All powers can have one of three conditions:
1) They use a weapon
2) They use an implement
3) They use neither
Let's discard 3 and compare weapons versus implements.
Powers that use weapons can benefit from any weapon the character decides to use, even non-proficient ones if I read correctly.
It makes no difference to the power if you're using an axe or a sword, a bow or a sling, a dagger or a scythe.
Weapon users tend to be proficient in a wide range of weapons, allowing for slight variations on their attacks.
When taking powers from a different class, weapon users can use whatever weapon they want without having to worry about it being the right kind of weapon for the power.
Now what about implements? Each implement using class can only use 1-3 different types of implements and they can't use the same implement for powers of other classes without the proper feats. Mechanically, all implements function exactly the same. Some might have a second use, like a weapon, but when in need of an implement there is no difference between a rod or a staff (wizards aside).
So, with all this taken into account, my question is: Why bother differentiating implements?
The only thing I see happening here is that implement users are penalized far more for any kind of multi-classing than a weapon user ever would be.
If implements gave different effects to powers or changed up accuracy and damage like weapons, then I'd probably be more willing to accept things as they are now, but since they don't... you get the picture.
TLDR
So...
Would it be too horrible to allow all implement users to use any implement they want for style and flavor?
This also means that when multi-classing, any implement can be used for implement keyword powers.
Unless there's something seriously game breaking between a rod, a holy symbol, a staff, a wand, a totem, etc, I think this is how I'll be running things from now on.
So, with all this taken into account, my question is: Why bother differentiating implements?
To answer your question, the obvious answer is that different implements mean something to the wizard. A wizard needs to use a particular implement in order to use his Implement Mastery feature.
The not so obvious answer is that different magical implements have different power and effects. Look in the Adventurer's Vault and you will see. It's similar to the fact that different magical armour properties are only available to different types of armours. This difference is subtle, but becomes more significant as you gain higher levels and have access higher level implements with different magical abilities.
I'll check the vault for the effects on the items, but I'm still not entirely convinced that some extra effect can be all that game breaking when on a different class. I'll make sure to check before I stand firm on this statement.
If the case is all about different magic properties on higher level implements, it would have to be a significant difference to merit needing to spend a feat just to be able to function like a weapon user.
I'll check. If anyone else wants to grant some insight in the meantime, go right ahead.
- Ranged from Melee
- Light from heavy
- 2-handed from 1-handed
There might be others boundaries too.
Even if your power or feat can in theory be used with melee as well as ranged, your other class and build features usually make that such a poor choice that you never do so. If that boundary does not specifically apply to your build, another one surely does (Light from Heavy in the case of rogues).
This corresponds quite closely to the few different types of implements, and casters not being able to cross over between using them. It seems fair and balanced enough in my book. I don't think there is anything here requiring a fix.
> whatever weapon they want without having to worry about it being the
> right kind of weapon for the power.
This isn't necessarily true. Many weapon-using classes are built around the use of specific types of weapons. Rogue, ranger, fighter, and barbarian powers all come to mind as having at least some weapon-type requirements (even if those of the fighter are usually 'soft' ones). I'm not familiar enough with the other classes to be sure about them without checking.
Moreover, a weapon user will typically begin to specialize in one type of weapon over time, if only via their choice of weapon-related feats. This tends to kick in most strongly at paragon tier when things like Hammer Rhythm show up, but there are also some heroic tier feats that have the same effect. Secondary stats also play a role.
Hence, it's not quite as free-for-all as weapon users might like.
Orbs/Rods: mostly reactive properties to your powers
Staves: mostly proactive powers
Wands: mostly mimic existing class powers
Holy Symbols: mostly adding effects to your powers
This seems more an issue with flavor than with balance, but I could be wrong.
Now, about powers that specify weapons:
The concern is that the mayority of weapon users already have proficiencies in a large scope of weapons. The powers at most ask for a ranged weapon, not a longbow; or a two-handed melee weapon, not a greataxe; or a light-blade, not a katar.
What irks me is how this same doesn't apply to implements. A warlock knows how to use rods as implements, but without the multi-class feat this warlock could use a rod to cast an invoker power, even though invokers also use rods.
So, to put them both on the same grounds I'd want to try one of two variants:
1) All implement classes can use any implement for any power (as appropriate)
or
2) The class is considered proficient with their implements and can use those implements on powers for other classes so long as that class has the same implement in its list (you can use a staff as an invoker, you can use it on druid powers without additional feats)
Is that too much?
What irks me is how this same doesn't apply to implements. A warlock knows how to use rods as implements, but without the multi-class feat this warlock could use a rod to cast an invoker power, even though invokers also use rods.
In practice it does apply to implements. There are only 5 different types of implement as far as the rules do. They are not separated further (into what material or power source might apply for example - or into heavy and light implements for example). There are a lot more weapons, and they are separated further, and this has a similar, but not identical effect to the separation of implements.
For weapons, getting a specific combination of features (e.g. Light, Melee) for a power restricts a character to pretty much the same degree as "one type of implement".
Basically you are comparing the difference between an axe and a longsword for weapons, and between a wand and a rod for implements, and claiming the rules are somehow imbalanced. They are not - you are just comparing parts of the rules which are not equivalent.
what i find a bit understated is that the implements have specific enchantments that don't range over multiple implements. for example. if a ranger wants a vicious dagger, a vicious longbow, a vicious short sword, and a vicious axe, the ranger could get one of each.
however, if a bard wants a staff of defense, he can't get that because he doesn't use staffs as an implement. can he get a wand of defense? see i understand there are certain enchantments that are restrictive, but there are others that don't blanket very well.
i let the players get pretty free about implements to the degree they want to, but it is all on a case-by-case basis. my clerics won't be allowed to swap a wand for a holy symbol, but the invoker could swap the holy symbol for a rod, but i might enforce that the holy symbol can't have certain enchantments.
but i agree that melee weapons get too much love from all classes. the ranged weapons don't quite get enough love, or maybe there are few ranged weapons to choose from. i can't decide.
Okay, I'll refrase what I was saying before.
Two example:
If a fighter wants to use a rogue power, he already knows how to use a light blade. On top of that, he doesn't have to learn how to use a dagger specifically for rogue powers.
The same is not true for implements. Even if you already know how to use the correct implement, you have to learn how to use it for the other class's powers.
I think that makes it clear. Implement users have to spend a feat where most weapon users do not.
If you know how to use a wand, you shouldn't have to seek extra training to use that same wand for bard or wizard powers. Just like weapons, you don't need to spend an extra feat to use the same weapon with a different but compatible power.
~~~~
@DanTracker
I think that is precisely where I want to go. In a campaign with less than 4 PCs, a bit of multi-classing to fill the gaps is almost essential. If I want to be an effective Controller/Leader (with the build I'm working on), I'd have to use and keep up with 2-3 different implements. That's just tedious.
I guess the whole point is to reduce feat taxes since branching out taxes you enough as it is. Versatility comes at its own price and I can't justify adding more feat taxes on top of it.
@slobo777a
Okay, I'll refrase what I was saying before.
Two example:
If a fighter wants to use a rogue power, he already knows how to use a light blade. On top of that, he doesn't have to learn how to use a dagger specifically for rogue powers.
The same is not true for implements. Even if you already know how to use the correct implement, you have to learn how to use it for the other class's powers.
I think that makes it clear. Implement users have to spend a feat where most weapon users do not.
OK, you are right, I didn't quite get your angle.
Of course the fighter in your example is making some kind of sacrifice (such as having the light blade off-hand when they could haved a shield), or must already be based on light blades. And that might be enough to put them off multi-classing with that specific power.
Surely the house-rule you are looking for is just "Multi-class feats and powers with implement keyword can use your main/base class implements, unless the type of implement is specified in the power or feat description" - i.e. if a Warlock picks up a multi-class Druid power with Implement, then they can still get the benefits of their magical rod, and don't need a Druid-specific implement just for that power?
In fact, I thought this was RAW? I.e. "Implement" on a power doesn't mean "This Class's Implement" unless it specifically limits to a "wand" or "rod" or symbol in the description - in which case the power cannot be used except with one type of implement. For instance "Staff of Defense" power is only usable with a staff, but "Magic Missile" is fine with a holy symbol if you've multiclassed (or used Dilettante)
A cleric wearing or holding a magic holy symbol can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of cleric powers, as well as cleric paragon path powers, that have the implement keyword.
Underline for emphasis
So yeah, that was my irk with implements. Like I said before: multi-classing and versatility require enough sacrifice as is and shouldn't be forced to take additional feat taxes just to be able to function without the insanity of implement swapping.
I think I'll work with something in between what you and DanTracker mentioned. I already had to break these rules in my current campaign since we are running gestalt PCs. (Have you ever seen a wizard use a rifle as an implement? I have now).
What I might end up doing is this:
-You can use your base implements for multi-classed (or dilettante) powers.
-Implement properties and triggered powers can only active with compatible powers. This means the class from which the power comes from must be able to use the implement being used for the power to be able to trigger the property.
Example:
Rod of First Blood will trigger with warlock and invoker powers, but not cleric powers.
Staff of Fiery Might will trigger with wizard and druid powers, but not warlock powers.
Obviously the lists are longer than that but it was just to make a quick example.
I think this might be the middle ground I'm looking for. It let's you use a single implement for all your powers but won't trigger effects that would overpower some classes over others.
Holy symbols don't use hands at all.
that's a big difference.
@slobo777a
Okay, I'll refrase what I was saying before.
Two example:
... .
The same is not true for implements. Even if you already know how to use the correct implement, you have to learn how to use it for the other class's powers.
...
If you know how to use a wand, you shouldn't have to seek extra training to use that same wand for bard or wizard powers. Just like weapons, you don't need to spend an extra feat to use the same weapon with a different but compatible power.
~~~~
@DanTracker
...
cool, i got mentioned.
okay, so if i understand the mechanics and RAW of implements it is this, the mention of the implement keyword simply means that the power is enhanced by the implement or the power is channelled through the implement.
my wife plays a sorcerer, even before she got her magic dagger which serves as a sorc implement, she could cast all her spells right from her fingertips. same is true for wizards, clerics, et al. the implement is not required to perform the power with that keyword; it simply enhances the power.
weapon users do have to carry a weapon for some of their powers to be fully effective, but implement users are ready out of the gate, except swordmage which must have a blade weapon which is the implement as well.
this is different than certain other elements of the mechanic. some powers state what you must weild, or special notation of if you are weilding. the rogue powers are the first to come to mind for me. you've got to be weilding rogue weapons only for several powers.
the ranger has some powers that specifically state that you have to have two weapons or a ranged weapon...fighter with a shield only power makes the notation, etc. druid must be in beast form for some powers. certain builds get extra love for using certtain powers.
ultimately, there are many ways to make the most of a class, but implement is an enhancing method rather than a requirement.
as for multi-classing or dillettante, i'd say that unless the power states that a certain implement is required, the mention of the implement keyword means that the user of that power can channel that power through any implement with which they are proficient.
however, they can use a feat to increase the usefulness of their implement or learn other implements just as weapon users can train and focus on a weapon to become more useful in that weapon.
@GeneralHenry
whoa, yes wizard and other arcane classes have implements that take up space, my understanding is that clerics or others making use of holy symbol still have to hold it in the off-hand or primary hand (hold the thing in some hand) in order to make use of it.
so far i haven't gotten that picky with my players about that mechanic, but we'll see once they have aquired more weapons or mulitple symbols. i've already got a paladin with a light shield and i'm not certain whether he'll still be trying to use the holy symbol or not.
also, as i recall the holy symbol could be attached to armor with DM consent. in a similar fashion, i'd allow for others using implement, whether holy symbol, totem, wand, rod, et al, in a special fashion if they discussed with me how to ake a special alteration.
those implements with greater enchantments that apply to certain spells or other keywords should still have that restriction.
thus, if a multiclassed or hybrid druid/warlock wants to carry a rod that relates to the warlock powers, plus a staff that relates to the druid powers, plus a pact blade that enhances other warlock powers, plus a totem to further empower druid powers, then the issue becomes, "i put away these items as my minor action, i retreive these other items with a second minor action, then i blast my enemies as my standard action."
So...
Would it be too horrible to allow all implement users to use any implement they want for style and flavor?
This also means that when multi-classing, any implement can be used for implement keyword powers.
Unless there's something seriously game breaking between a rod, a holy symbol, a staff, a wand, a totem, etc, I think this is how I'll be running things from now on.
there is a difference between implements: the type of enchantments that can be put on them.
That you're character plays an orb-wizard, and says his implement looks like a wand? so be it. I woudn't care less.
However, wands have enchantments that orbs don't. I woudn't give those to an orb wizard ...
wands contain strikerish powers, orbs controllerish,
its not weapons/implements, its hammers/heavy blades/orbs/wands/ ... (and some area's overlap)
So, I'dd say:
- For non-magical stuff: go right ahead
- For magical stuff either keep it how it is written, or allow all character to choose their own enchantments (like a fighter wanting the enchantment of an orb on his axe, or a cleric with a 'vorpal' wand ...)
-Use the implement you want (that your class can use) for its enhancement bonus with any power you know.
-Implement powers and properties that depend on a class power being cast can only trigger if the class uses the implement being triggered.
That second catch-all clause is what would prevent things from breaking while the first would prevent the insanity of switching through multiple implements just for an enhancement bonus.
EDIT: Please read through the whole exchange before quoting the first post and responding with something that was already said.
^ Err, are you saying that implements don't have things like Earthroot Staff, Autumn Harvest Totem, or Rod of FeyThorns?
i apologize, i didn't mean to discredit those implements at all. those are imbued with the ability to perform those specific spells even if your character couldn't normally perform those.
that very readily means that a bard could use a wand of missle to cast magic missle, but it is because the wand is encchanted, not becuase the bard knows it. and the bard can use the wand because the class has the proficiency with wands.