Need help with Implements

[shinigamiza]

Okay, I've been looking for someone already asking this question for a while but have been unable to find it.

In my little group that I'm DMing (It's my first time ever playing 4th edition, 2 of my players seem to be rather expierienced ) I have a player playing a sorcerer. The question has come up if Nimble Blade grants him a +1 bonus to hit for his attack rolls with powers (I.e. spells) that he is using it as an implement for.

I as a DM have made a preliminary ruling that it doesn't matter how nimble your blade is when you're not swinging it. I.e. how the heck does being able to nimbly swing your blade make you more accurate with your magic spells? it doesn't.

I have 2 questions. First concerns implements as a whole.

It is my understanding that 'in game' using an implement is more or less channeling your power through that. Is this a correct understanding?

Second question concerns the above situation. Do implements get the bonuses of melee feats? Things such as Nimble Blade for example. If so, will someone point out specificly where it says they do, if not will someone point out where? As I indicated earlier, I erred on the side of logic for the time stating that it's nice that he can swing his blade quickly/accurately, but he's not swinging it to cast that spell and if he were it'd be the same as me punching air.

 

[Ryujin]

My gut would say no, you only get the bonus when using the blade as a melee weapon. You only get the bonus when you have combat advantage at any rate though, so it would be of limited use. You most commonly obtain combat advantage by flanking, though there are obviously other ways.

The rules tend to point to feats that give damage bonuses adding to both weapon and implement attacks, but not necessarily the ones that grant a hit bonus. For instance it takes a specific form of the Expertise feat, Focused Expertise, in order to get a bonus to hit for both implement AND melee use of a weapon. While RAW may point at being able to gain both by default, I think RAI would be otherwise.

 

[dhunton]

Our Issue with Weapon Focus and Implements...

See:
http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_fa
qid=1396
Item #21


In addition, in a question to support at WotC, they replied:

If you you are using a staff implement and have the Weapon Focus feat, the bonus to damage will apply to all powers with the implement keyword. Magic Missile is an Implement power, therefore when using your staff as an implement you get the damage bonus from Weapon Focus.


However, our GM's ruling is:
[FONT=&quot]
Unless a power’s damage is listed with the [W] showing, the damage does not come from the weapon, but from the magic. In which case, I do not see how a WEAPON focus increases MAGICAL damage. A magical WEAPON would increase magical damage, of course.
[/FONT]

 

[Saeviomagy]

Unless a power’s damage is listed with the [W] showing, the damage does not come from the weapon, but from the magic. In which case, I do not see how a WEAPON focus increases MAGICAL damage. A magical WEAPON would increase magical damage, of course.

This doesn't actually make much sense. It basically starts out "Realistically, when you cast a spell...", which I think we can all agree is nonsense.

When you're talking about magic, the only real thing one can do is judge balance and game terms.

Most of the weapon-implement crossovers seem fairly reasonable. +1 to hit vs targets when you have CA? So what?

It's only when you get to biggies, like daggermaster's 18-20 crit range that things become unreasonable. And even then, it's not that bad compared with, say, a daggermaster who invests heavily into the rogue blast and burst powers.

Note: I'm not saying that it's a bad thing that your DM made the ruling, merely that he attempts to justify it with an argument about realism: he's well within his rights to say "this is the rule because to rule otherwise is bad for the game".

 

[shinigamiza]

Thanks for the replies, after looking at the feats sections in the various books a little more thoroughly I think I've come to stand by my decision.

I stand by the 'how the heck does swinging your dagger nimbly help you cast a spell?" decision I made. There are plenty of feats that add bonuses to implement casters. It seems extremely clear to me that the bonus from "Nimble Blade" is designed to be specifically for non-implement casters, or implement users that are actually using their implement as the weapon it is.

Feats like Implement Expertise (PHB2), Coordinated Explosion (PHB2), Arcane Spellfury [Sorcerer] (PHB2), Oncoming Storm [Thunder-powers] (PHB2). I'm sure there are more, but those in it of themselves seem more than sufficient.

 

[the8bitdeity]

RAW it's valid, and I don't think it needs a nerf. There is clearly a reason WotC gave Sorcerers dagger as an implement, and it seems contrary to their ideas to remove a potentially beneficial synergy. Frankly as a DM I WANT the squishy Sorcerer using a blade so that they're in the thick of things instead of peeling back and sniping.

 

[N8Ball]

[FONT=&quot]
Unless a power’s damage is listed with the [W] showing, the damage does not come from the weapon, but from the magic. In which case, I do not see how a WEAPON focus increases MAGICAL damage. A magical WEAPON would increase magical damage, of course.
[/FONT]

This doesn't actually make much sense. It basically starts out "Realistically, when you cast a spell...", which I think we can all agree is nonsense.

When you're talking about magic, the only real thing one can do is judge balance and game terms.

His reasoning makes complete sense and at no point did he reference "realism", only the *game terms* weapon and implement and their application in a strict sense.

As for balance I would agree with both dhunton and shinigamiza that this is balanced as there are plenty other feats to apply to implements without stacking weapon feats on top of them.

It may be worth noting that Nimble blade is not necessarily just a melee feat as it may apply to thrown daggers and shuriken, but they are still being wielded as weapons and not implements.

Also, I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to assume that wielding a dagger or staff as an implement and wielding it as a weapon are pretty much completely different since a) you don't apply a proficiency bonus to implement attacks, b) it's possible to be proficient with an item as an implement but not as a weapon, c) it's possible to be proficient with an item as a weapon, but not as an implement.

That fundamental separation in thier use argues strongly for a separation in the feats that apply to each category.