Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 5669596" data-attributes="member: 56189">I think one of the things people are overlooking in this thread is that these feats only serve to solve ONE of the aspects of weapon vs. implement design (and even then, doesn't solve them well).Sure, it's a problem that you often need to either specialise in weapon-only or implement-only attacks (hard to do, hence the complaints), but the other aspects of weapon vs. implement design are having to switch in mid-combat and having to maintain two sets of items.The item economy in 4e is finitely balanced. As any ranger player will tell you, maintaining two swords becomes a problem very early on in the character's life. Having to maintain both a weapon and an implement becomes a headache by as early as late heroic.Then there's item switching in mid-combat. There's a reason why charop builds favour items that grant free item switching. A minor to put away and a minor to draw is just freaking annoying.All of this is poor design. I have no idea why Wizards are so married to the concept of keeping weapons and implements separate. It's plainly obvious that it doesn't freaking work and is pissing off the majority of the player-base. The easiest answer in the world is to simply allow weapons to be used as implements, just minus the proficiency bonus. If you're that dead keen on keeping implements around, then allow wielders to make melee basic and ranged basic attacks with them; better yet, kill two birds with one stone and give all classes access to a class specific melee basic and ranged basic attack as a freebie based on the classes primary stat.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.</blockquote>

Verification