Staff Fighting and Dual Implement Spellcaster

[webrunner]

This is based on an incorrect premise.

The following is true:

All items marked 'Arcane Implement' in staff form are quarterstaffs.
All items enchanted with 'Staff Implement' enchantments are quarterstaffs.

No where does it say that all items that can be used as staff implements are quarterstaffs.

it does, in the PHB: The definition of a staff implement in explicitly says that a staff implement can be used as a quarterstaff.

All Staff Implements are Quarterstaffs, that much we can't deny.

 

[DracoSuave]

it does, in the PHB: The definition of a staff implement in explicitly says that a staff implement can be used as a quarterstaff.

All Staff Implements are Quarterstaffs, that much we can't deny.

Except when a Wizard of the Spiral Tower is using a sword as a staff implement...

...so no. We -can- deny your statement because it is not true, disproven by counterexample.

Besides, you cannot in good faith use the entry for a -specific item- or a -specific magic item- and claim that 'all items that have this quality must follow these rules' and then use -that- to say 'if an item does not follow those rules it must not have this quality.'

It's based on a fallacious argument form and fallacious premise.

It is not a rational argument.

The specific item called 'staff' in the 'arcane implement' section (notice, the term 'staff implement' does not exist in the rules) can be used as a quarterstaff. Magic items that are enchanted by staff enchantments can be used as a quarterstaff.

But that does not logically mean that all implements that are staffs must be used as quarterstaves, especially when presented with the existance of one that is not.

 

[CovertOps]

Try this easy exercise at home. Get an object (I'll use a pen) and hold it with both hands. Ask yourself two questions:
1. What am I holding in my left hand? (A pen)
2. What am I holding in my right hand? (A pen)

Each end of said pen probably has some different attributes...such as you can use the ball point end to write on paper with and the other end might have the clicker thing to extend/retract the ball point, BUT at the end of the day you're still holding a pen. Those differing attributes do not change the object you are holding into something else. How you hold something does not change the nature of the object itself, only in how you can use it.

Can you use a pen if you're holding it with both hands to write on paper? Well maybe, but it will be pretty awkward since it's designed to be used with one hand.

Pretend you own an urgosh:
1. What am I holding in my left hand? (An urgosh)
2. What am I holding in my right hand? (An urgosh)

The same can be said of a Staff. You can hold it with one or two hands and all that really changes is how it can be used. Your basic premise seems to be this:

• I'm wielding a quarterstaff with both hands (Staff Fighting).
• Each end of said quarterstaff has some stats associated with it (d8 damage, "Staff" weapon group, etc.)
• These properties "create" a new "Staff" weapon group item.
• Said item can't be a quarterstaff because it creates an infinite loop so it must be some "new" item that belongs to the "Staff" weapon group.
• A "Staff implement" is always treated as a quarterstaff, therefore neither end of said quarterstaff can be an implement.
• This also explains why you believe that while all staff implements are "Staff" weapons, not all "Staff" weapons are implements because of your "newly" manufactured "Staff" weapon group item.

Does that about hit it on the head for your position?
And quite frankly, doesn't my example above show you exactly how silly that position is?

The problem with this logic is with the line I highlighted. No new "weapon" is created. The game is describing the (weapon) mechanics that apply to both ends of said "item" be it a pen, or an urgosh, or a quarterstaff. For purposes of an implement I don't care about what weapon properties the staff has, only that I am now "wielding it in each hand".

 

[webrunner]

Try this easy exercise at home. Get an object (I'll use a pen) and hold it with both hands. Ask yourself two questions:
1. What am I holding in my left hand? (A pen)
2. What am I holding in my right hand? (A pen)

Each end of said pen probably has some different attributes...such as you can use the ball point end to write on paper with and the other end might have the clicker thing to extend/retract the ball point, BUT at the end of the day you're still holding a pen. Those differing attributes do not change the object you are holding into something else. How you hold something does not change the nature of the object itself, only in how you can use it.

Can you use a pen if you're holding it with both hands to write on paper? Well maybe, but it will be pretty awkward since it's designed to be used with one hand.

Pretend you own an urgosh:
1. What am I holding in my left hand? (An urgosh)
2. What am I holding in my right hand? (An urgosh)

The same can be said of a Staff. You can hold it with one or two hands and all that really changes is how it can be used. Your basic premise seems to be this:

• I'm wielding a quarterstaff with both hands (Staff Fighting).
• Each end of said quarterstaff has some stats associated with it (d8 damage, "Staff" weapon group, etc.)
• These properties "create" a new "Staff" weapon group item.
• Said item can't be a quarterstaff because it creates an infinite loop so it must be some "new" item that belongs to the "Staff" weapon group.
• A "Staff implement" is always treated as a quarterstaff, therefore neither end of said quarterstaff can be an implement.
• This also explains why you believe that while all staff implements are "Staff" weapons, not all "Staff" weapons are implements because of your "newly" manufactured "Staff" weapon group item.

Does that about hit it on the head for your position?
And quite frankly, doesn't my example above show you exactly how silly that position is?

The problem with this logic is with the line I highlighted. No new "weapon" is created. The game is describing the (weapon) mechanics that apply to both ends of said "item" be it a pen, or an urgosh, or a quarterstaff. For purposes of an implement I don't care about what weapon properties the staff has, only that I am now "wielding it in each hand".

1. Both of my hands are holding on to a pen, but it is not true that i am holding a pen in each hand, unless you are wishing to redefine the word 'each'

one X for each Y means you need another X for every another Y. There's no way around that fact.

As for an urgrosh: by the rules you are not 'wielding' an ugrosh in your left hand and an urgrosh in your right. You're wielding one end of a ugrosh in your left hand and the other in your right.

So no, I see no problem with the highlighted line or how 'silly' it is. The rules consider a double weapon to count as two one handed weapons, and those one handed weapons aren't two handed weapons themselves, obviously. It's silly to think otherwise.

 

[CovertOps]

1. Both of my hands are holding on to a pen, but it is not true that i am holding a pen in each hand, unless you are wishing to redefine the word 'each'

one X for each Y means you need another X for every another Y. There's no way around that fact.

It seems you can't apply your adjectives correctly.

I am holding a pen in each hand.

Each (dictionary.com)
adjective: every one of two or more considered individually or one by one

You have more than one hand so when you say "each hand" you are describing two. That does not therefore imply that you have more than one pen, simply that both your hands are holding a pen. Unless you wish to redefine the English laugauge so that adjectives can now modify words that appear in a sentence before them. The sentence doesn't say "each pen" or "two pens".

 

[Kingreaper]

It seems you can't apply your adjectives correctly.

I am holding a pen in each hand.

Each (dictionary.com)
adjective: every one of two or more considered individually or one by one

Is your left hand, considered individually, wielding a quarterstaff? Of course not, you're wielding it in both hands.
Is your right hand, considered individually, wielding a quarterstaff? Of course not, you're wielding it in both hands.

 

[Nifft]

It seems you can't apply your adjectives correctly.

Or are you not a native english speaker?

Good lord, not a "reading comprehension" thread. Things never go well from here.

IMHO the distinction CovertOps is trying to draw is that while "each" hand is indeed distinct -- which I think is the point Kingreaper wants to make, that "in each hand" refers to two distinct "in hand" predicates -- the relation "in hand" does not imply unique containment in the same way that "in a cup" does imply unique containment.

"A penny in each cup" -> there must be two pennies, since a penny cannot be "in cup A" and "in cup B".

"There's an anaconda in my back yard" -> the anaconda may be in several yards simultaneously without contradiction.

"I have a staff in each hand" -> implies that you have two staves, but technically, you could have one staff in each of your two hands. It's misleading, but technically correct.

Some would call that the best kind of correct. Others would not.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kingreaper]

Good lord, not a "reading comprehension" thread. Things never go well from here.

IMHO the distinction CovertOps is trying to draw is that while "each" hand is indeed distinct -- which I think is the point Kingreaper wants to make, that "in each hand" refers to two distinct "in hand" predicates -- the relation "in hand" does not imply unique containment in the same way that "in a cup" does imply unique containment.

"A penny in each cup" -> there must be two pennies, since a penny cannot be "in cup A" and "in cup B".

Actually, a penny can be in cup A and in cup B. Cup A just has to be in cup B.

However, to be WIELDING a quarterstaff in each hand, each hand must be wielding a quarterstaff.

That is, considered individually, every hand must be wielding a quarterstaff. The left hand, considered individually, is not capable of wielding a quarterstaff. Nor is the right hand.

Much like it would be a lie to say "Each worker in this car factory has built 5,000 cars" when the factory has 1,000 workers, and has built 5,000 cars.

All the workers, put together, have built 5,000 cars. No individual worker has done so.

 

[webrunner]

It seems you can't apply your adjectives correctly.

I am holding a pen in each hand.

Each (dictionary.com)
adjective: every one of two or more considered individually or one by one

You have more than one hand so when you say "each hand" you are describing two. That does not therefore imply that you have more than one pen, simply that both your hands are holding a pen. Unless you wish to redefine the English laugauge so that adjectives can now modify words that appear in a sentence before them. The sentence doesn't say "each pen" or "two pens".

No, you are not.

Your two hands are sharing the duty of "holding" the pen, they are not individually both holding the entire pen. Each hand does not have a pen, each hand has half a pen.

Again I say, if you go to the store and they're selling things for "$2 each" how much do you expect to spend if you buy two?

 

[Nifft]

Much like it would be a lie to say "Each worker in this car factory has built 5,000 cars" when the factory has 1,000 workers, and has built 5,000 cars.

All the workers, put together, have built 5,000 cars. No individual worker has done so.

However, it would not be a lie to say "each worker has built this car", especially if it were in answer to "which worker has built this car?"

Similarly, each hand holds this staff, I have this staff in each hand, etc.

"Each" specifies that a set be considered as individuals, but it does not require that the specified set elements attach uniquely to whatever follows. If you then operate on a shared element -- or even a single element, as in this case -- it's incongruous, because of the implied individual element iteration, but it's not incorrect.

"IMHO", -- N