Wizard Implements

So after reading some more of Wrecan's, very good, D&D Before blog articles I remembered how much I liked the addition of Implements in 4e. There isn't a lot I like in 4e but that is one I did like. The Bruce Cordell, Wizards and Wizard Implements, article specifically. (I've inserted links to Wrecan's post and the original article)
This got me thinking how could implements be added to Next. Ideally, beyond fluff. Not that I have any problem with them just being fluff. Also looking to implement the Implements without the 4e mindset of needing more bonuses. Thanks to Bounded Accuracy we don't need to worry about that. So how could we do this?
My thought is to use the Wizard Traditions as a vehicle for implementation. This would add an additional layer of fluff to differentiate the Traditions. For example, School of Illusion Tradition, we will use the orb, (as 4e described it as an Illusionist's tool), this implement could grant the schools benefits, Arcane Decpetions and Detect Illusions. These benefits are gained while the Wizard is holding and using his/her implement to cast their spells. However, that isn't to say they don't have the ability to cast with out said implement, they just don't gain a benefit that using it comes with. The implement could even be the means in which a Tradition grants a Signature Spell.
Sorry, the writing of this is a bit clunky. 
I'm going to try to implement this modification with my Wizard player, which is why I picked Illusion. That is the Tradition that they are playing. 
With School of Evocation, as its kind of the Battlemage Tradition, I'm thinking the implement chould be either a staff or maybe even a martial weapon, "Pick one martial weapon. You gain proficiency with that weapon as well as using it for your implement." Or something like that.  While the Scholarly Wizard would use his/her spellbook as the implement. Gives a kind of iconic image of the Mage casting a spell in one hand while holding their spellbook in the other, drawing magic from it.
So, thoughts?  


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

You seem to be offering an advantage to those who choose an implement without a consequent disadvantage. In order for the core math to work with modules and retain balance, every time an opt-in module, like wizards' implements, is tracked in, it's going to have to include a disadvantage as well.

Not sure how you'd do so in this case. Maybe players who choose to play with this option get the powers you suggest, but MUST use that focus to cast, or lose the ability to cast spells from other traditions.
Or make it a feat that can be taken
What if implements worked exactly like weapons. You have proficiency with them or you don't.

Then we could have attacks work like skills where proficiency grants you your skill die on d20 rolls.

This would make spells attacks vs an opposed ability check.

Certain feats could grant implements special effects, but by themselves they would simply be a means of channeling your magical attacks.
That may work also
What if implements worked exactly like weapons. You have proficiency with them or you don't. Then we could have attacks work like skills where proficiency grants you your skill die on d20 rolls. This would make spells attacks vs an opposed ability check. Certain feats could grant implements special effects, but by themselves they would simply be a means of channeling your magical attacks.

Would all magic attacks then require an implement?

We would then have two types of attacks: weapon and implement.

You would lose out on proficiency dice without an implement in your hand that you are proficient with.

SORCERER
Level 1: Magic Within
Your bare hands function as an implement with which you have proficiency.


-----

I kind of like that magic is a separate system, myself.



Danny

You seem to be offering an advantage to those who choose an implement without a consequent disadvantage. In order for the core math to work with modules and retain balance, every time an opt-in module, like wizards' implements, is tracked in, it's going to have to include a disadvantage as well. Not sure how you'd do so in this case. Maybe players who choose to play with this option get the powers you suggest, but MUST use that focus to cast, or lose the ability to cast spells from other traditions.


Its not really an advantage but a requirement to take advantage of the school/tradition bonus abilities. The disadvantage would be not having the +2 to the DC to resist Illusion spells or not having the ability to keep your teammates from being burned by your fireball spell. You can still cast magic but the lack of implement removes the use of those bonus abilities.

What if implements worked exactly like weapons. You have proficiency with them or you don't. Then we could have attacks work like skills where proficiency grants you your skill die on d20 rolls. This would make spells attacks vs an opposed ability check. Certain feats could grant implements special effects, but by themselves they would simply be a means of channeling your magical attacks.


There is some merit there for consideration.

This is really a thought experiment on other possible ways to make Wizard Traditions more interesting. Honestly, it may just come down to me adding it as setting fluff in my games. Illusionists, usually, use orbs when casting spells, while Scholarly Wizards hold their spellbooks to focus while casting, and battlemages, evocation school, will gain a single martial melee weapon proficiency. Certainly isn't going to disrupt anything doing it that way. 
Just ideas to play around with. 
Very true. Implements were a nice addition. I will likely house rule some in also
perhaps a limit to the amount of power you can put into a spell based off your level without an implement?
I like the idea of implements as magic conduits.  If you're wielding a wand/rod, then you gain +1 to hit with spell attacks because they're easier to aim; if you're using an orb, then increase the magnitude of the effect (healing/damage/area) somehow; if you're using a staff (in both hands) then you get both benefits.

It's simple, elegant, and helps you to identify spellcasters right off the bat.  Plus, it means a fighter-mage can dual-wield a sword and rod, and that looks really nifty.

The metagame is not the game.

I mostly liked the unified mechanics of 4e between martial and magical attacks. I also liked the concept of implement properties in 4e. However, just like martial characters have the option of an "unarmed" attack, casters should get a "no implement" attack. Monks are the masters of unarmed as it were, and have an equivalent caster class use no implement as well (probably the class based on bloodlines/innate magic).

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Personally I don't see the benefit of taking any other tradition than Scholar. You just get more with it.
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
4th edition didn't have beards as implements, a big fail.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

4th edition didn't have beards as implements, a big fail.



Yeah, beards have gotten a bad name, I mean, check out that Hobbit movie...
Sign In to post comments