Did I miss the enhancement that a non-magical implement offers? As far as I can tell, an implement only confers a bonus if it's magical, and you can still cast powers without an implement. Unless I'm missing something, that means you can just fire off a power without bothering to get an implement in the first place. On top of that, you can probably keep your weapon equipped in your main hand, and make basic attacks without having to worry about dropping your implement first.
Plus, I don't know what the difference is between the different implements, except that a staff can be used asa quarterstaff. Say I'm playing a Warlock. Is there any benefit to carrying a wand over a rod or vice versa, besides any price difference? Theonly reason I see to even bother buying an implement is so you can enhance it yourself, but at that, I'd just save my money until I needed to buy an implement to give me a bonus.
A little help?
The Wizard, however, gets the implement mastery class feature that makes even non-magical implements useful.
Beyond that, only magical implements are useful. This is intentional.
EDIT: Oh, and different types of magical implements do different sorts of things. Wands, for example, all only have item powers that mimic existing arcane spells, and Rods all have effects that key off of Warlock's curse, if I recall correctly.
At first level, the Warlock has absolutely no need for any kind of implement (and neither do Clerics or Paladins, if I'm not mistaken).
That's misleadingly written because even a first level Warlock can (and probably will) find a +1 magical implement in a treasure hoard. Maybe you mean, "[At character creation], the Warlock has absolutely no need for any kind of implement"?
Cheers,
John M.
Is it just for flavor?
I told my players to just buy the regular implements they use. No one has complained over what? 10 gold?
Because of the AC-NADs discrepancy a regular implement doesn't need to do anything besides being fluff.
The thing that bothers me about 4E is that when stripped of all equipment, wizards and warlocks can still operate at almost full potential while other classes are significantly underpowered. I makes situations like when I throw a wizard into a mundain cell and he can still dimension door out, or burn a house down with scorching burst. It just doesn't seem right. It's like locking up an archer, while letting him keep his bow and arrows. I would just like it if there were some way to take away a wizard's or warlock's attack power like how I can take away an archer's weapons.
Fighters can still fight unarmed.
Only rogues are weaker (as unarmed strikes aren't light blades, etc)
Note: I simply houseruled that unarmed strikes, being considered improvised weapons, count as weapons.
I just don't see the point of having to buy implements unless you were going to craft the item yourself.
Another point just occured to me: You couldn't possibly cast ritual magic while in a prison cell, so that sets one pretty big limit on spellcasters, especially as they increase in level.
In a situation like that, though, being imprisoned, I would say that a Wizard or Warlock could not use spell, powers, etc., since the stress of being imprisoned did not allow them the focus they need in order to cast spells, or that it would require twice the amount of rest to overcome. Better yet, if the captors know of the spellcaster's abilities, they could possibly set up an anti-magic field to keep them in check.
I just don't see the point of having to buy implements unless you were going to craft the item yourself.
Another point just occured to me: You couldn't possibly cast ritual magic while in a prison cell, so that sets one pretty big limit on spellcasters, especially as they increase in level.
My first level paladin had a "fluff" implement. It's a tattoo of his deity's symbol on the back of his neck. It saved him the pointless expenditure of gold on something with no real mechanical function, and when he needs an actual symbol, he'll get a magic one.
Captured heroes without their equipment can be a good way to allow heroes to improvise. But wizards and warlocks won't have to improvise. Their powers WILL work without penalty. Melee combatants will suffer from lower damage (most weapons will do less damage than improvised ones) and lesser chances to hit (improvised weapons get no proficiency bonus).
Warlocks and wizards will have very little penalty in terms of AC, as they are used to wearing very little armor anyway; melee combatants (particularly fighters and paladins, but not rogues and rangers).
So if you get captured, you'll be relying on your rogues to get you out, your wizards and warlocks to do most of the damage until you get get weapons and armor back, and till then fighters will be hoping the clerics can keep them alive because they'll be taking a crapload of damage.
The thing that bothers me about 4E is that when stripped of all equipment, wizards and warlocks can still operate at almost full potential while other classes are significantly underpowered.
I very much disagree. Without having an implement to add enhancement bonuses to their attacks, spell-casters do suffer... Otherwise, I don't see why that bothers you anyways. Care to elaborate?
It just doesn't seem right.
Oh please, that's not acceptable rationale for anything. :P
The problem with that is unarmed strikes do not seem to count as melee weapons for any power except the basic melee attack as the basic melee attack states that unarmed strikes count as weapons for that attack and no other power seems to.
Are you sure?
I don't think so. I really think it just counts as an improvised weapon for everything. Let me check...
Yeah, I see nothing to support this. I see that the description of the basic melee attack says what you say it says, but it seems there as more of a redundant reminder. If it weren't there, you'd still be able to use it. Unarmed attacks are considered improvised weapons (pages 215, 216). I don't see anything saying improvised weapons aren't still weapons. They're just a category of weapons like simple, military, and superior.
In a situation like that, though, being imprisoned, I would say that a Wizard or Warlock could not use spell, powers, etc., since the stress of being imprisoned did not allow them the focus they need in order to cast spells, or that it would require twice the amount of rest to overcome.
That's a horrible idea and makes absolutely no sense. There is no way being in a cell is as stressful as facing down a dragon. You really can't come up with something better than that? I mean, at least pretend somatic components still exist or something and say that they can't cast spells if their hands are bound. That would at least make some ounce of sense...
Better yet, if the captors know of the spellcaster's abilities, they could possibly set up an anti-magic field to keep them in check.
What do you mean "Better yet"? That's an ever worse idea. Unless this field also blocks martial exploits from working for some reason, this is just a caster nerf... Really, you wonder why they didn't upgrade anti-magic fields into 4e? Because they did it for a reason...
I believe (but am not sure) that a cleric needs a holy symbol to use their Channel Divinity power. If this is not official, it's the houserule our group uses.
Warlocks do not need non-magic implements for anything.
I very much disagree. Without having an implement to add enhancement bonuses to their attacks, spell-casters do suffer... Otherwise, I don't see why that bothers you anyways. Care to elaborate?
At low levels when the magical equipment is limited, a spell caster does not suffer very much in terms of bonuses. However, if you use a weapon, that's already a +2 or +3 that you do not have. Also, at higher levels, wizards have some really cool utility powers that they can use to escape like Dimension Door, Invisibility and Arcane Gate. Such utility powers do not require implements at all. These powers just seem really powerful in that you cannot take them away.
I guess I'm used to 3E where you can take the component pouch away and that takes away over 90% of the spell caster's powers. I plan to start a campaign soon. I do not plan to change any of the implement rules and see what happens if I can get a situation where the party is stripped of all equipment.
A wizard needs their implement to use their implement mastery feature as has been said.
I believe (but am not sure) that a cleric needs a holy symbol to use their Channel Divinity power. If this is not official, it's the houserule our group uses.
As far as I can tell that is a house-rule; no clerical powers or class features require an implement.
A wizard without an implement cannot use all their features to their fullest effect, but all their powers are still intact.
Note: I simply houseruled that unarmed strikes, being considered improvised weapons, count as weapons.
No need: PHB, pg 56:
Weapon: Many martial powers, as well as several divine powers, can be used only if you’re wielding a weapon. (You can use an unarmed attack as your weapon.) A weapon’s reach or range determines the reach or range of a power it’s used with.
So you can be a monk, defined as a Fighter (or better yet, a Ranger) who fights bare-fisted. Unfortunately, bare fisted Rogue combatants are S.O.L.
So as far as I can tell, you can really only cripple Rogues and greatly inconvenience standard defenders by stripping the party of gear.
My first level paladin had a "fluff" implement. It's a tattoo of his deity's symbol on the back of his neck. It saved him the pointless expenditure of gold on something with no real mechanical function, and when he needs an actual symbol, he'll get a magic one.
Captured heroes without their equipment can be a good way to allow heroes to improvise. But wizards and warlocks won't have to improvise. Their powers WILL work without penalty. Melee combatants will suffer from lower damage (most weapons will do less damage than improvised ones) and lesser chances to hit (improvised weapons get no proficiency bonus).
Warlocks and wizards will have very little penalty in terms of AC, as they are used to wearing very little armor anyway; melee combatants (particularly fighters and paladins, but not rogues and rangers).
So if you get captured, you'll be relying on your rogues to get you out, your wizards and warlocks to do most of the damage until you get get weapons and armor back, and till then fighters will be hoping the clerics can keep them alive because they'll be taking a crapload of damage.
Well, sure, I get all that, but by that logic, being imprisoned isn't that big of an impediment anyway. People have always claimed that fighters have such a huge advantage at lower levels, even though they're the first ones in any party that end up dead. Now, Fighters (and defenders in general, for that matter) can access all kinds of abilities regardless of what's going on.
When a party becomes imprisoned, it's not usually that hard to find the prison armory, for a temporary solution to the unarmed quandary, and then go stones-out crazy until everyone in the place is incapacitated in one form or another, then find the store room, intimidate a guard, or use Detect Magic to find everyone's equipment. A DM shouldn't be making that the focal point of an adventure, unless it's pivotal to the story. Imprisonment is just another speed bump that keeps the adventurers from finishing a campaign in a single night.
That's a horrible idea and makes absolutely no sense. There is no way being in a cell is as stressful as facing down a dragon. You really can't come up with something better than that? I mean, at least pretend somatic components still exist or something and say that they can't cast spells if their hands are bound. That would at least make some ounce of sense...
Well, it makes sense in a way, especially if this person I'm responding to thinks it's too overpowering to let magic-users get to their spells. I'm of the mindset that realizes that no single adventurer could break out of prison on their own, unless they were of much higher level.
I'm not saying I want to nerf spellcasters. I'm just saying that, if you arelly want to here's how, and here's how you get around an explanation.
Well, it makes sense in a way...
No, no it doesn't.
I'm of the mindset that realizes that no single adventurer could break out of prison on their own, unless they were of much higher level.
Why not?
Even in 3.5 at first level, a Rogue could easily get out of a prison by just picking the lock with even a makeshift tools. I'm pretty sure they still can in 4E, actually. I'm also pretty sure Eladrin can teleport about every 5 minutes. Adventurers are supposed to be able to break out of prison. If a prison can hold you for long, you're not a very good adventurer.
I'm not saying I want to nerf spellcasters.
But that's what you're doing.
I'm just saying that, if you arelly want to here's how, and here's how you get around an explanation.
That doesn't get around any explanation. In fact, all it does is raise more questions:
Why is it that I can't cast spells due to stress when I'm in what basically amounts to a small, poorly decorated room, but when I'm in a tight tunnel a mile underground being flanked by hungry dragons, I'm golden?
Yeah, they can pick the lock, but can they handle the guards? How big a prison are we talking about? Huge dungeon under the palace in the capital? Local town jail with 3 cells? The latter probably wouldn't be too hard to break out of even for low-level adventurers. The former would definitely require a party of much higher level.
The small one with lame guards anybody should be able to break out of, so there should be no problem allowing the spellcasters to do so. The large one with competent guards is probably inescapable by the low-level spellcasters anyways, so I don't see why we have any issues here... Of course, at higher levels, the spellcaster will have no trouble braking out of the good jail, but then neither should other characters, so I again fail to see a problem.
That doesn't get around any explanation. In fact, all it does is raise more questions:
Why is it that I can't cast spells due to stress when I'm in what basically amounts to a small, poorly decorated room, but when I'm in a tight tunnel a mile underground being flanked by hungry dragons, I'm golden?
I think it's pretty clear that the rest, relaxation and preparation is something that takes place BEFORE you face the dragon(s). In a prison setting there's no real rest, there's no ability to plan ahead or prepare without taking the extra time due to the stress of being in that situation. To use your analogy, you can't recharge a daily power a mile underground flanked by hungry dragons, simply because they're upon you, and it's far too nerve wracking to put something like that together. Similarly, in prison, you constantly have to be on your guard that you don't get caught trying to do what it is you're trying to do, and that stress can throw off the concentration of all but the most steadfast heroes. One hopes such steadfastness would be present in the PCs.
BTW, when I DM, I allow my players to use whatever means necessary to escape from whatever situation they're in. What I'm describing would never happen in one of my games. I'm simply responding to the person that complained that Wizards and Warlocks are too powerful because they really don't need implements to cast spells.
Similarly, in prison, you constantly have to be on your guard that you don't get caught trying to do what it is you're trying to do, and that stress can throw off the concentration of all but the most steadfast heroes.
You don't have to do anything but take an extended rest and sleep six hours to recover your daily powers (and reset your milestone/action points). Unless you're being constantly hassled by the guards or whatever, you will automatically recover your dailies.
You don't have to do anything but take an extended rest and sleep six hours to recover your daily powers (and reset your milestone/action points). Unless you're being constantly hassled by the guards or whatever, you will automatically recover your dailies.
Right. I dig that. I'm just putting it out there that, if somebody wanted to nerf spellcasters, they can just say that conditions are not good for extended rest, and not allow dailies, similar to your statement about being harassed by the guards.
Right. I dig that. I'm just putting it out there that, if somebody wanted to nerf spellcasters, they can just say that conditions are not good for extended rest, and not allow dailies, similar to your statement about being harassed by the guards.
That wouldn't just affect the spellcasters. It would affect *everybody* (assuming everybody's being harassed by the guards, and really, why wouldn't they?). All classes recover their powers in the same way.
Only rogues are weaker (as unarmed strikes aren't light blades, etc)
Well, a light blade should be relatively easy to create - just smash a ceramic jug or pot (the one you get your crap-tastic meal in), wrap a piece of cloth around the sharpest and longest splinter and let your buddies congratulate you on your cool new shiv. While officially improvised weapons are not considered members of a group, I think a fair case could be made to your DM for a sharp, light instrument of stabbing and cutting other people to be a light blade.
That wouldn't just affect the spellcasters. It would affect *everybody* (assuming everybody's being harassed by the guards, and really, why wouldn't they?). All classes recover their powers in the same way.
Right, but a fighter will still have a high Strength, and will probably be highly capable of cold-cocking anyone who was unfortunate enough to leave themselves open. Spellcasters don't have nearly that flexibility when it comes to being robbed of their Powers. If I was dealing with a spellcaster, and truly wanted to nerf them, I'd have them bound and gagged in a locked oubliette-style box, and let the strong and sneaky characters break him out. Allow me to repeat, however, that I'm not into nerfing spellcasters. I'm just showing both sides of the issue.
Right, but a fighter will still have a high Strength, and will probably be highly capable of cold-cocking anyone who was unfortunate enough to leave themselves open. Spellcasters don't have nearly that flexibility when it comes to being robbed of their Powers.
Yeah, but they are not robbed of their powers - unless you can show me a situation where they lose their at-will powers...
Yeah, but they are not robbed of their powers - unless you can show me a situation where they lose their at-will powers...
Oh, sure. I'm talking about dailies and encounter Powers. Non-spellcasters get their at-wills, too, but they're usually still capable in a fight, unless they rely more on ranged weapons.
As = No need: PHB, pg 56:
So you can be a monk, defined as a Fighter (or better yet, a Ranger) who fights bare-fisted. Unfortunately, bare fisted Rogue combatants are S.O.L.
So as far as I can tell, you can really only cripple Rogues and greatly inconvenience standard defenders by stripping the party of gear.
Cool I figured I probably missed something...
At first level, the Warlock has absolutely no need for any kind of implement (and neither do Clerics or Paladins, if I'm not mistaken).
The Wizard, however, gets the implement mastery class feature that makes even non-magical implements useful.
Beyond that, only magical implements are useful. This is intentional.
Getting back on topic, why is it intentional that non-magical implements do nothing? Why does a first level cleric only get a wisdom bonus from her Lance of Faith while everyone who uses a weapon get an ability modifier plus a bonus from weapon proficiency? In our game this has made it so the cleric feels she never hits anything, and statistically she is right: she is much less likely to hit than any of the martial classes. It has made her want to totally abandon her devoted cleric build and restart with a battle cleric, just so she can hit things once in a while.
So I ask: why should weapon-based powers be so much better than implement-based powers? It seems to me that even non-magical implements should add a proficiency bonus of, say, +2. To balance things out, I'm considering adding a house rule to this effect for non-magical implements, and continuing to add this bonus to attacks for magical implements as well.
Guard A: Let's take their stuff.
Guard B: Hey, that guy has a book with his most powerful and versatile spells in it. With those he could easily get out... Let's let him keep it.
Guard A: Ok. Sounds good.
Well Wizards shouldn't be getting their dailies or utilities if they're captured any way unless they have some really retarded guards capturing them.
Guard A: Let's take their stuff.
Guard B: Hey, that guy has a book with his most powerful and versatile spells in it. With those he could easily get out... Let's let him keep it.
Guard A: Ok. Sounds good.
The spells are in the Wizard's head. The book is just nessecary for commiting them to memory.
Getting back on topic, why is it intentional that non-magical implements do nothing? Why does a first level cleric only get a wisdom bonus from her Lance of Faith while everyone who uses a weapon get an ability modifier plus a bonus from weapon proficiency? In our game this has made it so the cleric feels she never hits anything, and statistically she is right: she is much less likely to hit than any of the martial classes. It has made her want to totally abandon her devoted cleric build and restart with a battle cleric, just so she can hit things once in a while.
So I ask: why should weapon-based powers be so much better than implement-based powers? It seems to me that even non-magical implements should add a proficiency bonus of, say, +2. To balance things out, I'm considering adding a house rule to this effect for non-magical implements, and continuing to add this bonus to attacks for magical implements as well.
There's a simple reason for this. Open your MM and look up the monsters' defenses. You'll likely find out that the monsters' AC is always two or three points higher than some of their other defenses. Now look at what defenses Implement and Weapon powers target - there are very few Weapon attacks that target anything else than AC and probably even fewer Implement attacks that don't target Fort, Ref or Will.
There's a simple reason for this. Open your MM and look up the monsters' defenses. You'll likely find out that the monsters' AC is always two or three points higher than some of their other defenses. Now look at what defenses Implement and Weapon powers target - there are very few Weapon attacks that target anything else than AC and probably even fewer Implement attacks that don't target Fort, Ref or Will.
No wizard powers target AC. I am pretty sure no other cleric, warlock, or paladin implement powers target AC, but would need double check that. At most a very few do. Giving an additional bonus to people who use implements will unbalance the game.
Non "magical" Implements are there for wizards to use and for flavor and so that people can enchant "magic" ones. If you want to make a +1 wand you need to start out with a regular wand to enchant it. My 1st level cleric did not buy a holy symbol at creation and I had to go back to town to buy one in order to get one for our wizard to enchant when I had the money to do so.
There's a simple reason for this. Open your MM and look up the monsters' defenses. You'll likely find out that the monsters' AC is always two or three points higher than some of their other defenses. Now look at what defenses Implement and Weapon powers target - there are very few Weapon attacks that target anything else than AC and probably even fewer Implement attacks that don't target Fort, Ref or Will.
This makes sense, thanks. I think that the reason she has been having so much trouble is that they have been playing KoTS which is initially filled with kobolds, who have unusually high REF, while most of her powers target REF. e.g.
Kobold Slinger: AC 13 FORT 12 REF 14 WIL 12
Using http://www.anwu.org/games/dice_calc.html , I calculate that her +3 vs REF Lance of faith only has a 50% chance of hitting the slinger. However, a rogue who uses his shuriken on a Deft Strike gets +6 (+3 DEX +3 weapon proficiency vs AC) has a 70% chance of hitting. That's almost twice as many misses on average for the cleric (50% versus 30%).
But on the other hand:
Kobold Dragonshield: AC 18 FORT 14 REF 13 WIL 13
She has a 55% chance of hitting with her Lance of Faith while the rogue only has a 45% chance of hitting.
I just need to help her understand that her ability to hit with these powers depends on how well the person she is targeting can jump out of the way, and thus she will be far better at big slow tanks (soldiers and brutes) than nimble flankers and (artillery and skirmishers). We'll also have to get her a magical implement as soon as possible.
It does seem to me that a first-level cleric (or wizard) who has +3 vs REF will never have much more than a 50-60% chance of hitting, since the lowest REF I've seen for a first level monster is around 12. Compare that to 70% or higher for lightly armored foes with +3 proficiency weapons such as shurikens and long swords.
In fact, I went ahead and got some statistics of all the defenses of the level 1 monsters out there:
Name---------------AC----FORT--REF---WILL
Halfling Slinger---15----12----15----13
Kobold Slinger-----13----12----14----12
Dire rat-----------15----15----13----11
Fire Beetle--------13----13----12----11
Goblin Blackblade--16----12----14----11
Stirge-------------15----12----13----10
Decrepit Skeleton--16----13----14----13
Giant rat----------15----13----15----12
Goblin Cutter------16----12----14----11
Kobold Minion------15----11----13----11
Goblin Warrior-----17----13----15----12
Kobold Skirmisher--15----11----14----13
Spiretop Drake-----16----11----14----13
Stormclaw Scorpion-16----14----12----11
--------------------------------------
AVERAGE------------15.21-12.43-13.71-11.71
Average + to hit---5-----3-----3-----3
Average % hit------53.93-57.86-51.43-61.43
(The above formatting is the only way I could think of to keep the table aligned as the forum strips out whitespace)
This shows that, for all level 1 monsters (except the riding horse), a bonus of +5 to AC is only slightly better than a +3 bonus to REF. However, what is striking is that for level 1 monsters attacks versus FORT and WILL (that is, warlock attacks) are 10% more likely to hit than those versus reflex. So, at least for level 1 monsters, it is very very good to be a warlock. It probably is the case (I would hope) that at higher levels this would start to balance out considerably more. Shouldn't be too hard to check, just takes time.
It does seem to me that a first-level cleric (or wizard) who has +3 vs REF will never have much more than a 50-60% chance of hitting, since the lowest REF I've seen for a first level monster is around 12. Compare that to 70% or higher for lightly armored foes with +3 proficiency weapons such as shurikens and long swords.
May I present you the Zombie: A level 2 brute (or level 3 minion) with a delectable Reflex 9 (and a Radiant vulnerability to go with that).
Your cleric will love them... in a non-loving way.
May I present you the Zombie: A level 2 brute (or level 3 minion) with a delectable Reflex 9 (and a Radiant vulnerability to go with that).
Your cleric will love them... in a non-loving way.
Ah yes, I forgot - clerics will slice through the undead like radiant damage through hot zombie flesh.
The thing that bothers me about 4E is that when stripped of all equipment, wizards and warlocks can still operate at almost full potential while other classes are significantly underpowered. I makes situations like when I throw a wizard into a mundain cell and he can still dimension door out, or burn a house down with scorching burst. It just doesn't seem right. It's like locking up an archer, while letting him keep his bow and arrows. I would just like it if there were some way to take away a wizard's or warlock's attack power like how I can take away an archer's weapons.
Not that hard actually, you just need to think what you would do to neutralize them within the abilities of the guards, realistically, if a wizard was captured and imprisoned then the guards would take appropriate measures to ensure they can't escape or cast spells, with varying degrees of effectiveness of course, these would range from the mundane to the super-ordinary. For some examples.
Dimension Door, Invisibility: Chain the caster to a solid object, such as the fllor, he can't teleport anywhere while so anchored is a reasonable rule, and being invisible will do him no good either.
Blasting down buildins with powerful magic, simply placing the wizard in a small stone room with no windows is enough to neutrlize this power, since such blasts will at best only catch himslef in the blast radius or bring the roof down on him. Being blindfolded also illiminated his ability to effectively target his spells.
Hostages are also an effective approach. Escaping or using his powers could result in the death of his comrades, imprisoned seperately.
Some races can teleport at will, that is easily dealt with by having them bound, they will still be bound when they teleport, they can also only shift so far, so dropping them into a hole that is deeper then they can teleport effectively solves that problem.
Wizard, chained to the bottom of a deep well is about all it would take to nuetralize.
Chain the caster to a solid object, such as the fllor, he can't teleport anywhere while so anchored is a reasonable rule
Actually, it isn't. Chaining people up somewhere is generally considered to be Restraining them - and restrained explicitly allows teleporting powers to work.
Teleportation
Line of Sight - You have to be able to see your destination.
Going off of RAW, if you bind their hands and put them in a blindfold, they can't teleport anywhere. (Binding their hands is simply to keep the blindfold on.)
Actually, it isn't. Chaining people up somewhere is generally considered to be Restraining them - and restrained explicitly allows teleporting powers to work.
Yes, but it is a matter of samantics here. Being restrained (being unable to move) is different then being restrained to, (unable to be moved from.) It is imo a reasonable interpretation by the DM to make that distinction, at the very least it is realistic and certainly more balanced then anti-magic fields.
If a caster was hog tied, they could still teleport. However at their distination they would still be hogtied. A Caster teleports with whatever gear they have in their possession, explicitly what they are wearing. Thus a caster wearing handcuffs would be teleported with those handcuffs.
The caster is wearing a chain which is physically part of the dungeon, that chain is in the caster's possession and thus it must be teleported with it, however being physically part of the dungeon the caster cannot teleport the chain. Since the caster cannot teleport the chain, he also cannot teleport himself while he is forceably attached to it. He is restrained to the dungeon by the chain and not simply restrained.
The caster can teleport even if restrained, but not when restrained to something that he can't teleport. Being held by another person isn't being restrained to something, since that person cannot be said to be in the casters possession (unless of course the caster wants to teleport them, in which case I believe they can resist)
My point being is that DMs can neutralize casters that are captured without going to silly extremes or nerfing casters overly. Anti-magic fields are unbalanced and very illogical, since it makes no sence to to an anit-magic field in a prison but nowhere else considering how every useful such a field would be. It's lameness to go to such extremes.
However if the players dispute a simply rulling as to teleportation while restrained to a wall, then the DM can simply ask the player how exactly a guard would go about neutralizing a caster then. Considering that the option of KILLING the caster is the most prudent course if they can't be imprisoned then I am pretty sure the player will concede that the ruling is really in their best interest.
Unless they're magic chains which prevent teleporting, which are a level 17 item in the PHB designed for this express purpose.
Or... you know, bag over the head.
.
Or... you know, bag over the head.
Isn't that what I said? Did I go invisible again? lol :P
Isn't that what I said? Did I go invisible again?
You did. They didn't seem to be listening, so I thought maybe a new poster would help.
Like jumping into a bar fight really.
You did. They didn't seem to be listening, so I thought maybe a new poster would help.
Like jumping into a bar fight really.
Bag over the head is considered inhumane
Even if one of the PC's can teleport out, the others are likely still stuck. The guy who gets out still has to figure out how to get the rest of the party out, too. Likely if one guy escapes, he is not capable of completing the adventure all by himself, especially without equipment to boost his attacks and defences. I guess I should just look at what is possible and have fun with that rather than trying to make things (like escape) impossible.
I've been thinking about this issue and I'm beginning to feel that there are some positives for wizards and warlocks being able to use powers while stripped of their equipment. I recall one of the very first modules that I bought back in the 80's where the adventure started off with the PC's captured and put into a cell with their equipment taken away and stored nearby. Spellcasters who have spells prepared (with no material components) can still use spells to help them in escaping. If you're going to put the PC's in a cell, it means part of the adventure is getting out and that can be fun to play.
Even if one of the PC's can teleport out, the others are likely still stuck. The guy who gets out still has to figure out how to get the rest of the party out, too. Likely if one guy escapes, he is not capable of completing the adventure all by himself, especially without equipment to boost his attacks and defences. I guess I should just look at what is possible and have fun with that rather than trying to make things (like escape) impossible.
I don't think people are tring to make escape impossible, just thst they want escape to be more of a cooperative effort. I personally think it's a moment to let specialized characters shine in the things they do well.
The point of implements (after you get at least a +1 one) is that you need them to hit monsters. Go ahead and take away your 12th level party's implements...no one will hit ANYTHING. Magic bonuses from armor, implements, and weapons are factored into the math of the game - you need those bonuses to stay competitive.
Disclaimer: I didn't read past the first 4-5 posts. Sorry if this has been addressed.
The point of implements (after you get at least a +1 one) is that you need them to hit monsters. Go ahead and take away your 12th level party's implements...no one will hit ANYTHING. Magic bonuses from armor, implements, and weapons are factored into the math of the game - you need those bonuses to stay competitive.
Reading the first post would have helped - the question was purely directed at non-enchanted implements.
Reading the first post would have helped - the question was purely directed at non-enchanted implements.
Also, the intial post was in regard to low level play. Implements at 12th level are an entirely different matter.
What kind of criminals are your characters?
Running feycandy from Grum to Peloria, no doubt.
@{O_O}@
Shame on you all. A good adventurer has no reason to be in jail. And if he was ever put in jail, he would sit quietly and wait to be released.
What kind of criminals are your characters?
Running feycandy from Grum to Peloria, no doubt.
@{O_O}@
I actually ran a game where one of the PC's were put in jail. Villian tried to frame the PC, the PC used his abilities to escape the framing, then the PC freely admits to the guards that the murder weapon belonged to him.
It actually turned out pretty well as he had an interesting encounter with a fellow inmate (not related to the villian). The PC ended framing him for something else.
Don't mis-read me. I just don't get where the need for implements comes into play for Wizards and Warlocks, especially at level 1, when you can't get a magic implement.
Did I miss the enhancement that a non-magical implement offers? As far as I can tell, an implement only confers a bonus if it's magical, and you can still cast powers without an implement. Unless I'm missing something, that means you can just fire off a power without bothering to get an implement in the first place. On top of that, you can probably keep your weapon equipped in your main hand, and make basic attacks without having to worry about dropping your implement first.
Plus, I don't know what the difference is between the different implements, except that a staff can be used asa quarterstaff. Say I'm playing a Warlock. Is there any benefit to carrying a wand over a rod or vice versa, besides any price difference? Theonly reason I see to even bother buying an implement is so you can enhance it yourself, but at that, I'd just save my money until I needed to buy an implement to give me a bonus.
A little help?
you can use a staff as a quterstaff
but other than that its a fancy stick
you can use a staff as a quterstaff
but other than that its a fancy stick
Re-read my third section of text. You even quoted it. I said that very thing.
It's because in the future, there will be more classes.
In this unforeseen future, some of these new classes that don't exist yet may or may not have some equivalent of the Wizard's Implement Masteries, only with rods and/or holy symbols.
For the possibility of adding these guys, and for the simple reason that it doesn't hurt any (other than inspire people to start discussions like these), the non-magical holy symbols, rods etc were introduced into the gear.
That's all.
why should weapon-based powers be so much better than implement-based powers? It seems to me that even non-magical implements should add a proficiency bonus of, say, +2.
Implement-based powers target non-AC defenses, which it has been shown is the equivalent of giving an average of +3 to hit to the attack roll. (averaging the different defenses of all the monsters in the MM... I'll try to find the thread where this is discussed).
If you give non-magical implements a +2 on top, you're going to be having +2 on attacks that target a defense which is on average -3 to AC, which means you'll effectively be fighting with a +5.
There are many and plenty of exceptions of course, but this is true in general.
Implement-based powers target non-AC defenses, which it has been shown is the equivalent of giving an average of +3 to hit to the attack roll. (averaging the different defenses of all the monsters in the MM... I'll try to find the thread where this is discussed).
If you give non-magical implements a +2 on top, you're going to be having +2 on attacks that target a defense which is on average -3 to AC, which means you'll effectively be fighting with a +5.
There are many and plenty of exceptions of course, but this is true in general.
Ok, there's something I hadn't thought of. My question does still remain, though, since the PH states for all spellcasting classes currently available that not having an implement does not hinder the use of those powers.
I'm not talking about implement-based powers, I'm talking about the implements themselves. If the PH says they're not necessary, does that not de facto make them useless? It feels to me as though a centaur were attempting to justify owning a steed.
Ok, there's something I hadn't thought of. My question does still remain, though, since the PH states for all spellcasting classes currently available that not having an implement does not hinder the use of those powers.
I'm not talking about implement-based powers, I'm talking about the implements themselves. If the PH says they're not necessary, does that not de facto make them useless? It feels to me as though a centaur were attempting to justify owning a steed.
1: Wizards and future classes who can make use of non-magic implements via class features.
2: As a base for creating magical implements.
3: Flavour.
1: Wizards and future classes who can make use of non-magic implements via class features.
2: As a base for creating magical implements.
3: Flavour.
OK...
1. Non-magic implements? Am I missing something? Do you mean wands, staves, orbs, etc. that confer absolutely no bonus to use? Think about this. If you go through the PHB, and eliminate all mentions of the word implement, except as they relate to magic implements, spellcasting classes aren't affected at all.
2. I mentioned that arleady. So far, I see that as the only reason to buy an implement at all. So, from the outset, unless you're going to use your staff as a quarterstaff, there's no reason to even consider implements.
3. Again. It's been said. Not really all that useful.
OK...1. Non-magic implements? Am I missing something? Do you mean wands, staves, orbs, etc. that confer absolutely no bonus to use? Think about this. If you go through the PHB, and eliminate all mentions of the word implement, except as they relate to magic implements, spellcasting classes aren't affected at all.
Yes, you are missing something, it's already been mentioned before. Look at the wizard entry under "arcane implement mastery", and notice sentences like "you can use your orb" and "you must wield your wand" (not "magic orb" or "magic wand"). Wizards don't need their implement to use their powers, but they do need it to use their implement mastery feature. And in the future, it's very likely that other classes will be released with similar features, or new feats for clerics and warlocks requiring the use of implements. So it makes sense to provide the price for a basic implement.
The Implement Mastery thing does answer my question, though. Thank you, and the same to all those who mentioned it before, but I didn't get what they were saying.