Staff Fighting and Dual Implement Spellcaster

[Black Knight Irios]

If a non-quarterstaff staff weapon group item is an implement, it cannot be a staff implement because a staff implement cannot be a non-quarterstaff.

I could ask you again why do you assume that your rule part you like to cite trumps mine.

And all that logic stuff is fine.

Let's try this:
General Rule: All weapons in the staff weapon group can be used as implements.
Specific Rule: All staff implements are quarterstaffs.

Specific beats general. It is sad b/c they still use different view points and leave unecessary space for thoughts when they could have written:
Implements: Quarterstaff.

 

[webrunner]

I could ask you again why do you assume that your rule part you like to cite trumps mine.

And all that logic stuff is fine.

Let's try this:
General Rule: All weapons in the staff weapon group can be used as implements.
Specific Rule: All staff implements are quarterstaffs.

Specific beats general. It is sad b/c they still use different view points and leave unecessary space for thoughts when they could have written:
Implements: Quarterstaff.

I honestly don't know what that has to do with what I was saying.

One reading of the rules makes the entire staff implements-are-quarterstaffs rule invalid. Specific or not, i don't think a reading of the rules which explicitly breaks them can be considered correct.

 

[Zaran]

I have to say that if you find using a staff as a double weapon in regards to the Dual Implement feat is overpowered that you probably should just declare the whole feat overpowered. Two Weapon Fighting only gives a +1 . Why isn't Dual Implement the same?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Either the wizard uses staff-group weapons as implements; or they use staff implements as implements.

If wizards use staff group weapons as implements, why do staff implements exist?

There are no "heavy blade implements" because Swordmages use heavy blade group weapons.

If your argument is correct then the no class uses Staff Implements. If mine is correct, several classes do. Would WotC include an implement type that no class used?

Maybe the game has evolved and the "staff implements are quarterstaffs" part is a leftover rules text. But I don't want to argue that this is true.

IOW: yes, your argument is technically possible, and consistent, but only if you assume that no-one, at all, ever, uses staff implements.
Oh, and a double-weapon staff still wouldn't be able to get the benefits of Superior Implement properties.

Unless staff implement == staff weapon group for all instances/purposes.

I honestly don't know what that has to do with what I was saying.

One reading of the rules makes the entire staff implements-are-quarterstaffs rule invalid. Specific or not, i don't think a reading of the rules which explicitly breaks them can be considered correct.

I was trying to point out that the "staff implements are quarterstaffs" part is used by you to trump the part I noted down as general rule before someone came up with the specific beats general arguement.

Of course, my reading breaks your part in half. But the opposite is true as well. But if you apply the specific vs. general principle you know why you can trump my reading. And that is an important point.

 

[Kingreaper]

Maybe the game has evolved and the "staff implements are quarterstaffs" part is a leftover rules text. But I don't want to argue that this is true.

That's not an issue of RAW anyway, but one of RAI, until they actually change the rule.

Unless staff implement == staff weapon group for all instances/purposes.

Which is a contradiction, as we have already discussed. If that were true, and all staff implements were quarterstaffs, all quarterstaffs would consist of an infinite number of quarterstaffs.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

That's not an issue of RAW anyway, but one of RAI, until they actually change the rule.

I never wanted to touch RAW with this statement.

Which is a contradiction, as we have already discussed. If that were true, and all staff implements were quarterstaffs, all quarterstaffs would consist of an infinite number of quarterstaffs.

I assumed that you drop the part that "all staff implements are quarterstaffs".

I have to say that if you find using a staff as a double weapon in regards to the Dual Implement feat is overpowered that you probably should just declare the whole feat overpowered. Two Weapon Fighting only gives a +1 . Why isn't Dual Implement the same?

I think no one said staff fighting + DIS is OP.

Honestly I don't want to explain the whole difference between DIS and TWF. I suggest you take a look at some melee dual wielding builds and their single target dpr and then examine some caster (=implement user) builds.

 

[webrunner]

Maybe the game has evolved and the "staff implements are quarterstaffs" part is a leftover rules text. But I don't want to argue that this is true.


Unless staff implement == staff weapon group for all instances/purposes.




I was trying to point out that the "staff implements are quarterstaffs" part is used by you to trump the part I noted down as general rule before someone came up with the specific beats general arguement.

Of course, my reading breaks your part in half. But the opposite is true as well. But if you apply the specific vs. general principle you know why you can trump my reading. And that is an important point.

There are no direct rule contradictions/assumed obsolescence/redundancy if we assume staff weapon group is not the same as staff implement, although I admit there is a lot of confusion as to the multi-use of the word "staff".

Assuming they are the same completely and irrevocably breaks the staff implement entry in the PHB.

I am inclined to go with the reading which the rules work over the one in which they do not.

That said, the rules could use a lot of clarification as to the "kind" of category being used in a lot of cases. A proficiency line can include individual weapons ("daggers"), weapon groups ("light blades"), or weapon categories ("simple melee") and when a word can refer to either (mace, light blade) then we end up with an argument like this.

 

[eamon]

If a PC shifts towards a monster with threatening reach, does he provoke an OA?

This question is relevant since it highlights different approaches to reading RAW. On the one hand, the PHB says that "No opportunity attacks: if you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don't provoke an Opportunity Attack" and read closely, that suggests that shifting does not protect from opportunity attacks if you shift out of a non-adjacent square. Read more broadly however, the PHB only ever speaks of OA's for movement from adjacent squares, and the specific wording is just a coincidence of the attempt to be clear where those OA's might come from.

I'm firmly in the second camp; RAW should be read like common English text and not like a precise legal document or even a computer program (and on shifting, the MM FAQ seems to be too).

Concerning staves then: The PHB simply does not clearly distinguish between staff weapons and staff implements. When in a clearly weapon context (e.g. the weapons table) they treat it as a weapon; when in a clearly implement context (the small blurb on the 5gp basic staff implement anyone can buy) they call it an implement though mention it doubles as a quarterstaff. They never spell out that certain staffs are only weapons or only implements, and they frequently fail to make the distinction at all (such as in the most relevant bit of text - the wizard blurb).

As such, the interpretation that pries a distinction from the text by examining the detailed wording of an non-primary bit of text - namely the description on the basic non-magical staff implement in the gear section - and deducing from the fact that it mentions the quarterstaff specifically (the only staff weapon in the book) that weapons and implements are distinct is an interpretation I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot staff.

As an aside; using propositional logic inference rules (such as A->B => ~B=>~A) is tricky and shouldn't be something you base your ruling on. If someone says you can have an apple or you can have an orange, and you pick both - are you doing what they meant? Yet in logic A v B is satisfied when both A and B hold. If you will, predicate logic is not homomorphic to english text . If you combine two facts from a text but ignore the context linking the two, you might not be reading what the author meant.

The text is supposed to help you play the game, not trick you. When it says you can use a staff as an implement, the most straightforward interpretation is that any staff will do. If you can dual-wield a quarterstaff and treat it as if you were holding a staff in both primary and off hand, and if you can use a staff as an implement, then DIS kicks in; you are wielding a magic implement (a staff) in either hand. Of course, as others have pointed out, this is what the character builder permits, and it's obviously something they explicitly added - a double sword does the same, but an orb does not.

 

[DracoSuave]

As an aside; using propositional logic inference rules (such as A->B => ~B=>~A) is tricky and shouldn't be something you base your ruling on. If someone says you can have an apple or you can have an orange, and you pick both - are you doing what they meant? Yet in logic A v B is satisfied when both A and B hold. If you will, predicate logic is not homomorphic to english text . If you combine two facts from a text but ignore the context linking the two, you might not be reading what the author meant.

Yeah, but if you know your symbolic logic, then you know that 'You can have an apple or you can have an orange' means the use of the exclusive or, A xor B which becomes (A or B) and not (A and B). They DO teach the exclusive or where I come from. I fully agree on maintaining the context.

 

[DracoSuave]

If a non-quarterstaff staff weapon group item is an implement, it cannot be a staff implement because a staff implement cannot be a non-quarterstaff.

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.

Here's the argument defeated by reductio ad absurdum:

All items marked 'Staff implement' cost 5 gold.
All quickbeam staffs cost 30 gold.

Therefore, a quickbeam staff is not a staff implement.

Notice... the argument uses the same form, using a single member of the staff set and claiming that its properties apply to ALL members of the staff set.

Also, the argument is defeated another way:

Your logic is:

A quarterstaff is a staff
Staff fighting makes it a double weapon. Each end is also a staff.
Each staff must therefore be a quarterstaff.

Therefore it does not work.

ALL you have done is proven a quarterstaff is, in fact, a quarterstaff and that each end of the quarterstaff can be used as a quarterstaff.

To which I say 'Well, thanks for proving a tautology.'

Moreover, it is possible to have a staff implement that is not capable of being used as a quarterstaff:

Corellon’s Implement (11th level): Choose an arcane implement that you specialize in, whether the wand, staff, or orb. You can use a longsword as if it were that type of arcane implement when casting your spells.

In this case, the longsword does not benefit from staff fighting, does not become a +2 proficiency bonus. However, it is still, should you choose it, a staff implement. Nor does it contradict the rule saying that the 5 gold implement you buy in the PHB equipment guide can be used as an implement.

Therefore, it does act as proof that 'all staff implements must be entire quarterstaffs' is utterly incorrect which means that yes, you -can- have two ends of a weapon that are both staffs and not have both be quarterstaffs, and have them both be useable as seperate implements.

tl;dr: The text refering to 'staff implements being quarterstaffs' refers to a -very specific object- that is available on a very specific table that costs 5 gold. You cannot take the text that refers to that specific object and claim with any rationality that it applies to all objects ever.