Is a weapon implement always considered a weapon?
I'm thinking of a situation where you switch from using your melee weapon implement to a one handed ranged weapon.
For example: You are currently using a short sword as a weapon implement. You then spend an action to draw your one handed ranged weapon (lets say an Air Repeater for simplicity). When you then make an attack with the air repeater do you get to use Implement Empowerment?
If you didn't have a weapon implement (but say an amulet) there would obviously not be a problem as you meet the requirements for Implement's Empowerment (single one handed weapon in one hand and an implement in the other).
However if your implement is a weapon implement, you have more than one weapon in each hand even if you are not using the implement as a weapon. Does this prevent you from using Implement's Empowerment? Or can you treat the weapon implement purely as an implement and not a weapon, thereby allowing you to use Implement's Empowerment for your attacks with your (In this example) Air Repeater?
At 5th level you can avoid this as you can freely switch your weapon implement for your secondary implement avoiding this issue but up until then, can you use your weapon implement as just an implement?
|
Attacking with any Strike is fine as long as you have an implement in your hands. It could be your weapon implement in your other hand, or attacking with your implement itself.
Thaumaturge is designed to always be holding at least one implement, so it shouldn't be an issue to use Implement's Empowerment
I think the issue is wielding 2 weapons at once which implements empowerment forbids.
No it doesn't.
You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit.
If you are holding 2 one handed weapons, one of which is your implement, then you meet this restriction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. The answer to "in what circumstances can I have two weapons in hand and still use Implement Enpowerment?" is "None, ever."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The exact rules about what can be an implement and how it is held as an implement are nebulous and something to talk to your GM about as you design your character. There seems to be an intention towards preventing Thermaturges from using any two weapon or two handed weapon combat styles or feats that many GMs will base rulings around. Some will not.
If you intention in building your character is not to exploit that, you could talk to you GM about being able to shift your grip on the weapon as implement so it is being held in a non-weapon way, that would require an interact action to regrip.
I think the issue is wielding 2 weapons at once which implements empowerment forbids.No it doesn't.
You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit.If you are holding 2 one handed weapons, one of which is your implement, then you meet this restriction.How?
By definition, "2 one handed weapons" are more than "single one handed weapon".
Something being an implement (thus allowed) doesn't change it from also being a weapon (thus disallowed).
It is just simple English. The statement separates what is being held in either hand. That is what the words either hand does. You are explicitly asked to consider each hand separately.
If the text did not say either hand but instead said your hands, then I would agree with you. It doesn't.
Right. The answer to "in what circumstances can I have two weapons in hand and still use Implement Enpowerment?" is "None, ever."
No I disagree. The rules explicitly allow it in this very text. I am reading the same words as you and getting the completely opposite understanding from it.
One of the weapons being an implement doesn't change the fact that you're holding two weapons. So the air repeater in our example isn't "a single one-handed weapon" but "a second one-handed weapon".
One of the weapons being an implement doesn't change the fact that you're holding two weapons. So the air repeater im our example isn't "a single one-handed weapon" but "a second one-handed weapon".
You're missing his point. The word "either" checks each hand independently of the other. Meaning no more than a single one handed weapon per hand. While I'm assuming the intent was that you only have 1 weapon total across both hands, "either" doesn't accomplish that. What it does prohibit is two handed weapons and perhaps weapons with attachments as that would cause you to be holding more than one one handed weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading it that way doesn't even begin to pass the smell test.
Two weapons is not a single one-handed weapon. It's pretty straight forward.
So wouldn't that mean taking a weapon as an implement would be undesirable if you ever planned on not using for another weapon instead?
It could be an inconvenient choice, during the first few levels when you only have one implement, if that's a thing you intend to do, sure.
I thought so too. But what does 'single' mean though? They want to prevent you having 2 weapons in one hand? This doesn't look sensible.
Unfortunately the word single is redundant, because you can't wield two weapons in one hand. It is not my phrasing, and yes it is poor language. But I can't ignore the word either.
Also, in the full rule there's this: "Channeling the power requires full use of your hands." It doesn't exactly demand a free hand, but what does this mean? It very probably could be that you can't have more than one (and one-handed) weapon.
But you are using your hands. You are allowed to hold a weapon in one hand even if that weapon is not an implement, and another implement in another hand.
Don't forget the wording that shows later on withWhile you're holding an implement in one hand, you can quickly switch it with another implement you're wearing to use an action from the implement you're switching to. To do so, you can Interact as a free action immediately before executing the implement's action. This allows you to meet requirements of having an implement in hand to use its action. For example, if you had your lantern implement in one hand, a weapon in the other, and a chalice implement you were wearing, you could swap your lantern for your chalice to use its reaction.
Essentially swapping implements is free and instantaneous. The rules for free hands with implements are very favourable to the Thaumaturge.
Unfortunately the word single is redundant, because you can't wield two weapons in one hand. It is not my phrasing, and yes it is poor language. But I can't ignore the word either.
You don't have to ignore the word either. You just have to not wield more than a single one-handed weapon in either hand. Which you're violating if you're wielding two weapons.
You don't have to ignore the word either. You just have to not wield more than a single one-handed weapon in either hand. Which you're violating if you're wielding two weapons.
Unfortunately the word single is redundant, because you can't wield two weapons in one hand. It is not my phrasing, and yes it is poor language. But I can't ignore the word either.
I'm sorry but even this phrasing does not say what you want. The use of the word single does not combine the hands split by either.
As soon as you use the word either then you are evaluating each hand separately. There is no ambiguity here.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree, no ambiguity. Wielding two weapons is not wielding a single weapon.
You can hold and wield two single handed weapons in one hand if they are bayonets or reinforced stocks on single handed firearms or crossbows.
A free hand weapon might be considered held without being wielded if you're holding another weapon in that hand, rules are a bit more vague.
The rules for hands also talk about you holding (not wielding) nonstandard amounts and sizes of items.
|
Right. The answer to "in what circumstances can I have two weapons in hand and still use Implement Enpowerment?" is "None, ever."No I disagree. The rules explicitly allow it in this very text. I am reading the same words as you and getting the completely opposite understanding from it.
If a reading requires an assumption that some of the words mean nothing and are only there to trick you to punish you for being unobservant, it's probably not right.
If you think it's poorly worded either way, why not choose the interpretation that makes sense?
|
|
So wouldn't that mean taking a weapon as an implement would be undesirable if you ever planned on not using for another weapon instead?
Not at all.
Most weapon-using characters have options for how to use their second hand. Shield for defense? Second weapon for options? Two-handed weapon for more damage? So many choices!
Thaumaturges give up the second hand to hold the items thematically required for their abilities, so they don't get any of that. Implement's Empowerment doesn't give you the list of choices back, but it makes up for it by effectively giving you the benefit of using a two-handed weapon--2 extra damage per die is the same damage increase, on average.
One benefit of the weapon implement (at least until you get a second implement, when you can get the benefit of having two out at once instead) is that it gives your hand back. Using it for a two-handed weapon is kind of pointless (and also disallowed anyway), but you can use it for a shield or a second weapon. Yes, you lose Implement's Empowerment, but any other weapon user would lose the extra two-hander damage for that choice, too. It's the same tradeoff anybody else has, except you have an easier time switching back to two-hander damage when you want to.
If a reading requires an assumption that some of the words mean nothing and are only there to trick you to punish you for being unobservant, it's probably not right.
That cuts both ways though: To Gortle, your reading requires you to ignore the word "each". That and you can look at "a single one-handed weapon" as a prohibition on wielding more than one weapon per hand [such as a Bayonet attached to a hand crossbow] so it's not as if you even have to ignore anything.
If you think it's poorly worded either way, why not choose the interpretation that makes sense?
Are you assuming that's NOT what he did? If so, I don't think that's a good assumption to make.
PS: On it's wording, IMO it'd read better if it said "You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica in your hands, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit."
PPS: Now I'm not weighing in with my own opinion here: My repeating x-bow works just fine no matter how you read it. ;)