Should Implements have their own proficiency bonus?

[Nifft]

Piercing Strike really is the main weapon vs NAD power

Nah. If the enemy has nads, a Rogue ought to be targeting them with every power.

But a far more interesting thing is: Implements with proficiency bonus would have introduced an entirely new design space.

Implements could be balanced similar like weapons, with proficiency bonus balancing damage dice, range, implement properties and maybe even area effects.

This is actually where I thought the OP was going given the title. I figured it'd make the wand-user better if he got a +1 proficiency bonus to attacks under a few circumstances (e.g. with Encounter spells, or something) rather than a +Dex bonus once.

But after reading Ridcully's post, it seems better to stick Implement-specific bonuses in the powers themselves. That fits with the 4e design philosophy better, I think, given how Fighter powers work with different weapon groups.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Plane Sailing]

I have a post somewhere in the 4e house rules forum where I talk about this very issue of changing implements to be more like weapons. A few people liked it at the time. IIRC my version took orb, holy symbol and rod as 'baseline' implements, with no change. Wands became 'dagger' implements, with +1 (or was it +2) to hit and damage dice reduced one step. Staffs became '2H' implements, requiring 2h to wield but damage die goes up one step. Staffs become preferred for big bursts, wands become preferred for status effect imposers and orbs are just generally good.

Although I think the game would have been better if AC and the other defences were all roughly equivalent and then implements and weapons could all have proficiency bonuses and it would all be on a more even footing. After all, everything else is being evened out, why not this? Then we wouldn't get the disparity with weapons having all their high crit, two handed, brutal off-hand etc etc properties while implements languish.

Cheers

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I have a post somewhere in the 4e house rules forum where I talk about this very issue of changing implements to be more like weapons. A few people liked it at the time. IIRC my version took orb, holy symbol and rod as 'baseline' implements, with no change. Wands became 'dagger' implements, with +1 (or was it +2) to hit and damage dice reduced one step. Staffs became '2H' implements, requiring 2h to wield but damage die goes up one step. Staffs become preferred for big bursts, wands become preferred for status effect imposers and orbs are just generally good.

Although I think the game would have been better if AC and the other defences were all roughly equivalent and then implements and weapons could all have proficiency bonuses and it would all be on a more even footing. After all, everything else is being evened out, why not this? Then we wouldn't get the disparity with weapons having all their high crit, two handed, brutal off-hand etc etc properties while implements languish.

Cheers

And I think it would be cool if orbs added a small bonus when used with psychic powers...you see the moment you start an overhaul of how implements work you could really end up with a massive amount of work.

One of the reasons why I think the weapon wielders enjoy things like brutal and high crit is that most of those weapons are melee weapons, which means you are in the enemie's face and he's in yours. OTOH, our implement wielders can (try to) keep a save distance.

But I don't want to start a discussion comparing melee vs ranged and weapon ranged vs implement ranged and so on.

And I still think that there is no need for prof. bonuses on implements.

 

[Falling Icicle]

My main concern with implement is not their attack bonuses, but the fact they lack the ability to increase the damage die of attacks as weapons do. On top of that, they lack things like Brutal and High Crit. A Ranger can get a Longbow and all of his [W] attacks are d10. A caster is sadly stuck with whatever dice the spell/prayer gives him, usually piddly d6s. No wonder warlocks and wizards shock people with their horribly low damage output compared to weapon-based classes.

 

[Ryujin]

I don't really think that a proficiency bonus is needed for such powers, but they should certainly be reviewed as to whether they target an appropriate defence. The one mentioned, that triggered my own disbelief, was Curse of the Bloody Fangs. The fact that it targets AC, rather than REF, makes it neutered with respect to other, similar powers. Perhaps it's because it can effect other surrounding creatures (with ingoing damage) that they thought to make it tougher to get that initial hit, but as a Striker I'm responsible for taking out that one enemy, effectively. There are far better powers to choose because of this.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

My main concern with implement is not their attack bonuses, but the fact they lack the ability to increase the damage die of attacks as weapons do. On top of that, they lack things like Brutal and High Crit. A Ranger can get a Longbow and all of his [W] attacks are d10. A caster is sadly stuck with whatever dice the spell/prayer gives him, usually piddly d6s. No wonder warlocks and wizards shock people with their horribly low damage output compared to weapon-based classes.

Let's wait for Arcane Power. Maybe we get something that renders this discussion moot.

I don't really think that a proficiency bonus is needed for such powers, but they should certainly be reviewed as to whether they target an appropriate defence. The one mentioned, that triggered my own disbelief, was Curse of the Bloody Fangs. The fact that it targets AC, rather than REF, makes it neutered with respect to other, similar powers. Perhaps it's because it can effect other surrounding creatures (with ingoing damage) that they thought to make it tougher to get that initial hit, but as a Striker I'm responsible for taking out that one enemy, effectively. There are far better powers to choose because of this.

So you say that this power is a weak choice if compared to other powers.
No one forces you to take the weak power. Choose another one. Those weapon wielders have weak choices among their powers as well.

 

[Ryujin]

Choosing another power was precisely what I did. I was merely making an observation

 

[Saeviomagy]

It seems to be almost a rule that a weapon attack targeting a NAD effectively pays for the benefit.

It doesn't seem to be a rule that a spell that targets AC gets a hefty boost.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

It seems to be almost a rule that a weapon attack targeting a NAD effectively pays for the benefit.

It doesn't seem to be a rule that a spell that targets AC gets a hefty boost.

How many AC targeting implement attacks are out there - anyone got a list or a number?

If their number is really small about 3 or the like just talk to your DM to give you either a +2 bonus to attack rolls or to change it to an appropriate NAD.

Or don't bother at all and take some other power.

 

[Klaus]

How many AC targeting implement attacks are out there - anyone got a list or a number?

If their number is really small about 3 or the like just talk to your DM to give you either a +2 bonus to attack rolls or to change it to an appropriate NAD.

Or don't bother at all and take some other power.

That's what I'll be doing, when my rogue/warlock takes Curse of the Bloody Fangs. Thematically, it's the best power for him. Power-wise, I'm weakening the character for roleplaying reasons.