Implements

[Brown Jenkin]

Only the males, I think.

The women just have an extra body cavity to hide one in.

Judging from the character modeling software in DDI I think both males and females might have spare wands or staffs.

Plus remember that Orbs are implements as well so the those non-DDI females will also have a couple of spares. Or at least that is my speculation based off the PHB cover.

 

[Patlin]

*Groan.* Next we'll be discussing bonuses to charm and enchantment spells with orbs. I think we were safer with the Harry Potter references.

 

[DM_Blake]

It bears mentioning in more detail:

If wizards (and other casters) can be disarmed of their wands (etc.), but they can still cast fireballs and flame strikes, they are hardly defenseless. Even if those spells do less damage, they are still capable of doing damage.

But, deprive a fighter or rogue or ranger or paladin or warlord of his weapons, how much damage are they going to do?

Really, imagine a dragon in his lair with some powerful trap at the entrance that makes all adventurers lose all their gear when the enter - it teleports all the weapons, armor, wands, etc. to the dragon horde and leaves the adventurers standing there naked. Now the foolhardy adventurers decide to press on and fight the dragon to get back their gear. Who is that dragon more afraid of? The naked fighter, rogue, ranger, cleric, or wizard?

I don't imagine Mr. Naked Fighter will grapple the dragon to death, nor is he likely to punch it to death either. Mr. Naked Ranger is picking up baseball sized rocks from the lair floor and hurling them at the dragon. But Mr. Naked Wizard is blasting the dragon with slightly weakened disintegrates. Who is the bigger threat?

Maybe spellcasters should be hosed without their implements. Non-spellcasters most certainly will be.

 

[Patlin]

Oh good, back on topic.

If the Ranger is picking up and throwing rocks, the Rogue grabs a pointy stick, and the Fighter picks up a big stick to use as a makeshift club, then they are all continuing to fight at a disadvantage. I'm pretty sure that the Wizard will be at a disadvantage too, but as I said above it's not clear to what extent. Ideally, he should be at aproximately the same disadvantage as other characters.

I do feel sorry for the poor Rogue, though, who in 3.x could still sneak attack with his bare hands.

 

[Rykaar]

It's a very good analogy between the caster losing an implement and the melee class losing a weapon. I hadn't thought of that.

On the other hand, prior to 4e, I never built a weapon swinger that depended on one specific weapon type (specialization isn't complete dependency), and typically they carried several. It does seem with 4e that many of the class powers are going to be dependent on a particular weapon type. Perhaps it would be wise to have some powers that could be used with a makeshift weapon.

This is assuming that disarming rules are present. Like I said originally, I haven't seen any yet, but who knows what might appear between now and June?

I guess the concept of disarming casters is a tricky one though. Yes, it makes sense to have disarming rules, but if it is relegated to a minor inconvenience to the target, it won't happen much. For Potter or Gandalf to lose their implement is a VERY BAD THING. If you have a pack of wands tucked up your sleeve that you just bought from the blind guy selling them on the corner, it's at best a loss of a move action to whip out a new one, but you made your opponent blow a standard action. That's actually a net gain for the caster.