Tools of Two Trades (Weapliment Expertise) Article Up

[Matt James]

I'll definitely be sending them an email... and perhaps a resume. Certainly seems like they could use my help.

It's an open playtest document. It's probably best to treat it as such. This is remarkable for WotC to do. Please don't kill it for everyone.

 

[ppaladin123]

EDIT: Ooh, why not allow implements to be used as weapons? A wand could be a poor man's dagger. A rod could be crappy club, an orb... an orb could be... err... umm... let me get back to you on that one.

An orb is like a small bowling ball. I am pretty sure you can clock someone over the head with one and make an impact. It is a two-handed weapon.

 

[WalterKovacs]

If a barbarian with a +5 greataxe needs to throw his +3 javelin, is it really necessary to give him a -5 to attack because he doesn't have the proper expertise and proper enhancement bonus? If you're paying your taxes, your attack bonus should be fixed for real. And for the record, inherent enhancement bonuses really ought to be the default not the optional rule.

Then again, he could have easily:

a) Got a handaxe instead of a javelin
b) Taken Master at Arms instead of Axe Expertise

Yes, the 'need' to have to buy up a backup ranged weapon, or an off hand weapon, or a second implement (for dual implement spellcaster), or a weapon + implement for those types of builds etc, are problematic. The inherent bonus system would definitely be a great way to deal with that probem, since there is still a desire to get magical items for the +1 or +2 bonus, but the 'backups' are never that far behind.

I'm not against the idea of riders, but errataing the generic feats to do +1 per tier instead of the 15/25 would be a simple patch for corner cases not covered by specific + rider feats. [Also, it would be interesting to see a master at arms variant for implements ... arcanists with a second implement mastery would probably want to wield different implements, if no one else, so giving them some options would be nice. [again, updating versatile expertise would work just fine in that case].

They have made it easier (generally speaking, implement proficiency now allows a single implement to work with any and all implement powers, instead of needing to use overlapping implements, like wands for a bard + wizard or warlock. And, if you can get into the arcane power source, it isn't hard to get a bladed weapliment, while ki focus classes have the option to go either weapliment, or ki focus along with any weapons. So, there are only a few cases where weapliments are hard to pull off: Psionic classes, unless you are going with some hybrid/multiclass/theme/etc, are basically purely weapon or purely implement. There are some issues with druids, if they poach any sentinel powers they will have some weapon stuff to go with their implement powers [or a sentinel grabbing old druid dailies, etc]. There are some weapons with built in counts as an implement powers, but that's not necessarily the best solution. Divine characters are more likely to have a mix of weapon and implement powers, but there are also lots of weapon that count as implement options. They are probably the most in need of a solution. Perhaps something like a favored weapon feat which, based on your god's favored weapon, gives you proficiency, abitlity to use as an implement, expertise as a weapon and implement, and a rider, likely connected to the god. It may be a bit much to implement various weapon choices that way ... so it could just be a simplified:

Favored Weapon: Weapon Group

Certain gods would favor axes, hammers, heavy blades, light blades, picks, spears, bows, etc ... Then you can use weapons from that group as implements, and maybe get prof with military weapons of that type, etc.

Generally, for hybrids or multiclassers, the feat/gp cost of multiple items is likely the least of their worries, as there are a lot of other issues involved.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is a dang disaster. What the crap are they thinking? Why make this so complicated?

Look, all we really need is this: "Choose a weapon. Choose an implement. You get +1/+2/+3 to attack with that weapon and implement." And then if they want to add a little kicker, well, that's just gravy.

Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to the attack rolls of arcane powers and basic attacks that you make with any weapon or implement with which you
have proficiency.

From White Lotus Duelling Expertise. That covers all the arcane casters.

Benefit: When you are using a holy symbol and wielding a melee weapon with which you are proficient, you gain a +1 feat bonus to weapon attack
rolls you make with the weapon and a +1 feat bonus to implement attack rolls you make with the holy symbol

From Devoted Priest Expertise. That covers all the divine classes.

The only people left out in the cold by my reckoning are hybrids and people with power swap feats.

 

[drothgery]

Benefit: When you are using a holy symbol and wielding a melee weapon with which you are proficient, you gain a +1 feat bonus to weapon attack
rolls you make with the weapon and a +1 feat bonus to implement attack rolls you make with the holy symbol

From Devoted Priest Expertise. That covers all the divine classes.

Except that the point of getting a weapon-as-implement is so that you only have to maintain one magic item instead of two, and this feat doesn't help with that.

The only people left out in the cold by my reckoning are hybrids and people with power swap feats.

And arcane character who takes a non-arcane paragon path (based on race, dragonmark, or whatever). Or a non-arcane theme, same.

 

[RangerWickett]

I started to write a comment, but I'm almost disheartened from finishing it because the more I ponder fixes, the more inherent I see the problem is.

[sblock]Dear Wizards,

I appreciate the desire to provide weapliment expertise feats, but I believe the playtest article you have presented doesn’t address the root problem.

It’s a commonly held belief (at least at my internet turf, EN World) that these feats are ‘math fixes,’ designed to make the game run more smoothly. Indeed, the to-hit bonus they provide is far stronger than any other attack benefit granted by other feats, to the point that it’s foolish not to take them.

Honestly, the simplest solution with the least errata requirement would be just to give every character a bonus feat that’s something like this:

Math Fix Expertise
You gain a +1 feat bonus to attack rolls with weapon and implement attacks. This bonus increases to +2 at 11th level, and +3 at 21st level. You can use weapons you are proficient in as implements.

This solves two problems:
1) Most obviously, now characters can mix weapon and implement powers without having their attack bonuses unduly penalized.

2) Also, those characters don't have to fall behind on gear because they have to buy two different attack items. Worse, think of hybrid ranger/druids who need two magic swords and a totem. Which brings me to the third point.

3) Characters don't have to waste actions switching between weapons and implements. The ranger/druid won't need three hands if he wants to Twin Strike, action point, and use a druid power. An artificer won't have to juggle a wand and a crossbow.

4) It opens up flavor options that are currently restricted for no apparent reason. Yes, it's easy to house rule that swordmages can actually be, like, mace-sages or to let a drow warlock use a whip as an implement, but it would be nice if the Character Builder supported it.

5) Characters can more easily use a variety of weapons or implements when they find them as treasure, or if they just want to have diverse tactics. While there is the Master of Arms feat, no equivalent exists for implements. Of course currently there's no real benefit to switching between a wand and a staff since a wizard can only ever really be good at one or the other. But it would nudge the game toward some later revisions that I think would be healthy.


The big problem, ultimately, is that the system encourages you to dump so many resources into focusing on one tool, which reduces variety, creativity, and spontaneity. That's a bigger problem than can be addressed in a quick article, but I think making yet more feats that just pin you into a specific pair of attack items would miss out on an opportunity to add more character variety.

Also, it'd make it a lot faster to find the feat you need in the character builder. Seriously, there are THREE THOUSAND feats in there.

So please, before you make any special flavorful complicated feats that give bonuses to diplomacy while you're stabbing someone, first print something like the feat I suggested above that gets a fix out there that everyone can use.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback for the game I love playing.
[/sblock]

 

[Iron Sky]

There still is an issue with non-weapon, non-implement attacks (Dragon's Breath for Dragonborn is the most blatant example). Redoing the chart of what you get each level to include a "+1 to attack rolls" at levels 1/11/21 or 5/15/25 would be fix the issue entirely with no feat required.

Of course, this has been said before (on the CharOp boards before the game even came out IIRC) and the feat-tax feats are obviously here to stay since they're too entrenched already.

 

[Thraug]

Gods why do they always have to make things overly complex?

For once and for all they should just bloody-well get rid of the entire concept of weapon vs. implement and make them one and the same. Characters should simply be able to wield whatever weapon they're proficient in as a bloody implement. It's not freaking rocket science.

I couldn't agree more. Even after a couple of years straight of playing 4e I find the (combat) system overly complex in many areas, most where it adds nothing to the game. Too many powers, way too much to track, analysis paralysis x20, and all of this adds nothing to the game but drawn out encounters.

As I built a Cleric for Lair Assault I simply could not figure out how the implement/weaplement rules worked. I couldn't even figure out where to look for the stupid rules!!! I had to resort to searching the web for user comments on how they worked. Even the Rules Compendium didn't explain how they worked.

I really hope 5e has more a graceful and less complex combat system, and 0-5% of the power/status/condition/HP/surge/AP/magic item tracking of 4e. Sorry for the tangential blabber.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For once and for all they should just bloody-well get rid of the entire concept of weapon vs. implement and make them one and the same.

Oddly, that's the source of a lot of the complexity and strangeness that's been added to the game since 4e first hit. In PH1, weapons and implements (and the powers that used them) were /clearly/ different. Weapons got feat support specific to weapon groups with heavy stat preqs, while implements got feat support based more on the type of power (like damage type and other keywords).

For a game that's often criticized for making classes and sources too 'samey,' they've been jumping through a lot of hoops and publishing a lot of feats to make weapons & implements the same. (What, some weapons hit better than others!? We must create 'Accurate' implements!)

 

[Njall]

This article makes me sad. Like WotC just hires people who have no idea what the game needs or the players want.

Dude, that's a little harsh, and, frankly, off the mark in this case.
The author of the article is Herid Fel, the author of the Swordmage's handbook on the CO boards.
I don't know if he just screwed up or WotC edited/nerfed the feats, but the author is certainly knowledgeable in terms of what weapliment wielders need.