Implement powers from other classes

[Kzach]

Let's say I multi-class a paladin into warlock and pick up the Student of Caiphon PP. Can I use a holy symbol for the implement powers in the PP? I've never seen it written anywhere that you have to use a specific implement for implement powers, but the Character Builder (I know, not the most reliable source) isn't adding the holy symbol bonus even when equipped.

 

[CapnZapp]

Isn't this the exact question from the implement/shaman thread?

(If that is correct, the answer is, no, each class' implements can only be used for that class' powers)

 

[chitzk0i]

I've never seen it written anywhere that you have to use a specific implement for implement powers, but the Character Builder (I know, not the most reliable source) isn't adding the holy symbol bonus even when equipped.

you won't find it written anywhere because the rules don't work that way. The default position is that no one can use an implement for any powers. However, each implement-using class has a class ability that says you can use implements X, Y, and Z with your powers from that class. Paladins can use paladin implements (i.e. holy symbols) with paladin powers and becoming a warlock means you can use warlock implements with warlock powers. Check any class description. None of them "assume" you can use any particular implements; each class specifies what implements you can use and for what powers.

Incidentally, there is a holy symbol for followers of Corellon that allows you to use it as an implement for any arcane. I don't recall it's name though. Maybe... the star of Corellon?

 

[Mirtek]

Can I use a holy symbol for the implement powers in the PP?

While I have no opportunity to search for it, I strongly believe that it has been stated that PP powers are no longer tied to class specific implements. So if you qualify for a PP, you can use it implement powers with any kind of implement you're allowed to use. So yes, a paladin could use his holy symbol for the implement powers of the PP

 

[Siberys]

The wording in PHII is kinda vague about Paragon Paths. I'd say that allowing PPs to use whatever implements the character has would be reasonable, although I can't say if that's RAW.

Of course, the way I've houseruled implements is more like a proficiency system. If you can wield an implement for any reason - feat, class, etc. - you can use it for any power with the implement keyword. That keeps verbosity and ambiguity to a minimum.

 

[mneme]

While I have no opportunity to search for it, I strongly believe that it has been stated that PP powers are no longer tied to class specific implements.

I believe you believe this incorrectly.

The class feature that lets you use implements lets you use them for (class) powers and (class paragon path) powers. For instance, the wizard writeup in the compendium says that wizards can add a (wizard implement)'s bonus to attack rolls and damage roles of wizard powers, as well as wizard paragan path powers, that have the implement keyword.

So -- the rule for paragon paths is that you're allowed to use your base class's powers for them (and the feat or base class that lets you take the path will also say that you can use implements for the powers of that path). This isn't (as chit said) because it's in the general rules -- the rules don't talk about implements and strongly imply that you can't use them (you can't -- unless a feature says you can). Instead, the individual classes and feats contain the appropriate rules -- as is generally the case for exception based design.

Of course, there are some paragon classes that don't have class prereqs and therefore aren't (class) classes. As the PH2 says, you can use any implements you have access to for any of your classes for non-class paragon paths with Implement powers.

 

[Kzach]

Of course, the way I've houseruled implements is more like a proficiency system. If you can wield an implement for any reason - feat, class, etc. - you can use it for any power with the implement keyword. That keeps verbosity and ambiguity to a minimum.

This is how I would expect it to work and for the same reasons as you stated. Anything else is just unnecessarily complex as there really isn't any balance or power issue at stake.

 

[CapnZapp]

"It’s not necessary to have an implement in order to use a power that has the implement keyword."
PHB page 56

What this means is that a Paladin can use any Warlock powers he's learned, he just won't get the benefits of using his Holy Symbol while doing so.

Of course, in practice, this is a ban (except for the lowest levels, where the difference is only 1-2 points).

That this is the way WotC intends for it to work is really clear.

Don't let that stop you from using houserules, but that really is an issue for another forum (the house rules forum, that is).

 

[CapnZapp]

To address the remaining issue:

I've never seen it written anywhere that you have to use a specific implement for implement powers

"Implement: If the class can use one or more kinds of implements, that information is noted here."
PHB page 52
Note that the default assumption is that you can't use any kind of implements.

"A warlock wielding a magic rod or wand can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of warlock powers, as well as warlock paragon path powers, that have the implement keyword. Without a rod or a wand, a warlock can still use these powers, but he
or she doesn’t gain the bonus provided by the magic
implement."
PHB page 131
(This is just one out of several similar passages, one for each class)
Do note that warlock implements specifically work only for
1) warlocks
2) warlock powers

And also note that the rules address the issue when you don't have the proper implement - you can still use your powers, but you don't gain anything implement-related. (See my previous post)

So a Paladin with a Warlock power is in the exact same situation as a Warlock having lost his rod or wand.

The fact the Paladin have a Holy Symbol is in no way relevant to getting any implement-related bonuses.

And you won't see it written anywhere you need this or that, because in exception based design only the exceptions are called out.

And as your implement isn't a rod or a wand your Holy Symbol can't be used to give implement-related benefits for your Warlock powers.

This however *IS* explicitly spelled out:

"In addition, you can use a rod, a wand, or a pact blade as an implement when using a warlock power or a warlock paragon path power."
PHB page 208
Note how the multiclass feat explicitly spells out that you need a warlock's implement for your warlock powers.

As mentioned upthread, there is a way to get around this: if you choose Corellon as your patron deity, you can use a Star of Corellon, which allows you to use that holy symbol for "any arcane" powers, which obviously includes Student of Caiphon.

Do note that this is supposed to have a real cost in the game: not being able to use any other holy symbol.

So the RAW is clear:

In general, the game assumes you use a second (presumably inferior) implement for your multiclass implement powers (and copes with the inconvenience of having to keep a hand free for this purpose).

Or you pick up the specialized implement for your class that can be used for the powers you've gained by multiclassing, and thus abstains from getting any other powers and properties for your holy symbol.

Feel free to houserule this, but I agree neither to any "this is how the rules can be interpreted" claims nor to the "there isn't any balance or power issue" evaluation.

WotC clearly views flexibility as a power boost in itself, and multiclassing thus carries a real cost in lowered effectiveness to compensate. This cost is not trivial, so by houseruling you need to be aware you are removing a non-trivial cost.

 

[Mirtek]

I believe you believe this incorrectly.

You're right. I now know where I got this idea from. It was implement powers from PPs that are not tied to any class (e.g. Spellscarred), these can be used with any implement you're proficient with. Class-based PP require the implements of the respective class.