Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7163834" data-attributes="member: 12731">I understand where you're coming from, but I think it would be even better if the spellcaster didn't select a &quot;weaponized&quot; implement just to be able to make Opportunity Attacks.I mean, if you have a weapon-wielding spellcaster, I'm entirely fine with allow rods and staffs to do double duty as maces and quarterstaffs.I just want the rules to encourage casters with inconsequential weapon attacks to choose non-weaponized implements, since all they lose are weak OAs.As you might imagine from the way I'm saying &quot;implement&quot; to mean focus, I like the 4E approach, where &quot;bookish&quot; wizards choose &quot;book&quot; (or wand) as their implement to signal that they don't care for weapon attacks. Another wizard might want to choose staff to signal their greater martial readiness.I entirely agree staff shouldn't be a strictly better choice than book (to take an example), even if the only gain is a weak OA.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7163834, member: 12731"] I understand where you're coming from, but I think it would be even better if the spellcaster didn't select a "weaponized" implement just to be able to make Opportunity Attacks. I mean, if you have a weapon-wielding spellcaster, I'm entirely fine with allow rods and staffs to do double duty as maces and quarterstaffs. I just want the rules to encourage casters with inconsequential weapon attacks to choose non-weaponized implements, since all they lose are weak OAs. As you might imagine from the way I'm saying "implement" to mean focus, I like the 4E approach, where "bookish" wizards choose "book" (or wand) as their implement to signal that they don't care for weapon attacks. Another wizard might want to choose staff to signal their greater martial readiness. I entirely agree staff shouldn't be a strictly better choice than book (to take an example), even if the only gain is a weak OA. [/QUOTE]

Verification