(apparently implement users will find it easier to hit now).
what makes you say that? (Not that I say you are wrong, I just don't see the clue you did)
Chapter 1: Superior Implements and Magic Items: This chapter focuses on superior implements, a new type of masterwork item to give implement users more options, and magic items, the favorite equipment of PCs. New items include ammunition, wondrous tattoos and lairs, and consumable immurements.
a new type of masterwork item to give implement users more options, sounds to me like it could be attack, or damage, or anythign really...just more options
Sounds awesome. Just think; implements with proficiency bonuses to hit, maybe with properties similar to High Critical or Brutal. This has the potential to be pretty sweet...
high crit or brutal woud be sweet...
Not sure which direction they'll go with these.
Brutal 1 would be great for Magic Missile, but not so good for big dice powers like chaos bolt. Brutal 2 would be decent for those big dice powers, but possibly too potent for multiple small dice powers (like Magic Missile), not to mention you might be rolling for a while to get a 3+ on a 1d4.
High crit has some problems for spell powers. A high crit weapon on a crit rolls an extra [W], that's straight forward. So what does a 3d6 fireball roll on a crit? extra 3d6? 1d6? I suppose they could have a set die (like half=orc furious assault), and say high crit implements do additional 1d8 damage on a crit. The other problem might be that high crit sorcerer blasts would be quite potent, especially with a Jagged Dagger (though maybe this is not tht much different than the Avenger crits).
They could do something in the lines of "Every implement power that rolls a d6, now rolls a d8". Sort of a specific die upgrade.
It confuses me that they didn't say masterwork implements. It's a new type of item. Maybe the masterwork item will do things like +1 to attacks vs Fortitude. Or maybe +1 attack for a specific energy type.
I'm curious to see the new mechanics they bring to the table.
(apparently implement users will find it easier to hit now).
I hope not. Between Implement Expertise and the universal lowering of monster NADs in MM2 forward, spellcasters are already potent enough. Adding superior/masterwork on top of that would just be overkill.
I sincerely hope that superior/masterwork implements are strictly about adding special qualities and not another attack roll boost.
I'm guessing Superior will be the damage upgrade, and Masterwork will be the attack bonus upgrade.
If you read close, you'll notice that Superior Implements are masterwork items. Its not a matter of having a superior implement or a masterwork one.
That said, i'm pretty sure there is no way that Superior Implements will give static damage bonuses or extra bonuses to hit. Damage is already regulated by the powers themselves and there a numerous feats that boost attack bonuses now.
My hope is that we will see base implements - that is, implements without a magical ehnacement - that can be used as a weapon and one or more types of implement.
My hope is that we will see base implements - that is, implements without a magical ehnacement - that can be used as a weapon and one or more types of implement.
You mean the Staff, Pact Bow, Pact Sword, Pact Blade, Pact Hammer, Holy Weapons, Heavy Blades, Daggers? (just through PH2, add all monk weapons to that for PH3) for implements without a magical enhancement that can be used a a weapon.
And types of implements are introduced in classes.
Otherwise they are impotent.
Call me crazy (and I'm sure someone will), but maybe the focus of superior implements will be implements that do things others can't?
My hope is that we will see base implements - that is, implements without a magical ehnacement - that can be used as a weapon and one or more types of implement.
You are mad, sir! MAD!
I think ti'd be neat if there were implements that did what you're suggesting. But what type of implement can be used as a weapon just as it is? Would you be channeling your primal might through a club? I suppose a ceremonial dagger is possible.
I also kinda like the idea of weapon properties applied to implements too. Just throw all these ideas into a pot, and maybe that is what we have inside the Adventurer's Vault 2.
You mean the Staff, Pact Bow, Pact Sword, Pact Blade, Pact Hammer, Holy Weapons, Heavy Blades, Daggers? (just through PH2, add all monk weapons to that for PH3) for implements without a magical enhancement that can be used a a weapon.
And types of implements are introduced in classes.
Otherwise they are impotent.
The Paladin gets no non-magical weapon that is also an implement implement. Neither does the Cleric. Nor the Warlock. And that's just PH1.
Admitedly, certain classes do have them built-in. The Wizard, the Sorcerer, the Swordmage... but what I'm talking about is Superior Weapons that are also, in and of themselves, Implements. Or, as the preview would suggest, Superior Implements that are mechanically weapons - they have a proficiency bonus, a damage range, and even weapon keywords. I'm talking about Superior items that are both, potentially to all Implement-wielding classes., not just the select few who happen to have a weapon type listed in their Implement entry.
By the way, as far as I know, the part I've underlined are all magical items. Kind of limits your flexibility of effects compared to a weapon, doesn't it?
The Paladin gets no non-magical weapon that is also an implement implement. Neither does the Cleric. Nor the Warlock. And that's just PH1.
Admitedly, certain classes do have them built-in. The Wizard, the Sorcerer, the Swordmage... but what I'm talking about is Superior Weapons that are also, in and of themselves, Implements. Or, as the preview would suggest, Superior Implements that are mechanically weapons - they have a proficiency bonus, a damage range, and even weapon keywords. I'm talking about Superior items that are both, potentially to all Implement-wielding classes., not just the select few who happen to have a weapon type listed in their Implement entry.
By the way, as far as I know, the part I've underlined are all magical items. Kind of limits your flexibility of effects compared to a weapon, doesn't it?
Superior weapons are also implements? I don't see your point there, there is no rule stating such a thing, I am pretty sure that an executioner's axe cannot be used as an implement, at least not without a magic effect. Also saying "a group of weapons is implements" or vice versa is wrong, since what can be used as an implement is defined from the perspective of each class independently. Therefore talking about a group of implements that are also weapons would be pointless and meaningless. Not to mention that weapon-implements wouldn't really help spellcasters since you can't use the proficiency bonus and possibly neither the weapon properties unless your power has the "weapon" keyword and spells don't.
Superior weapons are also implements? I don't see your point there, there is no rule stating such a thing, I am pretty sure that an executioner's axe cannot be used as an implement, at least not without a magic effect. Also saying "a group of weapons is implements" or vice versa is wrong, since what can be used as an implement is defined from the perspective of each class independently. Therefore talking about a group of implements that are also weapons would be pointless and meaningless. Not to mention that weapon-implements wouldn't really help spellcasters since you can't use the proficiency bonus and possibly neither the weapon properties unless your power has the "weapon" keyword and spells don't.
You don't seem to see his point, because you obviously didn't catch his idea in connection to the whole thread ...
There is rumor, that we will see [b]superior implements[/b] soon.
These are said to have special properties.
So what he suggested was, that some of these [u]superior implements[/u] are additionally weapons, to help those classes (e. g. Cleric, Paladin), that don't have weapons listed as possible implements, contrary to Sorcerers or Swordmages.
There would be many advantages, if this would be one of the possible item properties
The +1 to hit is unbalanced.
I also believe that they will have special properties (+1 fire damage when this implement is used for a power with the fire keyword), but at a cost. This cost will be that the magic item costs 1 level higher than it's base version.
The Paladin gets no non-magical weapon that is also an implement implement. Neither does the Cleric. Nor the Warlock. And that's just PH1.
Putting aside warlocks for the moment, can't Paladins and Clerics just sort of...weld their holy symbol to a weapon, if they want a non-magical weapon that counts as an implement? I mean, I can't see any reason why you'd need such a thing, since they don't have to hold them to use implement powers anyway...
Also, I'd like to think that most DMs, if asked, would see that there's no reason not to just let the cleric call his mace a 'holy symbol' and use it as an implement, especially if it's non magical.
Putting aside warlocks for the moment, can't Paladins and Clerics just sort of...weld their holy symbol to a weapon, if they want a non-magical weapon that counts as an implement? I mean, I can't see any reason why you'd need such a thing, since they don't have to hold them to use implement powers anyway...
Also, I'd like to think that most DMs, if asked, would see that there's no reason not to just let the cleric call his mace a 'holy symbol' and use it as an implement, especially if it's non magical.
The trick is getting properties and such to be applied to weapon/implement attacks using your implement/weapon. A simple weld would not confer the property, nor would welding let you use your weapon for an implement attack, which is what clerics and paladins want. The supposed ability to use implements as weapons would be helpful for such characters.
I too am of the opinion that Superior implements might refer to adding the high critical, although it will be called something different and act slightly differently.
The +1 to hit is unbalanced.
I also believe that they will have special properties (+1 fire damage when this implement is used for a power with the fire keyword), but at a cost. This cost will be that the magic item costs 1 level higher than it's base version.
Unbalanced? it wouldnt be unbalanced. My warlock at 12th level has only a plus 14 to hit. Thats not high enough I know I had 16s in con and chrm starting out rather than 20s but I shouldnt be having as hard a time to hit as I am. Our fighter has a +17 or 18. I know he is hitting ac but ac isnt that much higher than non ac defenses.
Unbalanced? it wouldnt be unbalanced. My warlock at 12th level has only a plus 14 to hit. Thats not high enough I know I had 16s in con and chrm starting out rather than 20s but I shouldnt be having as hard a time to hit as I am. Our fighter has a +17 or 18. I know he is hitting ac but ac isnt that much higher than non ac defenses.
If both your warlock and this fighter are average, then being a +3 difference is exactly what was intended by the developers, as NADs are intended to be, on average, AC-3. CA is harder to get as a ranged dude, but that's the game.
Adding a +1 to hit is an example of power creep as you would have to be crazy not to take it up. Expertise is now almost mandatory, and I'd hate to see superior weapons follow the same route. Masterwork armor simply added a finer grain to the growth already present from the beginning and did not achieve a greater AC/level ratio than what was already presented. A bonus to hit does not have a progression / level, thus any bonus would scetchy.
Take staff of missile mastery for example. That +1 to hit doesn't scale with the level of the staff, and is greatly limited by the power it can be used with(the humble MM). Applying a free +1 to hit would make superior weapons as mandatory as expertise feats are now. Even a +1 to hit at the cost of +3 level in cost is still too great a deal to allow.
Unbalanced? it wouldnt be unbalanced. My warlock at 12th level has only a plus 14 to hit. Thats not high enough I know I had 16s in con and chrm starting out rather than 20s but I shouldnt be having as hard a time to hit as I am. Our fighter has a +17 or 18. I know he is hitting ac but ac isnt that much higher than non ac defenses.
I'm with you on this one.
It feels more and more like the up-front PCs are the 4e wizard/cleric doing all the "fun" stuff in combat, while the spellcasters stand back and watch.
While my party's fighter and rogue are flanking dragons and hacking it to pieces, I'm flinging silly Magic Missiles at it, that when they actually do hit, are basically being used by the dragon as toothpicks.
Yeah, yeah, it's not a Wizard's "role" to do a lot of damage. Well, it would be nice to at least be able to hit once in a while, then I'll worry about the damage.
And before I hear "boo hoo, he wants the same wizard he played in 3.5 and can't have it, call a wahhhmbulance," save it. I played exactly one game of 3.5 and that was on a Worldwide D&D Game Day. The majority of my 3e experience is consumed in Neverwinter Nights playing a bard, so I have no 3e wizard memories to fawn over.
Anyway, if it comes out as a bonus to attack, I'm pretty confident that they've playtested it and are comfortable that it isn't game breaking. That said, I doubt it will be that anyway. More likely it will allow a bonus to damage, probably on a crit. I'll take whatever help I can get.
I'm with you on this one.
It feels more and more like the up-front PCs are the 4e wizard/cleric doing all the "fun" stuff in combat, while the spellcasters stand back and watch.
While my party's fighter and rogue are flanking dragons and hacking it to pieces, I'm flinging silly Magic Missiles at it, that when they actually do hit, are basically being used by the dragon as toothpicks.
Yeah, yeah, it's not a Wizard's "role" to do a lot of damage. Well, it would be nice to at least be able to hit once in a while, then I'll worry about the damage.
And before I hear "boo hoo, he wants the same wizard he played in 3.5 and can't have it, call a wahhhmbulance," save it. I played exactly one game of 3.5 and that was on a Worldwide D&D Game Day. The majority of my 3e experience is consumed in Neverwinter Nights playing a bard, so I have no 3e wizard memories to fawn over.
Anyway, if it comes out as a bonus to attack, I'm pretty confident that they've playtested it and are comfortable that it isn't game breaking. That said, I doubt it will be that anyway. More likely it will allow a bonus to damage, probably on a crit. I'll take whatever help I can get.
Agreed our fighter almost always has flanking and ac seems to be within 1 point of ref 90% of the time and what do most powers hit reflex. Fort is often higher than ac. So no sorry implement users need a boost in to hit.
A bonus to hit would indeed stir up a lot of controversy.
Still Superior Implements sounds like a fun way to customize your character.
If you're having difficulty hitting as a spellcaster, the solution is simple. Stop attacking Fortitude. Otherwise, the AC-NAD gap corresponds quite well to proficiency bonus.
Because throwing away over 1/3 of all the powers is an acceptable solution...
Biggest mistake in 4e was assuming 50% baseline to hit and making it too easy to fall beneath that whether by level, class, power, etc.
Because throwing away over 1/3 of all the powers is an acceptable solution...
Well given time and further monster manuals the NAD baseline should even out. With psionics being a theme for next year I could see the MM3 might easily have lots of above average will, possibly plenty of sub-average fortitude as well. If so than the overall AC-vs NAD gap should even out closer to it's originally intended 2 point differenced.
If you're having difficulty hitting as a spellcaster, the solution is simple. Stop attacking Fortitude. Otherwise, the AC-NAD gap corresponds quite well to proficiency bonus.
I'm not worried about hitting Fort. I don't have a single spell in my arsenal that attacks Fort. I actually only have two that attack Will. The vastly overwhelming majority of my spells attack Reflex.
I still have problems in a solo fight.
Regardless, even if I mostly attacked Fort, it would be because those spells fit my character concept. I shouldn't have to completely change my character concept to play a physically viable character.
This is where I see the whole "4e breaks roleplaying" arguments making some sense (because overall, I think that argument is invalid.) The counter-arguments whenever I see a conversation about "my powers don't allow me to be effective" always revolve around "well, then change your powers, problem solved."
Well, that doesn't address the problem. Why can't I create a viable character with the powers I want to fill out my concept? Powers fuel roleplay within combat. Now obviously every power has to be different, so some will be ineffective in some situations, but a character shouldn't feel completely ineffective for playing with a concept.
Call me crazy (and I'm sure someone will), but maybe the focus of superior implements will be implements that do things others can't?
My hope is that we will see base implements - that is, implements without a magical ehnacement - that can be used as a weapon and one or more types of implement.
After chewing on this I think I understand what you're getting at.
Example:
Scepter 1d8 one-handed Hammer Implement: holy symbol
Feybow 1d10 20/40 two handed Bow Implement: wand, rod
New Keyword: Implement. Weapons with the Implement keyword are also considered to be the types of implements listed after the keyword. For example, a Feybow can be enchanted as a Bow, Wand, or Rod and can be used as an implement by classes that use wands or rods.
*snip*
Hmmm...curious.
However the Superior Implements turn out, I'm excited. I'm a big caster-fan, and anything that adds additional support/options for them is great in my book. =D
For example using a radiant sword to add radiant keyword and extra radiant damage on my swordburst (atwill implement attack power) like it was an weapon power.