Too little general usefulness for implements?

[CapnZapp]

Okay, so most weapon enchantments can be put on most weaponry, and be useful for most classes (that uses weapons at all).

If you find a flaming longsword you can rejoice, almost regardless of class or build. If you're an archer, you can transform it into a flaming longbow. If you're a barbarian, you can transform it into a flaming greataxe.

Sure, there are weapon enchantments that are more restricted than that, but there isn't any inherent reason why an avenger or rogue or warlord wouldn't be happy to find any particular weapon enchantment.

Not so with implements.

Anyone else but be finding implements to be awfully restricted, to be awfully specialized on one particular class?

And no, I'm not simply talking about how you can or can't transform a Holy Symbol into a Rod. (My understanding is you need a bit of houseruling for this to be possible at all. However, this isn't my complaint).

My complaint is that chances are that Holy Symbol will be all but worthless to the Warlock even if it came as a Rod!

The examples are many, I'll just bring up a few, as I'm sure you've already realized my point:

[li] The new Arcane Power implement of Tome? Sure, you can take the Arcane Implement Proficiency feat to gain the use of Tomes, but chances are you'll only get to use the enchantment bonus, not any powers or properties.
[li] Lots of Rods are Warlock specific. (Don't get me started on the Vestige Rods of AP).
[li] Wands does nothing to mitigate the fact Wizard spells key off Int while Warlock spells don't.

In general, when the party defeats a weapon user wielding a powerful magic weapon, chances are good some or all of the party fighters, rangers, paladins and what not will be able to utilize the new weapon.

When the party defeats an implement user wielding a powerful magic implement, however, chances are the implement will boost class-specific features, key off a specific attribute, or just generally be of dubious benefit for the specific magic user(s) of the team.

Thoughts? Any ideas on how to do WotC's work and make implements more generally useful?

Zapp

PS. Please do not make this a "the DM should tailor his treasure to the needs of the group" argument. In my campaign, what the players see is what the players get. A Drow Priestess will have used a Holy Symbol which aren't going to spontaneously reform into an Orb (or into a sword either for that matter). Call this the "bears in my neck of the woods will drop droppings, not two-handed axes" paradigm.

I want to discuss the very fact implements are IMO too class-specific, at least compared to weaponry. Thank you.

 

[Khuxan]

I would like to have seen implements treated much more like weapons and, by extension, magic implements treated much more like magic weapons.

I can't really see a way to achieve either goal without a considerable re-write of the system.

 

[Tuft]

PS. Please do not make this a "the DM should tailor his treasure to the needs of the group" argument. In my campaign, what the players see is what the players get. A Drow Priestess will have used a Holy Symbol which aren't going to spontaneously reform into an Orb (or into a sword either for that matter). Call this the "bears in my neck of the woods will drop droppings, not two-handed axes" paradigm.

Unfortunately, that is what it all boils down to. Magic items are very much narrower in scope in 4E compared to previous editions, which makes them fit a more limited range of character builds. That does not only apply to implements, but other magic items as well.

The DM in the 4E playtest campaign I'm playing in has solved it by allowing us to disenchant items at 100% residuum, instead of 20%. That way the players can disenchant anything that does not fit, and use it to enchant something that does. It also helps the economy of those of us that want to collect rituals instead of magic items.

Otherwise, you do need to use a wish list to make it all work. We did use those the first eight levels, but it was too much prep work for the DM to keep the lists updated, look up all items, decide which ones were fair for the level, fair to the in-party-balance (1), and fitting the upcoming encounters... nevermind fitting the monsters dropping them. Changing the residuum recycling rules were a lifesaver for the DM.

(1) as expected, there were some discussions about who had gotten more from their wish list than others...

 

[CapnZapp]

I should probably add that I'm not saying all implements are class-specific, or that no weapons have this problem.

A Symbol of Battle would be equally useful for a Wizard (as a Staff of Battle) or a Warlock (as a Rod of Battle), for example.

 

[CapnZapp]

Unfortunately, that is what it all boils down to.

I guess you do understand this is exactly the kind of resignation that does not help me in the least? If I were satisfied with the rules and guidelines of the books I wouldn't have started this thread, after all. But you knew that.

That way the players can disenchant anything that does not fit, and use it to enchant something that does.

I trust we can agree this comes across as incredibly lifeless to some players?

But it's not like this can't be an useful solution. Sometimes - not always.

In other words, it's a tool in the toolbox I'm glad exists. As long as I'm not expected to rely on it alone.

Otherwise, you do need to use a wish list to make it all work.

Again, I knew about that solution already, so let's not dwell on it shall we? It should come as no surprise to you I have discarded that method (as an universal solution anyway).

Anyway. Hopefully that's all we need to say on the meager offerings of the PHB/DMG. Can we move on now?

What other tools are there? Hopefully, tools that allow DMs to retain the color and flavor of the BBEG that once used the items the heroes now wield...!

 

[Lord Ernie]

Heh... I have the totally opposite reaction: I like that implements provide class and/or power source specific enhancements. Warlocks in particular have a great choice of rods that improve their curse and other class features, and I think it works very well... although I admit, it would be nice (and perhaps more fair) to have a Rod of Ruin (reminds me of M:TG, though), a Wand of Ruin, etc. etc. next to the staff.

Really, the major issue with implements is mainly multi-classing (something they're tackling with feats such as Arcane Implement Proficiency, although I really don't know why it doesn't say "Choose one arcane implement" rather than one you're not proficient with). Shamans especially bother me, since they're proficient with only a single type of implement, and it's a type unique to shamans... flavor is one thing, but that really hurts multi-classing.

 

[CapnZapp]

I can't really see a way to achieve either goal without a considerable re-write of the system.

I see. Thanks for replying, I guess.

I trust you don't mind me hoping you're wrong...?!

 

[CapnZapp]

Heh... I have the totally opposite reaction: I like that implements provide class and/or power source specific enhancements. Warlocks in particular have a great choice of rods that improve their curse and other class features, and I think it works very well... although I admit, it would be nice (and perhaps more fair) to have a Rod of Ruin (reminds me of M:TG, though), a Wand of Ruin, etc. etc. next to the staff.

At risk of possibly stating the obvious I'm not complaining about the variation and choice of enchantments.

I'm complaining how poorly an item translate from being in the possession of the BBEG to being in the possession of the player character.

Or, more to the point, how implements are (can be) much less of general utility than weaponry.

When you're deep down the Caverns of Doom the "great choice" offered by the rulebook doesn't apply, does it? You will have to make do with what you find, after all. (At least IMC, you do).

Take Kobold Hall - the DMG adventure - as an example. In the end, you find a Holy Symbol. If your magic user is a Wizard or a Warlock, this is useless to you. You might have a Bard or Shaman as your Leader, and it will be equally useless to them. If you find a sword, a fighter-y character could still use it, even if he or she does not remake it into a dagger or greataxe (or whatever). But implement wielders are simply hosed, by the rules as written.

So I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just that we seem to discuss different aspects of the game.

---

To me, having BBEGs drop stuff
1) they themselves can't use
2) stuff that just so happens to be precisely right for the character
is, frankly, a nasty piece of MMO thinking that has no place in my game.

I'm starting this thread to see if (hopefully) I'm not alone in this sentiment.

 

[FireLance]

Take a leaf from how weapons and armor are handled: you have a bunch of generic enchantments which can usually be applied to a variety of weapons and armor.

Similarly, either come up with a bunch of generic enchantments which can be applied to a variety of implements, or go through the existing list of implement enchantments and decide which are generic enough to be applied to the other implements as well. You can even crib from the list of weapon enhancements. Why can't you have a lucky wand that functions like a luck blade, for example? IMO, it even fits thematically with the idea of the wand as a precision implement.

 

[CapnZapp]

Really, the major issue with implements is mainly multi-classing (something they're tackling with feats such as Arcane Implement Proficiency, although I really don't know why it doesn't say "Choose one arcane implement" rather than one you're not proficient with). Shamans especially bother me, since they're proficient with only a single type of implement, and it's a type unique to shamans... flavor is one thing, but that really hurts multi-classing.

That feat should really have said "Choose one implement and one class. You get to use that implement as that class."

This way, a Warlock would be able to use all aspects of a Tome he finds: the enchantment bonus (the basic "plus), the properties, the daily power, the works. It would require a feat, yes, but that isn't unreasonable to my mind. At least it would be possible - unlike today's situation ("oh, an incredibly powerful Tome implement. Which nobody can use. Oh well, let's sell or disenchant it for a pittance.")

Of course, how the feat has "any arcane class" as prerequisite is stupid too. Or do Wizards intend a Cleric not to be able to usefully multiclass over the Arcane/Divine border?

I see no reason a Cleric shouldn't be able to gain the exact same benefits of multiclassing to Wizard as a Warlock, say, multiclassing to Wizard.

And, as you say, without this, Shamans are awfully alone.