How will superior implements work?

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

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.

 

[mneme]

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.

 

[willows]

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.

 

[Marshall]

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"

 

[Felon]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Felon]

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'.

 

[N8Ball]

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.

 

[DracoSuave]

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.

 

[Destil]

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.

 

[Felon]

Preach it, brothers!

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.