hand or no hands (holy symbols), it would be odd if staves were the exception.

But mostly I base it on this response from Customer Service, and the fact that the FAQ response is consistent with it:

SubjectDoes a staff require 2 hands when used as an implement?
Discussion Thread Customer (Caliban)11/20/2008 05:32 AM

Does a wizard need to wield a staff in two hands to use it as an implement?

Can a wizard use a shield and still gain the benefits of staff specialization (+1 AC, adding Con to defense 1/encounter) while holding the staff in one hand?

Thank you.

********************
Page Number: Page 157
Book Name: 4e Player's Handbook


Response (Support Agent)
11/20/2008 08:52 AM

Caliban,

A wizard does not need to be wielding a staff in two hands to use it as an implement. He only needs two hands if using it as a weapon. As such, he can use it with a shield just fine.



Thanks, and please let me know if you need anymore help!

Josh
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST

 

[Caliban]

Because weapon proficiency only applies to 'Weapon' powers and not 'Implement' powers.

And because Weapon Focus states:

Benefit: Choose a specific weapon group, such as spears or heavy blades. You gain a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls with your chosen weapon group. At 11th level, this bonus increases to +2. At 21st level, it increases to +3.

It doesn't care that you are currently using the staff as an implement instead of a weapon - just that it counts as a weapon (because you are using it in two hands) and you are making a damage roll with something from the Staff weapon group so you get the bonus.

A bit silly, but they did change the answer in the FAQ to include Staff implements wielded in 2 hands after series of e-mail exchanges I had with them when I bug reported the character builder because it was adding the bonus from Two-Weapon Fighting and Weapon Focus: Staff to the spells on a staff wizard I was testing out.

 

[keterys]

Except that it applies to a staff you use with one hand as well... and presumably if they ever made a 'Short Staff' 1-handed staff weapon (say 1d6, versatile) it would get the bonus even if it wasn't used in two hands.

Mostly I think it comes up because lots of folks can use weapons for their spells now - swordmages, sorcerers, warlocks, wizards, anyone who takes arcane implement, etc. And some of those even use both implement and weapon attacks, interchangeably.

 

[DGG]

It doesn't care that you are currently using the staff as an implement instead of a weapon - just that it counts as a weapon (because you are using it in two hands) and you are making a damage roll with something from the Staff weapon group so you get the bonus.

A bit silly, but they did change the answer in the FAQ to include Staff implements wielded in 2 hands after series of e-mail exchanges I had with them when I bug reported the character builder because it was adding the bonus from Two-Weapon Fighting and Weapon Focus: Staff to the spells on a staff wizard I was testing out.

I still don't follow but I got my original question answered and that's all I care about at this juncture.

And to think all of this came out because our wizard player is stuck on this image of Gandalf standing on the bridge of kazadoom holding off Mr. Huff and Puff with a staff and a sword. He'll be glad to hear that his favorite fantasy character wasn't breaking any rules.

 

[Rel]

Gandalf was a total munchkin.

 

[Deverash]

Just to throw more confusion in the mix, a staff implement was specifically disallowed in the Eberron Player's Guide for being a warforged component because it must be wielded in 2 hands.

 

[N0Man]

The PHB doesn't state how many hands are required to use a staff as an implement. However, all the other implements use one hand or no hands (holy symbols), it would be odd if staves were the exception.

I'm not sure what the answer is, however I think that this specific argument has a flaw.

You essentially just said that all other implements use one hand, with the exception of Holy Symbols which use no hands, so it would be odd if Staves were the only exception (not counting the exception that has already been cited).

Why is it odd that a staff is an exception, but a holy symbol is not?

Why is it odd to have an exception in an exception based game?

 

[keterys]

It's odd to have an exception _if it doesn't say it is_ That is, it'd be pretty normal if it said that it takes two hands to wield staff implements, but it doesn't so operating under the assumption of one follows.

Exception-based design means you can state any exception to the basic rules, but you do have to actually state the exception.

 

[jaelis]

So by extension, do people think a swordmage could hold a greatsword in one hand and use it as an implement? Or two longswords, using the off-hand one as an implement only?

 

[N0Man]

It's odd to have an exception _if it doesn't say it is_ That is, it'd be pretty normal if it said that it takes two hands to wield staff implements, but it doesn't so operating under the assumption of one follows.

Exception-based design means you can state any exception to the basic rules, but you do have to actually state the exception.

I don't disagree with what you said. It may be possible that I had inadvertently misconstrued the previous post, but I didn't read it as stating that non hands was explicitly an exception (which is true) while the other was not explicitly stated as an exception (which is also true). It sounded to me that he was saying that it would be odd for them to have an exception, since there are no other stated exceptions (except the one exception which seemed to just be tagged on, avoiding the word exception).

But perhaps the seeming contradiction was me reading it differently than the intention of the writer.

However, just for fun, I'd like to play the Devil's Advocate briefly here.

First of all, I agree that you must have an exception for exception-based rules. In fact, you must have 2 components: 1) Rule. 2) Exception.

Perhaps the problem isn't that there isn't an exception, but rather there isn't a rule.

Where is the rule that says an implement only requires one hand? I can't find a rule for holding them one-handed, two-handed, main-hand, or off-hand. It simply says that they must be wielded.

So, perhaps the reason there is no exception to say they must be wielded two-handed, is that there is no rule that says they can be wielded one-hand, only that they must be wielded.