D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
By that logic, the much greater damage options of weapon-using strikers also devalue all non-damaging spells. No?
No, because you are comparing different classes with different sets of powers. When you say "OK, wizard, you can do more damage if you have superior implement X" then that relatively devalues all the wizard's power options that don't involve doing damage. Theoretically improved weapon damage options devalue non-damaging weapon attack powers, but since these virtually don't exist its a moot point. There are a goodly number of spells OTOH which don't do damage.
Quote:
I think the space is in exclusivity -- the key to things like this (and to diferent weapon types, and to racial feats and multiclass feats and dragonmarks and channel divinity feats) is that rather than presenting a single upgrade set, you present a set of exclusive upgrades -- thus, sure, as a whole you're upping the power available, if you do your job right, none of the options are clear winners compared to the others. The current space for implement prof is because there's a clean void on the implement side where on the martial side you've got not only superior weapons, but weapon type specific feats, weapon-specific multiclass feats, etc. The implement side has nice things like the White Lotus feats, but exclusive feats are allowed to be better than stackable things, for very good reasons.
The way -I- would do it is that rather than having a superior implement at all, you have a bunch of implement specific feats, each of which is exclusive (eg, an Implement Mastery by another name). Take it, and all implements of that type are much better for you in some way. Another option is to have proficiencies (and superior implements don't get their specials for you if you don't have proficiency in them, or something). But there's certainly space in the design -- particularly since you can support pretty much any type (one space I didn't hit was an implement that gave save penalties, but that's another obvious place to go).
There's nothing wrong with presenting different ways to up damage, but in the end how many really need to exist? Superior weapons HAD to exist because the game needs to provide mechanics for a whole range of real world weapon options which players are going to expect to be present in the game. Having a progression short sword -> long sword -> bastard sword isn't really optional. No such logic applies to implements since the designers are free to decide what does and doesn't exist in the game WRT implements.
I'm not sure I really hold with the concept that weapon users have been extra specially favored overall either. They have a bit more in the way of stacking various damage (and to some extent to-hit) bonuses, but weapon based powers ARE fundamentally more limited. Casters have AoE type effects, a lot more ability to impose conditions of various kinds, etc. I'll grant you that weaplement use has opened up a kind of a hole in the rules that casters can crawl through to get some of the best of both worlds, but at least its a very feat intensive process. I think it would be fine to throw in some feats to put regular implements on par with that and I guess we'll see if superior implements are going to do that but I don't really get why they need to be a whole new class of equipment or what that buys us. Seems to me its a whole new subsystem that has little mechanical justification and the effort and page count might be better spent on something else instead.
Anyway, we'll see what the scoop is when PHB3 comes out. I'm not anticipating anything amazing but I'll be perfectly happy if they've managed to figure out some clever new thing that really adds to the game.
Superior weapons HAD to exist because the game needs to provide mechanics for a whole range of real world weapon options which players are going to expect to be present in the game.
Not really; OD&D had all weapons do 1d6.
In theory, they could have made differences between weapons entirely a matter of class features and feats. But D&D's history is that weapons are different, and they wanted the widgetness.
Similarly (and importantly) the whole point of implements was to make casters more like weapon users mechanically, thus letting the same reward structure and math cover both. AFAICT, they initially had the idea of implements being "similar but different" -- with more controller secondaries, no inherent damage, and more rider effects. In the end, this has (IMO, anyway) proved to be a bad decision (a good thing to change for 4.5 ; given the accretion of feats and powers, weapons end up with the best of both worlds: more damage, -and- a much greater variation in inherent properties (there are 6 implements; there are over 40 distinct weapons. Hmm), enchants (most weapon enchants affect -categories- of weapons; most implement enchants affect specific implements. Thus most weapon enchants are available to all weapon users, with at most a feat, whereas most implement enchants...aren't) -- without a significant difference in how many status effects (etc) are available.
In a perfect world, the distinction would be eroded, with the "combo" types being a superior implement type with enchants layered on top, not a specific implement enchantment that precluded other enchantments (songblades do this OK, as there are at least a good variety of types. Every other combo? Not so much, and rather than having every implement power have a specific damage die, use the same rules as weapons do; implements have their own keywords and damage dice, so you can go with wands for more accuracy, staves for more defense, or (for instance) orbs for more damage, etc, with the idea that wizards, for example, care more about their implement than other casters being layered on top of this.
Now, in fact, without a reboot, we're not going to get there from here; you'd need to rewrite every implement ability and replace the fixed damage with [w] construction. But it's possible to give implements -more- of the feel and flexibility of weapons, and one hopes they eventually will.
It seems to me like the direction for sup. implements would either be in expanding/extending the implement effect riders for those classes that have them, or something like the Invoker's Covenant Manifestations - effects inherent in the implement, conditional on some reasonable tag* (in effect, adding riders to large classes of powers).
Altering the powers themselves is problematic for lots of reasons!
But since there's a structure in place for how implements are advantaged - riders, mostly - there's design space to make that into a field of variation that can rival that of a weapon user.
*: E.g. damage keywords, range types, other keywords, number/nature of targets, target positions, etc.
Now, in fact, without a reboot, we're not going to get there from here; you'd need to rewrite every implement ability and replace the fixed damage with [w] construction. But it's possible to give implements -more- of the feel and flexibility of weapons, and one hopes they eventually will.
You're right, it would take a reboot to fix implements.
The first thing superior implements need to do is work with all the powers, or at least all the powers of one power source. The most glaring hole in the system is that a Wizard who learns Vicious Mockery power cant use his staff to boost it. He has to pull out a wand or find a Songblade. There should be some for of proficiency mechanic for implements instead of "this power only works with this implement"
__________________ Marshall
-
Insanity is my only means of relaxation
No, because you are comparing different classes with different sets of powers. When you say "OK, wizard, you can do more damage if you have superior implement X" then that relatively devalues all the wizard's power options that don't involve doing damage. Theoretically improved weapon damage options devalue non-damaging weapon attack powers, but since these virtually don't exist its a moot point. There are a goodly number of spells OTOH which don't do damage.
First, truth is, there really aren't that many "spells" (and I have to assume here you are incorrectly using that word to refer to all implement powers) that don't inflict damage.
Secondly, this logic of this argument is kinda questionable. If you picked a non-damaging power, you hopefully employed enough judgment to accept that you're getting a benefit that's worth foregoing the damage provided by other powers (said benefit typically being to give somebody else a good opportunity to inflict more damage on the target). And in so doing you're not just foregoing the damage expressly mentioned in those other powers, but also any damage boosts they might receive from class features, racial features, feats, magic items, utility powers, and anything else that might come down the pike.
In short, the much-needed damage boost implement users need shouldn't be forestalled even an instant based on some notion that a minority of non-damaging powers exist and have a value that's inherently depended on damaging powers remaining static in their output.
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with presenting different ways to up damage, but in the end how many really need to exist? Superior weapons HAD to exist because the game needs to provide mechanics for a whole range of real world weapon options which players are going to expect to be present in the game. Having a progression short sword -> long sword -> bastard sword isn't really optional. No such logic applies to implements since the designers are free to decide what does and doesn't exist in the game WRT implements.
Just one moment, please. We HAD to have fullblades and greatbows? A six-foot long sword or bow doesn't cut it? Gotta find another way to add a foot or two, or it simply isn't proper sword-and-sorcery?
What's that I hear someone say? Fullblades HAD to come into existence to give the greatsword the same boost that the longsword got from bastard swords? And of course, then we HAD to have greatspears, executioner axes, and mordenkrads to let other weapon groups keep up with the boost to heavy blades? And then to balance ranged weapon attacks against all those superior melee weapons, we HAD to have greatbows? It's all one big domino effect?
True, very true. Now don't you see where this is going? The genie is out of the bottle. We HAVE to have superior implements to give the lads with the wands and staves and totems a damage boost that they need so badly. In fact, they need it most of all, since implement damage is trailing behind weapon damage even when compared to those measly, worthless military weapons that no self-respecting ranger would be caught dead with. Even a lame old greataxe does a d12 damage--virtually unheard of in any implement-using powerset! For an implement-user, getting to roll a d10 is the epitome of raw power. For a weapon-user, it's a paycut you gracefully accepted because you want to use a shield.
As has been noted, superior weapons did not "have" to come into existence, at least not in the form of what they ultimately became: unilateral damage boosts. Indeed, 4e's design in general shies away from across-the-board benefits. But now that they're here, it's high-time the dominoes started falling in the direction of implement-users.
Quote:
I'm not sure I really hold with the concept that weapon users have been extra specially favored overall either. They have a bit more in the way of stacking various damage (and to some extent to-hit) bonuses, but weapon based powers ARE fundamentally more limited. Casters have AoE type effects, a lot more ability to impose conditions of various kinds, etc.
You ought to take a closer look, because what you're espousing is pure misconception. Weapon powers can get AOE, they can get multiple attacks, they can target NADs, they can slow, immobilize, daze, weaken, deal ongoing damage, even knock unconscious (stinkin' rogues killin' my solos before they can rev up!).. Don't mistake what's been cut out from a class for a limitation on weapons.
Last edited by Felon; 31st October 2009 at 05:18 AM..
Hopefully they will let implement users catch up to all the lovin' that weapon users get. Bracers of Iron Might, magical ammunition, brutal/high crit/etc. weapon properties all make my wizard jealous.
Right, it's really that simple. Call it balance, parity, arms race, class envy, or what have you. Bottom line is, it's out-of-whack when you got one at-will power doing a d6, and then you got another doing 2d6 and re-rolling 1's and 2's, and none of this is tied to class role or anything else beyond a delivery method. It's screwy and needs fixin'.
That would only work if you took the expertise feats out as well -- since I can't think of too many players who wouldn't gladly break the math in their favor (and then complain about easy encounters).
You don't necessarily have to get rid of the expertise feats, just make superior implements and either/or choice.
An interesting alternative is if superior implements gave a static to-hit bonus but could not have expertise feats for them.
A static bonus to hit and dmg and/or maybe some other minor bonuses wouldn't be too much compared to expertise feats.
That way you'd provide an more flavorful alternative to the boring "math fix" feats.
You don't necessarily have to get rid of the expertise feats, just make superior implements and either/or choice.
An interesting alternative is if superior implements gave a static to-hit bonus but could not have expertise feats for them.
A static bonus to hit and dmg and/or maybe some other minor bonuses wouldn't be too much compared to expertise feats.
That way you'd provide an more flavorful alternative to the boring "math fix" feats.
Trading in a feat that gives you a bonus for a feat that allows you to use an item with that bonus.
....
Not really a great solution. There's no real trade off.
You're right, it would take a reboot to fix implements.
The first thing superior implements need to do is work with all the powers, or at least all the powers of one power source. The most glaring hole in the system is that a Wizard who learns Vicious Mockery power cant use his staff to boost it. He has to pull out a wand or find a Songblade. There should be some for of proficiency mechanic for implements instead of "this power only works with this implement"
Yeah, the implement rules are a mess. Whatever happened to the general paragon level feat that was mentioned in the previews to turn any weapon into an implement? Likewise the terrible ruling that feats that are clearly weapon-related like two-weapon fighting and weapon focus work on 'weapon implements' is just bad. It works and is fair to prevent someone like a swordmage from needing to take the feat twice, but a better solution should exist, because it just makes them much better. Add superior weapons and the huge mess that is multi-class implement use and it's just a mess.
The hybred implement rules are pretty okay, this should be the standard and implements need a proficiency system. In fact it's even more glaring when you think about weapon prof: Anyone can use a bastard sword, they just don't get the +3 to hit. But a wizard can never, ever, EVER use a holy symbol for magic missile.
The implement list has too many stupid redundancies. Since they have almost no mechanical distinction most implements seem to exist for wizards to have choices and everyone else to shudder at the through of multiclassing. Why do we have wands, tomes, orbs, rods and totems? They're all a one-hand implement that doesn't function as a weapon. Wands at least have their niche (they store powers), the rest of the list could be merged and it wouldn't really affect anything. Likewise 'Holy Symbol' means we're getting another implement if they ever want a non-divine class to have the hands free option (aside from Ki Focus, which is actually cool and flavor full and unique enough to deserve it's own spot). Sounds like the finally figured out that this was bad with Psionics, but it's pretty late now.
__________________ "I took a risk... and I ended up in the bag of holding" -the player of Ian Whitefire (deceased)
Let's tack something else on that gets taken for granted: basic attacks. Any weapon-using class essentially has a free at-will power. Meanwhile, an implement-dependent character has to spend one of his two at-wills to get a basic attack that he can use with his magic implement of choice. And that at-will typically sucks---magic missile and eldritch blast are mediocre-damage, no-effect garbage. The intent seems to have been to put them on even keel with a longbow basic attack (something a ranger takes utterly for granted).
A much better solution IMO would have been to give an implement-user a gratis basic attack. Either that, or make the basic attack pretty decent, not just try to make it on-par with a military weapon's average damage.
First, truth is, there really aren't that many "spells" (and I have to assume here you are incorrectly using that word to refer to all implement powers) that don't inflict damage.
More than you seem to think.
The point still stands, its not good design to railroad powers into only one possible viable way of working. If you haven't paid attention one of the primary complaints with 4e is the virtual impossibility of making decent non-damage-centric powers and every "lets throw a bit more bonus damage on them" rule just makes the situation worse. Its bad design, pure and simple.
Quote:
Secondly, this logic of this argument is kinda questionable. If you picked a non-damaging power, you hopefully employed enough judgment to accept that you're getting a benefit that's worth foregoing the damage provided by other powers (said benefit typically being to give somebody else a good opportunity to inflict more damage on the target). And in so doing you're not just foregoing the damage expressly mentioned in those other powers, but also any damage boosts they might receive from class features, racial features, feats, magic items, utility powers, and anything else that might come down the pike.
No, I would expect that the design of the game will not continue to evolve in such a way that it continues to devalue my choices more and more. At some point these choices were designed to be equivalent choices to powers which primarily do damage. Every time you effectively up the damage of every damage dealing power you devalue the ones that don't. Even powers which do only minor amounts of damage and are primarily focused on status effects and such become relatively devalued as status effects themselves mean less and less when you can pile on enough damage to just kill things outright in a hit or two. There's nothing at all questionable about my logic, it is absolutely and utterly straightforward.
Quote:
Just one moment, please. We HAD to have fullblades and greatbows? A six-foot long sword or bow doesn't cut it? Gotta find another way to add a foot or two, or it simply isn't proper sword-and-sorcery?
What's that I hear someone say? Fullblades HAD to come into existence to give the greatsword the same boost that the longsword got from bastard swords? And of course, then we HAD to have greatspears, executioner axes, and mordenkrads to let other weapon groups keep up with the boost to heavy blades? And then to balance ranged weapon attacks against all those superior melee weapons, we HAD to have greatbows? It's all one big domino effect?
This is a straw man argument. I never mentioned fullblades and greatbows. However if you actually take a minute to examine the situation you will see that 3 grades of weapons are a logical and even necessary outgrowth of the game design. Simple weapons pretty much have to exist as "those weapons pretty much anyone can pick up and use with minimal training". Military weapons then simply must exist as the contrasting set of weapons most people aren't exposed to without training and won't normally know how to pick up and use to full effectiveness. Superior weapons naturally then arise as that class of weapons that even your ordinary warrior won't instantly be familiar with. Its simply the natural consequence of the whole design. Its possible they could have done away with the whole notion of these weapon grades and just had every class spell out an exhaustive list of what weapons they could use (not great if you consider new ones are likely to be added).
Now, I can think of other alternate possibilities but fullblades and greatbows certainly work. Notice they weren't even included in the core rules and I suspect the original design never contemplated them. Because weapons have a lot of factors attached to them it was possible to easily extend the base weapon system to accomodate a class of weapons that really can be thought of more as trading a feat for even greater weapon skill. Its also kind of inevitable that players will want to have "a really really huge sword" vs just "a great big sword". Again this kind of logic does not apply at all to implements. Nobody asks for "a really really huge wand".
Quote:
True, very true. Now don't you see where this is going? The genie is out of the bottle. We HAVE to have superior implements to give the lads with the wands and staves and totems a damage boost that they need so badly. In fact, they need it most of all, since implement damage is trailing behind weapon damage even when compared to those measly, worthless military weapons that no self-respecting ranger would be caught dead with. Even a lame old greataxe does a d12 damage--virtually unheard of in any implement-using powerset! For an implement-user, getting to roll a d10 is the epitome of raw power. For a weapon-user, it's a paycut you gracefully accepted because you want to use a shield.
Except that the powers spellcasters are using were DESIGNED with that in mind. You're fixated on the size of damage dice and you aren't looking past that. Spellcasters are doing fine. They are quite effective. In fact I would say they were almost a bit on the high side on day 1, especially at higher levels where conditions and other effects still predominate over raw damage. Talk to people who are experienced at playing beyond 15th level and they'll gladly tell you the same thing I've observed, that wizard you don't think much of is suddenly a very bad dude you don't want to mess with.
In fact with all the weaplement tricks that have opened up of late its a good thing that melee has gotten a decent boost. Its ironic that a lot of those boosts manage to apply to casters too if they get a bit clever but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
I would never argue that the rules for implements aren't a mess, but adding in another implement subsystem is the anti-fix. It will just make the situation even worse or at best not fix it. The problem isn't an issue of balance between melee and casting, its an issue of the rules for implements are simply byzantine and filled with stupid pitfalls that randomly nerf certain builds for no logical reason. No amount of patches to the core rules is going to make that mess go away and applying additional crap on top of existing crap will just make it even less intelligible and logical. WotC should just walk away from the implement mess, chalk it up to experience, and let the whole festering thing lie. At least we can manage to work around its existing misfeatures. Who knows how much worse they'll make it if they mess with it more? There is ZERO track record in 4e so far of it getting any better.
The point still stands, its not good design to railroad powers into only one possible viable way of working. If you haven't paid attention one of the primary complaints with 4e is the virtual impossibility of making decent non-damage-centric powers and every "lets throw a bit more bonus damage on them" rule just makes the situation worse. Its bad design, pure and simple.
Bad design is putting such discrepencies in place to begin with. Bad follow-up design is deciding not to address a major discrepency for fear that it might result in some minor discrepency. Right now, the damage of an implement-user is devalued in its relation to weapon damage, and that's much more prominent than the argumentative devaluement of a smattering of hedge powers.
Quote:
This is a straw man argument. I never mentioned fullblades and greatbows. However if you actually take a minute to examine the situation you will see that 3 grades of weapons are a logical and even necessary outgrowth of the game design. Simple weapons pretty much have to exist as "those weapons pretty much anyone can pick up and use with minimal training". Military weapons then simply must exist as the contrasting set of weapons most people aren't exposed to without training and won't normally know how to pick up and use to full effectiveness. Superior weapons naturally then arise as that class of weapons that even your ordinary warrior won't instantly be familiar with. Its simply the natural consequence of the whole design. Its possible they could have done away with the whole notion of these weapon grades and just had every class spell out an exhaustive list of what weapons they could use (not great if you consider new ones are likely to be added).
Now, I can think of other alternate possibilities but fullblades and greatbows certainly work. Notice they weren't even included in the core rules and I suspect the original design never contemplated them. Because weapons have a lot of factors attached to them it was possible to easily extend the base weapon system to accomodate a class of weapons that really can be thought of more as trading a feat for even greater weapon skill. Its also kind of inevitable that players will want to have "a really really huge sword" vs just "a great big sword". Again this kind of logic does not apply at all to implements. Nobody asks for "a really really huge wand".
I would've snipped this quote down a bit, but I want to present it in its full glory for what it comes across as: two huge paragraphs of pure conjecture about what's "inevitable" what's "unnecessary", and trying to pass off this "mandatory" stratification as taking precedence over game balance. The discrepency between weapons and implements, on the other hand, is a matter of math. Let me go ahead and just crush your whole supposition: I'm asking for a really, really huge wand, or anything else that'll fix the damage discrepency. Other people in this thread are asking for it. So, there you go.
Quote:
Except that the powers spellcasters are using were DESIGNED with that in mind. You're fixated on the size of damage dice and you aren't looking past that. Spellcasters are doing fine. They are quite effective. In fact I would say they were almost a bit on the high side on day 1, especially at higher levels where conditions and other effects still predominate over raw damage.
OK, I'm game. let's look past damage. What else do you want to look at? You've already had it explained to you that it's fallacious to suggest that weapon-users can't inflict status conditions, or attack multiple targets, or NADs. So, are you just in denial? What assets put them on the "high side on day 1"?
The class I've been playing since day 1 is the warlock. Its damage output is quantifiably awful compared to virtually any weapon-using class, not even other strikers. The counter-argument I hear is that the warlock has all these great status effect powers that the weapon-using classes lack. In reality, that's a canard that's easily exposed once the rogue runs up and bonks the BBEG over the head and knocks it unconsious, typically sentencing it to death. Then he'll throw a blinding barrage, and the ranger will toss out wolverine's strike, and the claim that weapon-users don't get AOE comes crumbling apart.
Last edited by Felon; 31st October 2009 at 11:23 PM..
Y'know, I feel pretty good about saying that even though magic missile does a whopping d4 more damage than a dagger, the rogue still comes out ahead in the deal by virtue of getting his BA for free while the wizard had to cough up one of his two at-wills.
Perhaps the point was that the Rogue has to make his BA with a non-optimal stat score in melee.
Just like the Cha Paladin, the Shielding Cleric, etc.
Jay
Or for that matter, any melee character that doesn't use strength for his primary attack stat. I remember a bunch of people complaining about that when the game first came out, then complaining about stealth eratta and feat taxes when PHB2 came out with the feat that lets you swap out the ability score of your choice for basic attacks.
That actually began to make me think about the feat tax solution seriously, and I still wonder what your character will look like if you take every feat that's been dubbed "feat tax."
Perhaps the point was that the Rogue has to make his BA with a non-optimal stat score in melee.
But the dagger rogue gets two free basic attacks, a ranged one and a melee one. The ranged one is pretty good (especially when he can sneak attack with it) and while the melee one ordinarily isn't very good (unless he's a brutal rogue), there's a feat for people that are desperate for melee basic attacks. Pretty sure there's no feat to give casters ranged basic attacks, not even a 'ranged training' for wis to bow attacks etc.
Bad design is putting such discrepencies in place to begin with. Bad follow-up design is deciding not to address a major discrepency for fear that it might result in some minor discrepency. Right now, the damage of an implement-user is devalued in its relation to weapon damage, and that's much more prominent than the argumentative devaluement of a smattering of hedge powers.
No, bad practice is simply throwing in bigger plusses all over the case into a system in a misguided attempt to "fix" things. Its just a horribly bad idea. Power creep is the worst and most common issue with evolving systems. Whatever the good or bad of the original design was, more powerful implements is a terrible way to fix it at the most basic level.
Quote:
I would've snipped this quote down a bit, but I want to present it in its full glory for what it comes across as: two huge paragraphs of pure conjecture about what's "inevitable" what's "unnecessary", and trying to pass off this "mandatory" stratification as taking precedence over game balance.
I think you're missing the point, which is that the designers of the game don't have a blank slate to work from when it comes to weapons. Yes, it was essentially inevitable that weapons would form a progression of bigger badder weapons and that factor is dictated by the expectations of the people who BUY the game, lol. It isn't dictated by some game-theoretic factor. Since you're soooo obviously smarter about how this should be done than the rest of us, hey, lets see your design for a better game. I'll buy. lol. My argument stands perfectly and its entirely appropriate in this context.
Quote:
OK, I'm game. let's look past damage. What else do you want to look at? You've already had it explained to you that it's fallacious to suggest that weapon-users can't inflict status conditions, or attack multiple targets, or NADs. So, are you just in denial? What assets put them on the "high side on day 1"?
The class I've been playing since day 1 is the warlock. Its damage output is quantifiably awful compared to virtually any weapon-using class, not even other strikers. The counter-argument I hear is that the warlock has all these great status effect powers that the weapon-using classes lack. In reality, that's a canard that's easily exposed once the rogue runs up and bonks the BBEG over the head and knocks it unconsious, typically sentencing it to death. Then he'll throw a blinding barrage, and the ranger will toss out wolverine's strike, and the claim that weapon-users don't get AOE comes crumbling apart.
I never said weapon users CANNOT inflict status conditions. Where are you getting that from? If you think they have anywhere near the same facility at doing so as casters do then we're reading from different books because I've run a LOT of 4e and there is simply no contest there. Casters are dishing out status effects with practically every attack.
I'm sorry for your warlock man, but you know what? You need to pay attention to doing damage output if that's what you want to do. The starlock in the game I'm running now is consistently the highest overall damage generator. Certainly competitive with the great weapon fighter and the rogue. He has phenomenally high accuracy and just plain keeps hitting practically every round. Again, its a fixation with the big hunk of damage these melee characters dish out when they hit big, but what are they doing the rest of the time? Decent damage, but its also just damage and the rare status effect where the starlock is dropping a status effect on practically every attack.
The combat encounter I ran last night is a perfect example. The STR cleric did some pretty decent damage, and the rogue did quite a bit of damage to a soldier (canoloth) but it was the starlock that finished the job. Then he went on to knock out a runespiral demon single handed, PLUS he wiped out 2 of the 4 minions that were present and finished off a phantom soldier. Meanwhile the lowly horribly disadvantaged by the weapon users wizard disabled 3 other phantom soldiers with a zone and then hurled the BBEG into a pit with Spectral Ram (a very tough BBEG that had not been touched at all yet). Once the guy went in the pit the fight went from "we're very likely going to lose" to more or less cleanup. The psion, another of your poor disadvantaged non-weapon-using classes likewise did great damage, hitting constantly.
Now, I could pick examples of fights that were the other way around too, but oddly they are mostly examples where the casters made bad choices (wizard picks Stinking Cloud and party runs into a whole bunch of undead, lol). Weapon users have a bunch of nice features, like doing all untyped damage and simply being able to go around the battle and stop up terrain with their armored bodies. Overall I'm not finding this imbalance that needs to be rectified.
On top of that if you want to lay blame for any imbalance, don't lay it at the feet of either implements or weapons per se. Lay it at the feet of 2 items, Bloodclaw Weapon and Iron Armbands of Power. I have no sympathy for groups that give away piles of only the top items for weapon users and then complain that something is broken (unless they're complaining about those very items, but isn't that ironic...).
But the dagger rogue gets two free basic attacks, a ranged one and a melee one. The ranged one is pretty good (especially when he can sneak attack with it) and while the melee one ordinarily isn't very good (unless he's a brutal rogue), there's a feat for people that are desperate for melee basic attacks. Pretty sure there's no feat to give casters ranged basic attacks, not even a 'ranged training' for wis to bow attacks etc.
Two of the three rogue options are Str based, and dagger rogues effectively get a +4 proficiency bonus. Usually their melee basics are on par with an axe-wielding dwarf warrior for accuracy, at least.
The problem is that of the ranged attackers, only three get good ranged basics by default: rangers, seekers, and warlocks. And warlocks are just forced to take an at-will that counts as a basic. Melee types sucking with ranged basics is the rules working as intended (though don't underestimate a trident and shield fighter). And there's some magic items that can help here if you feel it's a weakness.
I've always thought magic missile should deal Int damage on a miss, to reflect it's pre-4E accuracy. Ranged basic shouldn't really 'cost' anything as far as at-wills go...
__________________ "I took a risk... and I ended up in the bag of holding" -the player of Ian Whitefire (deceased)
; given the accretion of feats and powers, weapons end up with the best of both worlds: more damage, -and- a much greater variation in inherent properties (there are 6 implements; there are over 40 distinct weapons. Hmm), enchants (most weapon enchants affect -categories- of weapons; most implement enchants affect specific implements. Thus most weapon enchants are available to all weapon users, with at most a feat, whereas most implement enchants...aren't) -- without a significant difference in how many status effects (etc) are available.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
