[4e] Warlocks with staves

[Comet]

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?

[Fronko]

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]

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]

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]

No, it's an implement, not a weapon.

[Dausuul]

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]

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]

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!

[Burley]

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]

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]

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]

One of my players had a (mechanical) staff that was (Flavor) a spellbook.

[nagora]

One of my players had a (mechanical) staff that was (Flavor) a spellbook.

So which did you call it in play?

[Raz_Fox]

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.

[Mando Knight]

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]

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]

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]

It is a pact blade, in the form of a staff, then. :p~

[TeeEl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Link of Bible blocking from SotN therein lies an image of how it looks in Castlevania: Symphony of the Night

[Burley]

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]

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]

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.

[Edea]

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]

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]

*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.

Spoiler

Show

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]

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'.