PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Warlocks with staves



Comet
2008-09-24, 04:44 AM
As we were playing 4th edition a couple of days ago, I let the party warlock buy a magic staff +1 from a local community of witches/fair folk.

Now, both the player and me recalled that staves were warlock compatible implements. Obviously, we thought wrong as I later came to realise that warlocks use wands and rods, not staves.

We both thought that a staff would look cool and that's why the warlock got himself one. With that in mind, I come to ask you guys: would it be terribly game-breaking and/or pointless to have a warlock use staves?
I haven't really had time to go over the specific powers of higher level staves, so I can't really say whether they are completely useless for a warlock.

Of course I could just fluff his implements to look like staves and use rod/wand stats, but that would be just cheating, wouldn't it? :smallwink:

Fronko
2008-09-24, 04:52 AM
I doubt, it will be gamebreaking at all. As all you are going for is the "looks" of a staff, just treat them as wands that look like staves. However, I cannot see using staves rule-wise for a warlock would be hurting the game, either. So, just go ahead.

nagora
2008-09-24, 04:58 AM
As we were playing 4th edition a couple of days ago, I let the party warlock buy a magic staff +1 from a local community of witches/fair folk.

Now, both the player and me recalled that staves were warlock compatible implements. Obviously, we thought wrong as I later came to realise that warlocks use wands and rods, not staves.
Is this not a staff for hitting people? That's weapons rules, not magic items rules, if it makes any difference in 4e.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-24, 05:01 AM
Staves are primarily implements, although they can be used to hit things, too. (I don't know if they get the implement bonus to hit there...)

I can't imagine anything unbalanced coming out of letting a warlock use a staff, unless there's some specific magic staff that synergises oddly with their abilities (which is really unlikely). Magic items of the same level and cost should be quite balanced against each other.

RebelRogue
2008-09-24, 05:05 AM
No, it's an implement, not a weapon.

Dausuul
2008-09-24, 05:56 AM
No, it's an implement, not a weapon.

Actually it's both. A magical staff gets its bonus either when being used as a casting implement or when being wielded as a weapon.

serok42
2008-09-24, 06:15 AM
I don't see this at all game breaking. Especially with the pact hammers and pact swords that came out with adventurer's vault. The problem that you will run into is the fact that the good implement enchants for Warlocks are on rods. I guess you could have a staff of corruption (instead of a rod of corruption) etc. though.

Raz_Fox
2008-09-24, 07:33 AM
I agree with serok42, because re-flavoring is part of the fun in 4th edition. If he wants a staff, then give him a staff! From what I can tell, he doesn't want it because it'll give him an edge, but just because it fits the picture he's got in his head of his warlock.
Example: I hate Scale Mail with a passion, and my Fighters will probably wear "Nerathian Chainmail" or something of that sort.

+1 vote here for "just re-flavor the rods". Oh, and good luck with your game! :smallsmile:

Burley
2008-09-24, 08:01 AM
I will say this: If you reflavor it to work as a wand or a rod, don't allow him to use it as a weapon. He isn't a wizard, and shouldn't get the implement bonus that only a wizard should get.
As far as powers go, most staves wouldn't help a warlock. Rods are what he wants. Call it a longer-than-normal rod, with all the restrictions and junk that come with it.

Raz_Fox
2008-09-24, 08:50 AM
I will say this: If you reflavor it to work as a wand or a rod, don't allow him to use it as a weapon. He isn't a wizard, and shouldn't get the implement bonus that only a wizard should get.
As far as powers go, most staves wouldn't help a warlock. Rods are what he wants. Call it a longer-than-normal rod, with all the restrictions and junk that come with it.

Exactly. He wants a staff for his character. It might count as a rod, but he wants to call it a staff. As for the "implement bonus", are you talking about the Wizard class feature "Staff of Defense", or are you talking about the +1 bonus? He wouldn't get the class feature just by using a staff, and the bonus doesn't really care whether it's a +1 wand, rod, staff or orb. And as for not using it as a weapon, Warlocks get *zilch* close combat powers. Why not let him occasionally hit things with his staff? The player, if I'm reading this correctly, didn't have this in mind when he bought the staff.

Why not just let the player do what he wants to?

Yakk
2008-09-24, 09:33 AM
Arcane Implement Focus: Requires Arcane Power Source. Select one type of arcane implement. You may use this arcane implement to power your arcane implement powers, and you deal +1 (untyped) damage with implement powers when you use that implement. Note that special features that allow non-implements to be used as arcane implements do not qualify as making the non-implement an arcane implement, unless you have that feature.

...

I think that works?

Starsinger
2008-09-24, 10:57 AM
One of my players had a (mechanical) staff that was (Flavor) a spellbook.

nagora
2008-09-24, 11:04 AM
One of my players had a (mechanical) staff that was (Flavor) a spellbook.
So which did you call it in play?

Raz_Fox
2008-09-24, 11:07 AM
One of my players had a (mechanical) staff that was (Flavor) a spellbook.

Exactly! A spellbook could mechanically be a wand (more accurate casting of the spell) or an orb (greater control of one's spells) as well. You can flavor-wise use anything as a implement, from an athame (a wand, perhaps) to a familiar (again, probably a wand).

...Y'know, the first time I read that I thought you were talking about a mechanical staff, like an artificer. :smallwink:

Mando Knight
2008-09-24, 12:11 PM
I will say this: If you reflavor it to work as a wand or a rod, don't allow him to use it as a weapon. He isn't a wizard, and shouldn't get the implement bonus that only a wizard should get.
As far as powers go, most staves wouldn't help a warlock. Rods are what he wants. Call it a longer-than-normal rod, with all the restrictions and junk that come with it.

Or say that it's a staff with an enchanted rod embedded within, perhaps to help another warlock in disguising himself as a wizard to less savvy folk. Let him attack with the staff in melee as if it were a +1 Staff, but as a +1 Rod with his Warlock powers, and it'll be enchanted or re-enchanted as a Rod when you boost its power (for higher levels, etc.).

Morty
2008-09-24, 12:15 PM
One of my players had a (mechanical) staff that was (Flavor) a spellbook.

So he blocked attacks with a book?
As the point of fact, when first info about implements was released, book was among them.

Burley
2008-09-24, 02:02 PM
Or say that it's a staff with an enchanted rod embedded within, perhaps to help another warlock in disguising himself as a wizard to less savvy folk. Let him attack with the staff in melee as if it were a +1 Staff, but as a +1 Rod with his Warlock powers, and it'll be enchanted or re-enchanted as a Rod when you boost its power (for higher levels, etc.).

The problem is that a +1 weapon-implement is different for a wizard than for a warlock.
There is a reason that you can't use actual Rods as weapons: Because Warlocks are ranged strikers, and that +1 means they are doing their massive damage a lot more. Plus, thanks to their curse, that Staff is doing 1[W]+1d6 every round, without provoking OAs.
You're not refluffing the item, you're giving a Warlock an implement with a melee attack, which they would not have normally. You're adding Staff to the Warlocks implement.
1: "So, mechanically, it's a rod. It just looks like a staff."
2: "And, it attacks like a staff?"
1: "Well, yeah. It's exactly like a staff, but it's a rod, so, the Player gets it as an implement."
2: "Even though it's really a staff, which isn't an implement?"
1: "It's not a staff, it's a rod that I changed to be like a staff in every way."
2: "Oh, I guess... Um..."

Yakk
2008-09-24, 02:06 PM
It is a pact blade, in the form of a staff, then. :p~

TeeEl
2008-09-24, 02:07 PM
You're not refluffing the item, you're giving a Warlock an implement with a melee attack, which they would not have normally.

Pact blade?

(You're still giving them an implement with a melee attack that's cheaper/more accessible, but not by that much.)

Artanis
2008-09-24, 02:21 PM
Giving a Warlock a melee weapon isn't that big a deal. It's not like they're exactly dripping with melee attacks, and their strength sucks too much to be any good with the basic melee attack.

Starsinger
2008-09-24, 02:22 PM
So he blocked attacks with a book?
As the point of fact, when first info about implements was released, book was among them.

Yes, actually. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night style. His book hovered around him when not in use.

Morty
2008-09-24, 02:34 PM
Yes, actually. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night style. His book hovered around him when not in use.

I sort of figured it looked like that, although I've never played Castlevania in my life, but the picture of a wizard actually holding a huge book in hands and blocking attacks with it is still amusing. I was actually going to play a book-wielding wizard before they dropped that implement.

Starsinger
2008-09-24, 02:43 PM
Link of Bible blocking from SotN (http://castlevania.classicgaming.gamespy.com/Images/Arsenal/bible2.png) therein lies an image of how it looks in Castlevania: Symphony of the Night

Burley
2008-09-24, 03:03 PM
Pact blade?

(You're still giving them an implement with a melee attack that's cheaper/more accessible, but not by that much.)

So, by this token, a Wizard should be able to forge a Pact Blade, and use it as a Orb? With his Orb Mastery?

A pact plade is also a level 3 item. +1 Staff is not. The difference is 320 gold. Almost half price. Granted, pact blades get that enhancement retribution property, so, without that the item is decreased a bit.
However, the description of Rods says:
As with most other implements, you can’t make melee attacks with a rod.
And, the description of Staffs says:
If your class can’t normally use staffs as implements, or if you’re not using an implement power, a staff is simply a magic quarterstaff.
Flavor is one things, but this is the mechanics of the item.

I understand that the OP is the DM, so, cool by him is cool by all. I'm just saying: They are two different things, applied to two different classes for two different purposes. That's six differences, if you think about it incorrectly.

Yakk
2008-09-24, 04:08 PM
Yes, by RAW, that magic staff is pretty useless to the Warlock.

And even by reasonable RAI.

A houserule, or a homebrew, is required for that staff to have use for the Warlock.

Raz_Fox
2008-09-24, 06:01 PM
Both the Warlock and the Wizard are ranged attackers. It is true that the staff would be doing d8+d6 on a cursed target, but the target only takes damage if the warlock actually hits it. Strength is the dump stat of most warlocks, no? The warlock shouldn't actually be in close combat that much.
I really feel the most important part of this is being missed by Burley Warlock and Yakk. The player doesn't want this staff because he wants to be nastier in close combat or because it would be better than a rod or wand, he wants his character to have a staff because he likes the staff fluff-wise. This isn't about getting an advantage, this is role-playing. Why deny the player the ability to play a warlock with a cool staff?

Sorry if this feels like I'm ranting at you, BW and Yakk. My intentions are good, just to bring another viewpoint into the conversation. :smallbiggrin:

Edea
2008-09-24, 06:21 PM
With that in mind, I come to ask you guys: would it be terribly game-breaking and/or pointless to have a warlock use staves?


No, it would not be game-breaking at all. I'd allow that in a heartbeat.

Nor would it be the least bit game-breaking, or even imbalancing, to let a wizard use rods as implements, or for either or these classes (along with clerics) to use regular melee weapons like daggers or swords as implements, or hell, even a ranged weapon like a bow.

The only minor problems I'm seeing so far would be:

1) if a Wizard or Warlock power allowed Weapon and Implement bonuses to stack, and the 4e design paradigm makes it pretty clear there's not going to be a power like that officially published (if there is, then yeah, it becomes a problem, as suddenly you're getting a +2 or +3 to hit and breaking the maths).

2) if you start stacking implement and weapon enchantments on the same item. The +X part is fine for both Weapon and Implement keyword powers (so a +6 staff would be able to add that to Implement or Weapon keyword powers, just like a +6 pact blade would), but don't go building Phasing Bows of Ultimate Imposition; make it one augment or the other for that given item.

Shadow_Elf
2008-09-24, 07:12 PM
2) if you start stacking implement and weapon enchantments on the same item. The +X part is fine for both Weapon and Implement keyword powers (so a +6 staff would be able to add that to Implement or Weapon keyword powers, just like a +6 pact blade would), but don't go building Phasing Bows of Ultimate Imposition; make it one augment or the other for that given item.

I would probably allow, were I a DM, for characters to also try a +3/+3 XXX Bow of YYY. And the bow can only pump out 1 daily/day, as per RAW. It wouldn't be a whole lot better that way, but it could still be handy as both (say, for an archer-ranger-warlock MC)

Burley
2008-09-25, 08:49 AM
*snip*
This isn't about getting an advantage, this is role-playing. Why deny the player the ability to play a warlock with a cool staff?


There isn't anything wrong with having a cools staff. Nor is there anything wrong with having a cool rod. However, there is a mechanical problem with having a cool staff and rod together.

The fact is: Warlocks can't use staffs as implements. They shouldn't be allowed to, because they aren't written to be able to.

If it were just a bigger than normal rod, that's fine. But, you're giving him a bigger-than-normal rod that also does 1d8+1 melee damage. This is not the way a rod works. He shouldn't be able to get the best of both worlds. If he wants the staff, he can't use it as an implement. If he wants the implement, he can't use it as a weapon.
If he wants both, there should have been a higher cost.

Here is my suggestion: He got it from gypsies, yeah? I suggest he finds out something about it later.
The first time he tries to hit something with it, it lets out a groan of pain. The staff is actually a transformed body of a thief who tried to steal from the gyspies.
Or
The staff has a Cleave-like ability. If the staff is used as a weapon, and kills something, it deals strength plus enhancement damage to the next adjacent creature. Not enemy, creature. That includes the warlock, if there aren't any others in the area.

If a character wants to get something neat for roleplay value, and you're going to give him bonuses that he wouldn't normally have access to, there should be a drawback. If not to keep him from finding the usefulness of it, but to placate the other players. One of your other players is bound to notice that he's got a weapon-implement, and that warlocks don't get that. It's going to open the flood gates for requests for special items.

I'm just saying...

Yakk
2008-09-25, 09:20 AM
I really feel the most important part of this is being missed by Burley Warlock and Yakk. The player doesn't want this staff because he wants to be nastier in close combat or because it would be better than a rod or wand, he wants his character to have a staff because he likes the staff fluff-wise. This isn't about getting an advantage, this is role-playing. Why deny the player the ability to play a warlock with a cool staff?
I didn't deny the player the ability to play a warlock with a cool staff. I provided a method for the Warlock to burn a feat, get +1 to damage with all attacks that use that staff, and be allowed to use it.


The fact is: Warlocks can't use staffs as implements. They shouldn't be allowed to, because they aren't written to be able to.
That is true, by the rules as written, they are not allowed to use staffs as implements. The claim that this generates a should of any strength is more questionable.

Stronger shoulds include: it generates small mechanical differences between Wizards and Warlocks (Warlocks have to pay a bit more for a melee-range weapon -- a pact blade -- than Wizards do. Staff/Orb magic item powers are distinct in flavor and details from Pact Blade/Rod powers, and Wand powers at that.)

These are still not _that_ strong of a reason.

However, as noted, a rod-as-a-staff is mechanically superior to a rod-as-a-rod. A +1 staff is superior in pretty much all ways to a +1 rod, yet has the same cost.

So part of your decision to allow the staff to be used by the warlock should be 'does the warlock need a small power boost'.

The idea of the feat was to create a small cost, with an additional benefit, to using non-standard implements. That +1 untyped damage is quite nice, especially at low levels, as it works with every one of the warlock's powers.

The 'spare change' of such a feat cost provides the room to justify a 'better implement'.

Raz_Fox
2008-09-25, 09:27 AM
Alright. Sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying, Yakk. I really don't think he should have to burn a feat to be able to use the staff he wants to use, but you are being very reasonable - more reasonable than I'm being.

Oh, and to the OP: is the staff just normal wood? An unusual and delicate substance could stop the staff from being used in hand-to-hand for fear of breaking it.

Comet
2008-09-25, 10:54 AM
Thanks for the input, folks! Will put this all into consideration. Who knows, maybe we'll just settle for a rod and call it a day, or maybe we'll get a wee bit more creative.



Oh, and to the OP: is the staff just normal wood? An unusual and delicate substance could stop the staff from being used in hand-to-hand for fear of breaking it.

It was just normal wood, an ordinary simple staff with a bit of fey magic in it. Hence the +1. And I very much doubt that the player would use a staff in melee, as he is more of a blade person. So the melee advantage is, for us at least a non-issue.

Yakk: is that feat something from the books or a homebrew of yours? Just curious as I don't recall reading anything like that in the PHB.

Starsinger
2008-09-25, 11:00 AM
However, as noted, a rod-as-a-staff is mechanically superior to a rod-as-a-rod. A +1 staff is superior in pretty much all ways to a +1 rod, yet has the same cost.

Yakk. You're missing it. a Rod-as-a-staff is not mechanically different from a rod-as-a-rod at all. Is my broad-sword-as-katana better than a broad-sword-as-broad-sword?

Burley
2008-09-25, 11:21 AM
Starsinger, I think you're missing it. A katana and a broad sword are the same thing but with a different name. Mechanically, damage dice and critical threat range, they are the same thing.

A rod and a staff aren't. Rods can't be used as weapons. Staves can be used as weapons.

Mando Knight
2008-09-25, 12:29 PM
A rod and a staff aren't. Rods can't be used as weapons. Staves can be used as weapons.

But what advantage does he gain for using the Rod-staff in melee other than the +1 to attack rolls and damage and the +1d6 to criticals? Besides, the pic on PHB page 241 looks just as much a Warlock as it does a Wizard. I tend to think of the Rod as a large Wand, and a staff as being even larger... so why not? He would get a bigger benefit from it being a Pact Blade, sure, but he's got a giant stick.

Raz_Fox
2008-09-25, 12:35 PM
In the interest of securing peace in this discussion, allow me to humbly offer this suggestion:

The staff is cursed by the fey, and if it is used to shed blood its power will fade and dissipate.

I like the idea, it seems like something the capricious fey would do. Would this work, Conjob?

Yakk
2008-09-25, 12:43 PM
It was just normal wood, an ordinary simple staff with a bit of fey magic in it. Hence the +1. And I very much doubt that the player would use a staff in melee, as he is more of a blade person. So the melee advantage is, for us at least a non-issue.

If a staff cannot be used in melee, and it has no staff-specific powers (magic staffs have different kinds of powers than magic rods), then a staff is nothing more than a large rod.


Yakk: is that feat something from the books or a homebrew of yours? Just curious as I don't recall reading anything like that in the PHB.

Homebrew.

Starsinger
2008-09-25, 01:01 PM
If a staff cannot be used in melee, and it has no staff-specific powers (magic staffs have different kinds of powers than magic rods), then a staff is nothing more than a large rod.

Which was the desired effect in the first place.

Artanis
2008-09-25, 01:03 PM
Starsinger, I think you're missing it. A katana and a broad sword are the same thing but with a different name. Mechanically, damage dice and critical threat range, they are the same thing.

A rod and a staff aren't. Rods can't be used as weapons. Staves can be used as weapons.
OK, in reply to not only this but to the similar arguements throughout this thread:


Technically, yes, the staff-with-rod-effects would be superior to a simple rod. But I don't think it will actually matter in gameplay.

Look at the Warlock powers: NONE of them are melee attacks. NONE. The only melee attack a Warlock has is the basic attack, which can only use STR. And how much STR do you think a Warlock is going to stack to use just one P.o.S. power?

And if the Warlock decides to multiclass to get melee attacks? He's still either A) trying to use those melee attacks with a crappy excuse for a melee weapon, or B) putting non-implement enchantments on his staff. If he goes with A, he still sucks at hitting things with the staff. If he goes with B, then he hurts his actual Warlock capabilities quite a bit, probably to the point of doing more harm than good when it comes to the actual power level of the character.

So yes, technically a staff with rod powers is better than just a rod. But that wasn't the question. The question was whether it would be game-breaking, and can you honestly say that giving the Warlock the ability to whack somebody with a staff rather than punch them would really matter?

Edea
2008-09-25, 01:13 PM
I would probably allow, were I a DM, for characters to also try a +3/+3 XXX Bow of YYY. And the bow can only pump out 1 daily/day, as per RAW. It wouldn't be a whole lot better that way, but it could still be handy as both (say, for an archer-ranger-warlock MC)

Hmm, that'd be a nice versatility upgrade; I was thinking more about how you'd price such a thing, rather than the identity and use limits of the augmentations themselves.

I'd also allow attacks with a rod (which, btw, would hurt like a bastard, especially if they were crafted of metal or stone), probably at 1d6(Med)/-/5 gp/5 lb./Staff Group/-. You could even attach an Orb to a chain link with a handle on the end and use it like a flail; maybe 1d8(Med)/-/10 gp/6 lb./Flail Group/Versatile. Wooden wands are probably improvised weapons, but a metal one could easily substitute for a dagger if shaped properly.

Burley
2008-09-25, 01:14 PM
I'm not talking about benifits. I wouldn't care if the Staff as written gave him the Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

I'm saying that they are two different items. Staves attack. Rods don't. Rods give Warlocks implement bonuses. Staves don't.

I'm not arguing about benifits. I'm arguing that the player, according to the rules in the book, is getting two items in one. One cost, and only one thing to hold in his hand. This isn't fair to the other players, because the Warlock effectively got two items for the price of one.

Besides, if he bought it for role-play value, he shouldn't care that he can't use it as an implement. He should respect it for the staff that it is, and not be offended that he can't use it as a rod and staff.

Comet
2008-09-25, 02:08 PM
He should respect it for the staff that it is, and not be offended that he can't use it as a rod and staff.

Y'see, this is the part I don't get. In what way would the warlock be using the staff as a rod?
The thing was about warlocks getting to use staffs and their implement powers. Not about making staffs use rod powers.

So, if the warlock were allowed to use staves, he would be using it's specific powers. I dunno if those would be useful to have for a warlock, but still. He would not be using the rod special qualities with his staff at all.

A staff is a staff, a rod is a rod. I'm just wondering why the warlock wouldn't be able to use either if he wanted. Combinining the two isn't what I'm after.

I think we'll still settle for a rod for the character. That way we'll keep things simple and avoid any complications. It's still nice to know that having a warlock use a staff isn't horribly wrong, as I think a staff fits any warlocks image pretty well.

Yakk
2008-09-25, 02:17 PM
Why rods and not staffs?

First, to distinguish between Wizards and Warlocks. Their implements overlap some, but not totally.

Second, Staff powers and Rod powers are distinct. Examine the style of powers in the PHB for the two. Rod powers tend to boost curses, while staff powers tend to play around with controller-style attack abilities, and reward AOE spells.

Ie, rods are a Warlock tool, while staffs are set up as Wizard tools.

Comet
2008-09-25, 02:25 PM
-- rods are a Warlock tool, while staffs are set up as Wizard tools.

Yeah, that's the thing I was wondering about in the first place. Fluff-wise it seems like an odd design philosophy. Crunch wise, seems very reasonable.

The different powers are the main thing here, and I think I addressed them in my original post. And the input you guys have given has really cleared things up. The fact that I have actually taken the time to read through the implement powers properly hasn't hurt either.

So let me see if I've got this right: having a warlock use a staff would not be unfair, but it would be largely pointless because the staff powers don't really work with a warlock. The synergy doesn't match.
That about right?

Yakk
2008-09-25, 02:36 PM
Some staff powers would work reasonably well with warlocks.

But they would be very controller-y.

Ie, the "do a blast of lightning damage around you when you use a lighting spell" power: very appropriate for a controller, far less so for a striker.

Burley
2008-09-25, 02:37 PM
I'm not arguing the powers in the items either. I'm still talking about +1 item.

A Wizard with a +1 staff gets a +1 to attack and damage with his powers, the same way a Warlock with a +1 rod would. But, your Warlock player should not get a +1 to hit and to damage with his Warlock Powers when wielding a +1 staff, because the staff isn't a Warlock Implement.

Have I not been explaining things clearly. I feel like what I just said is the first time I've said it clearly, and all my other posts are confusing.

Warlock want staff, that's fine. He can't use it as an implement to benefit from a magical impliment, i.e. bonuses to attacks and powers.

Artanis
2008-09-25, 02:41 PM
I'm not talking about benifits. I wouldn't care if the Staff as written gave him the Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

I'm saying that they are two different items. Staves attack. Rods don't. Rods give Warlocks implement bonuses. Staves don't.

I'm not arguing about benifits. I'm arguing that the player, according to the rules in the book, is getting two items in one. One cost, and only one thing to hold in his hand. This isn't fair to the other players, because the Warlock effectively got two items for the price of one.

Besides, if he bought it for role-play value, he shouldn't care that he can't use it as an implement. He should respect it for the staff that it is, and not be offended that he can't use it as a rod and staff.
Like I said, technically you're right. But like I also said, it doesn't matter because the Warlock gets so damned little out of the deal. Having a staff gives him two more points of melee attack bonus and average melee damage that he will never use. So if the "unfair" benefit will never be used, how much does it really matter?

Edea
2008-09-25, 03:29 PM
Or (to OP) you can tell him "OK, let's try using a Staff as a Warlock implement. You can make melee attacks with it if you want, and let's see how that changes the game mechanics. If it's too imbalancing, be aware -in advance- that I might ask to have it retconned/turned in for your old rod." Then test it out for yourself over a couple of sessions. The DM for my 4e game is letting me test out Veteran's Armor as an example (though that's not a homebrew, it's just an armor enchantment). IMO, though, gameplay is not going to be adversely affected by doing this.

erikun
2008-09-25, 05:02 PM
Recommended Solution:

Allow the player to use the staff as a Warlock implement. However, you may want to re-stat the the magical staves with Rod-powers instead; as others have said, the rod powers are designed to work (presumably better) for Warlocks.

Don't worry about the staff being a weapon. Dealing 1d8+3 damage with a melee attack is not game breaking, especially when the same character deals 1d10+10 with an at-will ranged attack.

If you're worried about combat advantage, remember that the same Warlock can hold a rod in one hand and a 1gp dagger in the other, and still provide combat advantage. If they are holding something in their second hand, then they can't provide combat advantage with a staff (although they can still use it as an implement).

Or, if you don't even want to bother that much, just let the Warlock character use staves as-is. It might bring up a question of balance, but if your game is about having fun, I seriously doubt it will become a major problem.

Craby
2008-09-25, 05:05 PM
all of this argument could be unnecessary once "arcane powers" book comes out. possibly unlocking staff and orb for warlock, and rods for wizards. who know they might add books and more to the mix too. long time till release i know.

but seeing as this is happening now and effecting a game now. i say make it a rod about the size of a staff. maybe charge more for an odd sized weapon/implement. maybe, if he is using it as a two hand melee, require two hands to use it as an implement too. just some suggestions.

after all is said and done. having a staff as a weapon is only granting him the ability to wield a two handed weapon and his implement at the same time without redrawing either one. where previously he could only wield a one hand accomplishing the same thing. keep this in mind when deciding.

honestly, if he is in melee for more than a round or two per encounter, either he or the party is doing something wrong.

edit: also do warlocks get special class benefits from their implement like wizards do? i havent read up much on warlocks. if so how do you handle the new implement powers? as said many times before it might be simplest to make the staff just like a rod in every enhancement, ability, and implement point of view for the character. just he can now use it as a two hand melee.

Raz_Fox
2008-09-25, 05:31 PM
Like I said, technically you're right. But like I also said, it doesn't matter because the Warlock gets so damned little out of the deal. Having a staff gives him two more points of melee attack bonus and average melee damage that he will never use. So if the "unfair" benefit will never be used, how much does it really matter?

:smallconfused: This is what I was trying to say, a page ago. Artanis is just much more direct about it.
Thanks, Artanis.

Edea's idea is also, IMHO, worth a second glance. The usage of Rule 0 could make the game more enjoyable for you.

I back both Artanis and Edea on this. Your move, Conjob.

LurkerInPlayground
2008-09-25, 05:35 PM
One of my players had a (mechanical) staff that was (Flavor) a spellbook.
That actually sounds pretty cool.

erikun
2008-09-25, 06:12 PM
edit: also do warlocks get special class benefits from their implement like wizards do? i havent read up much on warlocks. if so how do you handle the new implement powers? as said many times before it might be simplest to make the staff just like a rod in every enhancement, ability, and implement point of view for the character. just he can now use it as a two hand melee.
Nope, that's a wizard speciality. The only advantage in using a rod or wand over a pact dagger is that the rod/wand will likely have a daily ability available.

Even then, you're losing the special properities of the pact dagger in doing so. (use in melee, dealing damage on a missed attack on you)

Burley
2008-09-26, 08:03 AM
Like I said, technically you're right. But like I also said, it doesn't matter because the Warlock gets so damned little out of the deal. Having a staff gives him two more points of melee attack bonus and average melee damage that he will never use. So if the "unfair" benefit will never be used, how much does it really matter?

The Wizard gets the same crap end of the staff when attacking in melee. This isn't evening out the Warlock at all. It's just giving them something that the wizard had going for himi. You were saying before that a Warlock's dump-stat is Strength and he'll never attack in melee anyways. Well, that's the exact same deal for a Wizard. So, why should the wizard exclusive item be non-exclusive anymore?

Like I said: I don't give a crap what anybody is doing with anything. What matters is that this isn't a Warlock implement. The warlock should not get the implement bonus to his powers. Otherwise, you might as well say that a Wizard wielding a +1 Holy Symbol should be able to use it as an implement and reap the magical bonus. This isn't the case. "Why not? It's an implement?" Because, it's not a Wizard implement. "Kord's Holy Symbol looks like a wand. It could just be a wand that's shaped different and made through a different process entirely." No. No, because no matter how you fluff it, a wand is a wand and a holy symbol is still a holy symbol.

Call it a long rod. Call it a staff. But, follow the rules based on what you call it.


I don't think it'd be mechanically game breaking. But, I've been on the giving end, the receiving end, and the bystanding end of this situation at least a few times each. This kind of thing is dangerous. Players may not like to admit it, but "When somebody else gets cooler items than I do, I get jealous, and I'll go out of my way to get cool items, too." This is where the problem lies with me. Not fairness of mechanics. Fairness amongst your players.

I don't really want to repeat myself anymore, because I am just saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over, and the rebuttals are all the same thing over and over in equal measure. This is a circular argument, and I don't want to see Big Ben or the Parliment Building anymore. Exit Stage Left.

Comet
2008-09-26, 09:21 AM
Fair enough, Burley Warlock, I see what you're getting at now.
Still, our group is pretty small, we're all mates and balance problems aren't that much of an issue. So to us the whole unfairness thing isn't much of a problem in the long run.

I think I'll let him use his +1 staff as-is for a while. And then, when he decides to get a new implement we'll look at the powers more thoroughly and roll on from there. Shouldn't be much of a hassle, I hope.

Thanks a dozen for the comments, people!