Versatile Expertise, Weapon as an Implement, and Monk

[mneme]

Frankly, I don't see any way to justify any literal interpretation of Versetile Expertise that -doesn't- let you pick "any weapon you're proficient in" as an implement. The implement group is "weapons you're proficient in", so that's what's there.

That said, it's pretty clear from the character builder what the intended interpretation is. Since the monk and versetile expertise were implemented, the builder has allowed you to take all weapon groups under versitile expertise as implements (as well as letting you take them as implement groups). Thus, one can divine (since this could hardly be unintentional) that since all weapons may be be implements, in games where the monks exist, all weapon groups area also considered individually as weapon groups. So while Versetile expertise lets you take any weapon group and any implement group, since all weapon groups are also implement groups, you may take two weapon groups, or a weapon group and an implement group.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Frankly, I don't see any way to justify any literal interpretation of Versetile Expertise that -doesn't- let you pick "any weapon you're proficient in" as an implement. The implement group is "weapons you're proficient in", so that's what's there.

That said, it's pretty clear from the character builder what the intended interpretation is. Since the monk and versetile expertise were implemented, the builder has allowed you to take all weapon groups under versitile expertise as implements (as well as letting you take them as implement groups). Thus, one can divine (since this could hardly be unintentional) that since all weapons may be be implements, in games where the monks exist, all weapon groups area also considered individually as weapon groups. So while Versetile expertise lets you take any weapon group and any implement group, since all weapon groups are also implement groups, you may take two weapon groups, or a weapon group and an implement group.

And you missed the hole the OP tried to punch into RAW...

He does not want to take any weapon group as implement.

He wants to take "any weapon, the monk is proficient in" as a SINGLE weapon group. One feat that covers all...

Or did I miss something there? I may take any one weapon in this implement group, but not all with a single feat.

 

[scylis]

Can I take Weapon Focus (any weapon I am proficient with) and Weapon Expertise (any weapon I am proficient with)?

Because that would be swell.

(I hope you can all see [and taste... like in the back of your mouth] the sarcasm in that, though it's not meant to offend, merely to educate)

 

[Shin Okada]

Can I take Weapon Focus (any weapon I am proficient with) and Weapon Expertise (any weapon I am proficient with)?

Because that would be swell.

(I hope you can all see [and taste... like in the back of your mouth] the sarcasm in that, though it's not meant to offend, merely to educate)

Actually, with 3 feats, Weapon Focus (some weapon group), Weapon Expertise (some weapon group) and Weapon Master, gain the benefits of Weapon Focus and Weapon Expertise with all weapons you are proficient with. Nice try.

Well, seriously, this question is not at all about munchkinism, nor even power-gaming.

If you can have attack bonus for all the weapons you are proficient in with one feat, does that allow you to make significantly powerful or effective PC? Not at all. The great majority of the weapon wielding PCs will only use one kind of weapon anyway.

I am just trying to figure out how current 4e rules are mutually affecting to each other. And I am always curious on what part of the rules are already clarified and what part of the rules are not.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, you are not.

You have a lot of answers, that you really need to try hard to read your interpretation into the words. "Any weapon you are proficient with" is just an abbreciated form of:

unarmed strike, club, staff, dagger, ki focus. If you ever gain proficiency with a different weapon, add that to your list of implements.
But really, how can a designer suspect someone try to read "any weapon you are proficient with" as a single implement.

Hey, monk, why are you holding a club, a staff and a dagger in your hand? - I lost my ki focus. And now I have to wield "any weapon I am proficient with" in my hands to gain my magic item bonus... I am so glad I didn´t learn how to use a ballista...

 

[scylis]

Actually, with 3 feats, Weapon Focus (some weapon group), Weapon Expertise (some weapon group) and Weapon Master, gain the benefits of Weapon Focus and Weapon Expertise with all weapons you are proficient with. Nice try.

Well, seriously, this question is not at all about munchkinism, nor even power-gaming.

If you can have attack bonus for all the weapons you are proficient in with one feat, does that allow you to make significantly powerful or effective PC? Not at all. The great majority of the weapon wielding PCs will only use one kind of weapon anyway.

I am just trying to figure out how current 4e rules are mutually affecting to each other. And I am always curious on what part of the rules are already clarified and what part of the rules are not.

Having to spend even one less feat to achieve your goals is more powerful an option than having to spend even one more feat to achieve the same results.

In, say, a game where the DM lives and (the party, potentially) dies by random loot rolls (the option to be presented in the very near future which people are already making plain their approval of and adoration for), having to spend even one less feat to be able to gain equal benefit from the things which you are able to utilize can be a huge deal. Bigger than the big deal it can be for a large percentage of characters/classes as is with the parcel system and a DM that hands out loot appropriate for the party members which receive it. There are a lot of good feats out there, more than most of the characters that I come up with can actually afford, though that doesn't stop me from wanting to be able to take all of them by the end of whatever progression I'm working on.

4E is set up to reward characters for specializing in fairly specific choices (like a particular, individual type of implement rather than all implements at the same time or a single weapons group rather than all weapons at the same time), so I can't help but see an attempt to twist wording to allow for a more general application of a rule or feat than what is the norm for this edition as a blatant grab at power, an exercise in power-gaming, if you will. Especially when it's not universally applicable or isn't expressly laid out.

 

[DracoSuave]

Having to spend even one less feat to achieve your goals is more powerful an option than having to spend even one more feat to achieve the same results.

Retraining from old feat for weapon you don't want into new weapon you do want costs you zero feats.

The same actual functionality can be maintained in your scenario simply by retraining into the new 'random' weapon, regardless of the ruling.

Besides, after ki focus, what does a monk need?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmm. Well, it seems that there seem to be no "by RAW" answer for this.

But I am also convinced that treating each named weapon, say, longsword or fullblade, will not penalize players much even in case of Swordmage (actually, one of my friends once made a sword mage PC who used dynamic weapon as his choice of magic weapon and that PC may have a little trouble if he can't choose "heavy blade" as his implement type. But it is not that significant.)

In the vast majority of cases you're right, it won't really hurt much if a character could get an expertise bonus with any implement they happen to have weapon proficiency for, but OTOH the argument cuts both ways, you won't really lose anything by only being proficient in your one specific implement.