Dave Noonan Responds about Wizard Implements
- Thread starter Yergi
- Start date
Dragonblade
Adventurer
I just want customization to be built into the rules. Tome of Battle was great because while you could take feats that let certain weapons do better with certain disciplines, it wasn't required. I could still use any weapon I wanted with any discipline and any drawbacks were negligible unless I invested feats into it.
Thats how I want it to work with wizards. I should be able to use a wand with ANY tradition and not have any drawbacks for doing so. However, there could be some feats that allow you to specialize in one implement over another.
I have played with too many DMs who take what WotC has written as the unyielding law of the universe. Therefore, I'd prefer not to have to negotiate with my DM about using a wand with tradition X instead of an orb, for example. I'd rather have the rules open enough that I as a player can choose which implement I want to specialize in and not have that impact my choice of traditions.
Ideally, I'd prefer a more building block appreach where the PHB gives an example tradition, but basically lists out all the spells and specifically provides guidelines for building your own tradition.
In fact, WotC has mentioned before about giving players "authorial" powers over the game so that they can tinker like the DM does when not actively playing. Well, putting rules for mixing and matching implements and spells to create their own traditions right in the PHB would be a great way to do that.
Thats how I want it to work with wizards. I should be able to use a wand with ANY tradition and not have any drawbacks for doing so. However, there could be some feats that allow you to specialize in one implement over another.
I have played with too many DMs who take what WotC has written as the unyielding law of the universe. Therefore, I'd prefer not to have to negotiate with my DM about using a wand with tradition X instead of an orb, for example. I'd rather have the rules open enough that I as a player can choose which implement I want to specialize in and not have that impact my choice of traditions.
Ideally, I'd prefer a more building block appreach where the PHB gives an example tradition, but basically lists out all the spells and specifically provides guidelines for building your own tradition.
In fact, WotC has mentioned before about giving players "authorial" powers over the game so that they can tinker like the DM does when not actively playing. Well, putting rules for mixing and matching implements and spells to create their own traditions right in the PHB would be a great way to do that.
Malhost Zormaeril
First Post
Devyn said:
I'm pretty sure the deal with Implements are the Wizards' personal schtick. That is to say, Sorcerers won't have them, and likely the Clerics won't, either. That being said, I believe the Sorcerers will wind up with an average MAB about the same as a Wizard.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Sammael said:
What a friggin' nightmare.
Unfortunately I think you're spot on.
EDIT: And yet, many of us had hoped that the Traditions were more analogous to Deities, in that they granted the cleric access to certain domains.
There is a reason that we did not see endless splatbooks full of new Deities, piecing together the Domains in endless combinations: because the underlying design was already very nearly 100% efficient, and so there was nothing to be added by additional "fluff" design-- the players would have seen right through that.
The very fact that a Book of Traditions and Implements is even possible indicates that the design is either not analogous, or not as efficient. The core rules should have an efficiency that leaves nothing to further design like that.
Last edited:
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
Wulf Ratbane said:
Yes, because 3e saw a glut of Deities....
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Charwoman Gene said:
What a shame you missed my edit.
And presumably you missed this as well:
Dave Noonan said:
Similar Threads
