Implement/Shaman questions

[occam]

Now you are assuming the longspear proficiency is "pointless" just because you can't use the longspear at the same time as a totem. Why is that?

I believe it is a quite straightforward choice: either choose to wield one (or two) totems, or wield a longspear.

How do you make an MBA with a totem? Shamans don't have an at-will basic attack, like other implement wielders; they have to use weapons. A shaman choosing to wield a longspear (a proficiency explicitly called out for them, and clearly their best choice for most situations) is hampered when performing the main functions of his or her class. Meaning that unless you can wield a spear as an implement, the longspear proficiency is pointless.

Compare them to wizards: they also have a two-handed weapon proficiency called out (for quarterstaff), but they can use that weapon as an implement if they choose, and they have a magic missile basic attack if they don't. I believe the totem/longspear conflict was an oversight by WotC; I can't prove that, but that's how I treat it.

And I would reply that is possibly quite overpowered at low heroic levels, but each to his own. There certainly aren't any hard rules to contradict your ruling.

Maybe. I haven't actually gotten to play a shaman much yet, but so far a spirit companion moving in three dimensions doesn't seem to have much effect, nothing more than a ranged power would. After all, you can't ride the companion, nor can you see through its eyes.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I can't say I agree with you Abdul.

First of all, what is a "bard implement"? Secondly, what does a bard implement do?

The only place that answers those questions is the Bard class features - without that section you have no implements and those implements that you don't have don't do anything.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I can't say I agree with you Abdul.

First of all, what is a "bard implement"? Secondly, what does a bard implement do?

The only place that answers those questions is the Bard class features - without that section you have no implements and those implements that you don't have don't do anything.

What I'm saying is the Implements section of bard (and other classes) is NOT part of class features. Its a general rule. Notice it is the same size heading as the previous section (Class Features). So bard implements are defined by that general rule, which specifies that bards can wield them for bard powers. ALL characters follow this general rule, including MCed characters.

An implement is a bard implement if its specified as being usable by bards as an implement. Wands thus are bard implements. Anyone using such an implement can only wield it with bard powers. Now, if a bard gets a wizard power and he has access to wizard implements he can use the implement for both since the implement itself is not linked to a class. Its not like there are "bard wands" and "wizard wands" but there are enabling rules for characters. Show me a rule that allows a bard (not MCed into wizard) to use his wand with a wizard power? You can't because it doesn't exist.

For example a half-elf bard using Dilettante to gain Magic Missle cannot gain a bonus to his attack/damage with a magic wand by general rules because the only rule that lets one use a wand with wizard powers is the Wizard implements rule which says "A Wizard wielding a magic [wand] can add its enhancement bonus to [Wizard Powers]." Nothing lets a bard do that even though this particular bard has a wizard power and a wand is indeed a wizard implement. He can MC Wizard and then he can do it because the Wizard MC feat gives him that benefit.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Ah, okay - we are in agreement. I must have misunderstood your previous post.

 

[jbear]

Sorry jbear, I don't visit these forums for your personal convenience. And it is not our job to "convince" you. You got your chance, but by remaining antagonistic my reply will be limited to a simple observation:

Read the thread a second time, everything you need to find out you're wrong can be found there. If you still don't see it, ask again. In a nicer way.

You began the antagonism by suggesting i should refrain from 'going around assuming things.'

I appreciate your opinion, though not the undertones of your response, and the assuption that you have interpreted the rules more correctly than I have, hence the undertones of my subsequent response.

Rest assured I have no need for you to frequent these boards to be at my disposition. A rather strange thing to say actually. I believe I've raised a very valid interpretation of the game. It differs from how you interpret it. Only one of us can be right, and as of yet, the arguments raised for your interpretation fail to convince me to change my mind.

I am open minded and quite prepared to eat humble pie if someone can convince me. Obviously you're not disposed to do such. So for now, I'll keep playing it as I think it works.

 

[CapnZapp]

Meaning that unless you can wield a spear as an implement, the longspear proficiency is pointless.

But you can wield some spears as an implement!

Just because something require effort to be used well doesn't mean it is "pointless".

Also, the longspear proficiency could be a feature intended for "future expansion". Or simply to ward against complaints "why does the picture show a shaman holding a longspear when she isn't proficient with one"!

Compare them to wizards

Why? I see no reason why a certain feature of class X must work identical to a similar feature of class Y.

Besides, if you were right, it would have been a major and easily corrected oversight. Still, nothing's been said from official sources, and the "oversight" remains "uncorrected" per this month's extensive errata.

The bottom line, however, is that you can't argue your rule isn't a house rule. So I really don't see much of a point discussing the matter further - as such, it certainly isn't an overpowered house rule, so go ahead and the best of luck!

Maybe. I haven't actually gotten to play a shaman much yet, but so far a spirit companion moving in three dimensions doesn't seem to have much effect, nothing more than a ranged power would. After all, you can't ride the companion, nor can you see through its eyes.

Sure, this is a DM's call. There is no absolute right or wrong: the designer's intent can't be read out of the text with any degree of certainty:

The claim "the shaman class is underpowered without a flying bear" is as valid (or not) as the claim "the shaman class is overpowered with one".

As for myself, I lean towards the latter claim, because if WotC intended the bear to have flight, they would have given it a fly speed. It's as simple as that.

And besides, once the Shaman can dismiss the SC as a free action (by taking a paragon feat), the issue is moot, which nicely limits this "restriction" to Heroic Tier.

 

[jbear]

Thank you for your response Abdul. If you are correct, then this is an area which needs to be reworded, especially when it come to the Multiclass feats, to add clarity.

Also it raises an issue of disparity between classes and which combinations make viable combinations. For example, mechanically and flavourwise a Sorceror Multiclassed into Barbarian is a viable option. Arcane Imp. Prof. would also be an attractive option for such a build, as they could choose a heavy blade (swordmage) and thus have high damage on melee attacks gained from multiclass barbarian powers.

In this way, the AIP feat does not need to be a simple patch to make multiclassing between arcane classes more viable with regard to implement use.

Also a warlock might be justified taking AIP in order to gain access to high damage implements like Staff of Ruin, with no multiclassing involved at all.

Flavourwise, A Bard/Druid is very viable. Yet mechanically they are at a disadvantage with regard to implements. The bard is going to have this problem every time he multiclasses into anything except Wizard (as they use Wands). Also the Half-Elf Dilettante power is inferior chosing any implement power from a class that the player doesn't intend to multiclass into.

I have trouble imagining that these are intentional limitations placed by Wotc to make multiclassing between some classes more attractive than others, especially considering their efforts to push 'non-optimal' flavoursome combinations (for example, all the racial feats for mecanically non-optimal classes). It seems more like an oversight, that fails to function as intended.

Given all that, although I'm interested in reaching an 'official' conclusion, as there is a grey area in the wording of the multiclass feats, I'm going to rule it as I have up til now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thank you for your response Abdul. If you are correct, then this is an area which needs to be reworded, especially when it come to the Multiclass feats, to add clarity.

Also it raises an issue of disparity between classes and which combinations make viable combinations. For example, mechanically and flavourwise a Sorceror Multiclassed into Barbarian is a viable option. Arcane Imp. Prof. would also be an attractive option for such a build, as they could choose a heavy blade (swordmage) and thus have high damage on melee attacks gained from multiclass barbarian powers.

In this way, the AIP feat does not need to be a simple patch to make multiclassing between arcane classes more viable with regard to implement use.

Also a warlock might be justified taking AIP in order to gain access to high damage implements like Staff of Ruin, with no multiclassing involved at all.

Flavourwise, A Bard/Druid is very viable. Yet mechanically they are at a disadvantage with regard to implements. The bard is going to have this problem every time he multiclasses into anything except Wizard (as they use Wands). Also the Half-Elf Dilettante power is inferior chosing any implement power from a class that the player doesn't intend to multiclass into.

I have trouble imagining that these are intentional limitations placed by Wotc to make multiclassing between some classes more attractive than others, especially considering their efforts to push 'non-optimal' flavoursome combinations (for example, all the racial feats for mecanically non-optimal classes). It seems more like an oversight, that fails to function as intended.

Given all that, although I'm interested in reaching an 'official' conclusion, as there is a grey area in the wording of the multiclass feats, I'm going to rule it as I have up til now.

Well, I don't think the implement rules are exactly the way I would like them either. I don't quite see why some class combinations need to be hard to support. It would be interesting to see the designer's reasoning. I really don't think though that the way it works now is unintended. It seems like the various rules are pretty carefully written and its pretty obvious from the errata which have been issued that the design team understands the rules pretty well and has taken time to look at the ramifications of various things in a good bit of detail. They're promising more frequent and thorough errata ongoing, so I guess we could theorize they want more time to look at the issue, but its equally (I'd say more) likely they don't want to change it.

I'm not sure how the MC feats really would be worded differently though. They say "you can use X classes implements" essentially. Short of each feat recapitulating the implement general rule for the associated class in its entirety it seems to me that's the wording you would use when you want the character to be able to access the general rule on the associated class' implement use. What other interpretation is there that makes sense? Limitless use of those implements for anything? Why would a multi-class give you an ability better than what the base class gets? CS has also consistently ruled this in favor of the "you use them just like a full member of the class" interpretation. It seems to me to be pretty cut and dried.

 

[jbear]

I guess an addition to the wording would suffice.

Arcane Implement Proficiency states you can use the implement with your arcane powers. The multiclass feats say you can use that classes implements full stop.
If this isn't the case as I have suggested, i'm not sure it would waste too much Ink to add You can wield wizard implements [when you use wizards powers].
They have been fairly rigorous hunting down and redefining rules that left room for any misinterpretation.

I guess my biggest irk with this idea is how limiting it is specifically to the Bard. Maybe this is because for me the only really cool thing about the bard is its ability to dabble in so many other classes. But if he can't use his main implement with them, he is going to be seriously sub-par with all of those abilities. The Wisdom Classes multi-class path is especially undesireable for the bard, in this case, because at least he can patch things for Arcane Intelligence/charisma based classes with AIP.

Anyway, I accept what you say. And now I shall do otherwise anyway with no remorse or sense guilt. And it won't affect the game in the slightest.

 

[occam]

Just because something require effort to be used well doesn't mean it is "pointless".

A shaman using a longspear and a totem isn't just expending effort, he's wasting actions, which are the most valuable commodity in the game.

Why? I see no reason why a certain feature of class X must work identical to a similar feature of class Y.

Then you missed the point, which was, the shaman is the only implement-wielder in the game with a two-handed weapon proficiency highlighted that cannot typically use that weapon as an implement, or that doesn't use a holy symbol. In addition, the shaman has no at-will powers usable as basic attacks. This puts the shaman at a disadvantage compared to other implement-wielders. Why was that done? I prefer to think it was an oversight.

Besides, if you were right, it would have been a major and easily corrected oversight. Still, nothing's been said from official sources, and the "oversight" remains "uncorrected" per this month's extensive errata.

The bottom line, however, is that you can't argue your rule isn't a house rule. So I really don't see much of a point discussing the matter further - as such, it certainly isn't an overpowered house rule, so go ahead and the best of luck!

I never claimed that allowing totems to be equipped and unequipped with free actions was anything other than a house rule, nor that there was anything in the rules, errata'd or otherwise, supporting my view that this was probably an oversight. I offered a suggestion describing how I intend to deal with this issue in my games; that doesn't seem to be grounds for getting upset.

Besides, I seriously doubt that, in the vast majority of games being played, longspear-and-totem-wielding shamans are really wasting minor actions taking out totems and putting them away, or foregoing opportunity and other melee basic attacks because they have totems in their hands. I would bet (with no way to back it up, other than maybe a poll) that most people are effectively using the house rule I suggested; I just made it explicit for my game.