Implement powers from other classes

[Marshall]

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.

There arent any balance or power issues with allowing it.

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.

MC already carries a HUGE cost without having to come up with a random new implement to use it. The entire implement system is borked with random penalties like this.

 

[CapnZapp]

MC already carries a HUGE cost without having to come up with a random new implement to use it. The entire implement system is borked with random penalties like this.

This is your opinion.

Fact is that allowing it reduces the effort you need to gain a competitive enchantment bonus. It can be measured directly in gold coins.

There arent any balance or power issues with allowing it.

Perhaps you meant to say "I don't see any significant balance or power issues with allowing it", which is something entirely different?

Cheers,
Zapp

 

[Eric Finley]

As noted in the other thread - for reference, since no one has yet referred to it, there's a definitive and clear answer to the MC/implement question, hidden away rather annoyingly in the FRPG FAQ. Link is here, question #2.

 

[Marshall]

This is your opinion.

Fact is that allowing it reduces the effort you need to gain a competitive enchantment bonus. It can be measured directly in gold coins.


Perhaps you meant to say "I don't see any significant balance or power issues with allowing it", which is something entirely different?

Cheers,
Zapp

No.
I meant what I said exactly the way I said it.

"There aren't any." If you believe there is a balance issue, then you have to believe that MC combinations that share an implement are significantly advantaged.

They aren't, therefore its not.

 

[Destil]

There arent any balance or power issues with allowing it.

MC already carries a HUGE cost without having to come up with a random new implement to use it. The entire implement system is borked with random penalties like this.

The most ironic thing is we have a good clean weapon proficiency system that actually works just fine (anyone can use a sword, but you wouldn't want to without training) and then in the same edition got the implement system, which is as unnecessarily rigid and arbitrary and annoying as AD&D weapon proficiency.

There's no power issues associated with it. Case in point: tempest fighter can multi into rogue/ranger just fine thank you. As can a ranger go into Seeker. But a swordmage needs an extra feat to make any use of Wizard powers. And an avenger simply can't use their holy symbol to get some invoker powers.

It's a bug, it should be fixed. The hybrid implement rules are perfect, make them the default.

 

[Kzach]

Stuff.

What he said.

 

[Ryujin]

MC already carries a HUGE cost without having to come up with a random new implement to use it. The entire implement system is borked with random penalties like this.

Multi-classing isn't a curse, it's a boon (pardon the Warlock pun). Simply taking a MC typically gives you skill training, plus. Plus an at-will power as an encounter power. Plus a class feature as an encounter feature. That sort of thing.

Think of it as an opportunity to flesh out your character. Does this Paladin/Warlock use a sword in one hand and a rod in the other? Does he focus everything through a holy symbol, sword, axe, dagger...... that acts as the focus for all his powers? My Eladrin Warlock, multi-classed into bard, uses the martial weapon of his race as his power focus, giving remarkable flexibility when it comes to Properties.

With every benefit there comes a cost, especially if you're a Warlock.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I suspect the reason for limiting implement usage has to do with the fact that different implement groups have different focuses.

It's quite clear that the designers feel that gaining access to different implement types is a significant advantage. Case in point: Arcane Implement Proficiency.

I'd guess they, for example, found it undesirable for a Cleric to be able to blast away at everything with a Staff of Ruin by taking the Wizard MC feat (which is a pretty good feat to begin with).

That said, I admit I'd have preferred a more flexible approach myself.

Edit: Though I can't imagine it would be broken in the least to house rule that the basic Magic [Implement] enchantment allows you to use that implement with powers from any class. Just a thought.

 

[Destil]

Exactly. If nothing else hit, damage and crits are fair game from any source.

Properties and power I'll happily pay a feat for or see restricted. But there's no reason to screw people out of the basics.

 

[CapnZapp]

No.
I meant what I said exactly the way I said it.

"There aren't any." If you believe there is a balance issue, then you have to believe that MC combinations that share an implement are significantly advantaged.

They aren't, therefore its not.

You keep spouting opinion like it was fact.

You may believe whatever you want, but please don't present those beliefs as facts.

Facts are: the game currently puts a definitive and quantifiable cost on the ability to use the implements of another class for the powers of your own class. I am not believing anything. I am not necessarily agreeing this cost is valuable. But it is indisputably there unless you house-rule it away.

Yes, the game designers made it so those MC combinations that share implements gain an advantage; namely the ability to use that implement for all their powers. Other MC combos simply don't gain that ability for free.

I am not saying this is right or wrong. I am not saying this balancing factor is justified or not. I am just establishing it is there, regardless of what you may think.