Implements

[Rykaar]

I rooted back through about 8 pages of threads looking for implement discussions and came up empty.

Based on what we know now, are implements required for casting spells or do they just in some way augment the spell? At some points in materials I've read it looks like they offer a bonus if used, and at other points it sounds like they're required.

If required, the next obvious question would be what do we know at this point about disarming rules?

My group played Monte Cooke's Arcana Evolved for a while. Mageblades essentially needed the "implement" of their sword. A simple Unhand spell (I think that's the name) could truly mess up the mageblade's day. Same for magisters and their staves.

However, even in AE rules, the casters could still cast without their implement: the casting time became one worse though, so a standard action became a full round. What I liked about this rule was it allowed the caster to be penalized but not completely shut down.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Patlin]

I believe they've said that the spells can be used without the implement, but you'll want the implement.

My guess: not having an implement will have a penalty similar to trying to use a weapon you are not proficient with.

 

[keterys]

I've read both ways - that it's required and that it's only a bonus.

Either way, there are no rules for disarming - you need a special power to do it.

 

[DamnedChoir]

I've read both ways - that it's required and that it's only a bonus.

Either way, there are no rules for disarming - you need a special power to do it.

Which is lame, IMO, because they could have actually made it so Wizards could fight using their powers. (Think Harry Potter, disarming an enemy caster of his wand with your magic missile.) But they've rather smashed that possibility into the ground.

Seems like most of the good ideas that make me excited have a modifier to make them meh.

 

[Patlin]

Even in Harry Potter, some magic can be done without using a wand. Once we see how much of a penalty is applied without an implement, we'll be able to evaluate how usefull it is to disarm the Wizard.

 

[Rykaar]

The non-proficiency penalty alone would be a good reason to want to hold onto the implement. Allowing disarming rules will be incredibly abusive against casters if it really does shut them down.

To take the Harry Potter example, you need to see the context. The combats usually ended when one wizard's wand went flying. It didn't have a follow-through of all the winning caster's roudy friends cutting the loser into tiny pieces when he had no way to defend himself.

Of course, if an implement is actually required, packing spares seems like an obvious choice if disarm rules eventually make it into the game as a common thing. I guess that strikes me as goofy, though. Might as well pack a wand dispenser up one sleeve. My disbelief threatens to not be suspended.

 

[DamnedChoir]

Extra example, the Wizard's staffs in Middle Earth.

Also, as for suspension of disbelief...does not being able to disarm someone at all, only knock them out or kill them, and not even prevent them from attacking when you grapple them with their non-disarmable weapon not strain your disbelief?

 

[mach1.9pants]

IIRC....
We had this debate on a thread just after DDXP; mainly about the Warlock having all his powers with the descriptor 'implement' and the huge vulnerability this meant. A WotC staff member came on to the thread and said that implements were not required. They way he/she said it seemed to me like it would be similar to weapons. i.e. if you do not use implements the power is as described. With an implement you would get a bonus of some sort.
However this was just his/her wording all that was categorically stated was you do not need implements to use your powers but it is better to have them than not.
Make sense?

EDIT: found it from Miko
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4077972&postcount=6

 

[kennew142]

What we've been told is that implements aren't necessary, but they are desirable. We've also been told that lack of proficiency in a weapon doesn't provide a penalty, but having proficiency provides a bonus. I imagine it will be the same with implements, having one will provide a bonus of some sort.

I wish that implements were required. I like the image of disarming a wizard making him powerless (like the Harry Potter books, if not the movies).

I imagine that there will be an arcane power that can disarm an opponent. If there isn't one in the PHB, someone will write one up quickly. I will for my own game, if there isn't one one in the RAW.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I wish that implements were required. I like the image of disarming a wizard making him powerless (like the Harry Potter books, if not the movies).

Making implements users powerless (literally) by disarming them of their implements won't happen in 4E; it just goes against the whole 'everyone can always be useful' design mode. And if I was a wizard/warlock IYC; I'd be carrying a dozen wands! Plus one hidden for capture emergencies where no one could find it I wonder if there is a written official minimum wand size