|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:26PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
4e used implements to deliver enhancement bonuses to casters and keep them on the same them on the same treadmill as everyone else. 5e doesn't need to do that since there is no advancement in that sense. Maybe 5e casters will need implements to to get damage bonuses, or maybe their spells will just scale like Magic Missle in the playtest, and only weapon-users will need magic items to keep up on the damage side? However that turns out, though, there's another nice thing implements did in 4e. They continued what 3.x did with the 'spell component pouch.' In (A)D&D, many spells had specific material components that you needed to cast that spell, so you tracked pinches of sand and grass-hopper legs and tiny balls of sulphur & bat guano and so forth (or your DM just declined to enforce it and you skated). In 3.x, you only tracked material components with a gp cost, everything else was just assumed to be in your 'spell component pouch,' which could be taken away from you to reduce your spellcasting options, at least in theory (I saw it happen exactly once in 8 years of play, for instance). In 4e you didn't need components, at all, but you did use an implement, and having an implement taken away would limit your effectiveness a bit (you'd lose enhancement and the benefits of any implement-specific feats or features you had), while 'expensive components' were confined to rituals.
I'd certainly prefer 5e to continue the 3e/4e trend of minimizing the fiddly bookkeeping required of casting via some catch-all like a spell component pouch or implement. As always, any simplification or balance achieved by doing so could be un-done adding some 'module' or other.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:32PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
It's really going to depend on what each individual considers to be iconic in terms of his or her personal experiences. Someone who is big into Harry Potter or World of Warcraft (to pick two random examples) is going to have a close mental association between magic and implements. Other literature (Eddings, Lackey, Pierce) and games (most Final Fantasy games) leave out the implements.
Shadowrun has implements as optional in a couple of ways: you can cast a more powerful spell if you learn it so that you can only cast it when you hold a fairly unique personal item, or you can use such an item to offset magical ability lost due to cyberware or drug use, but there are also special magical items that will increase the power of anyone who wields them. Whether any of these comes in the form of a staff, orb, wand, or whatever is mostly cosmetic.
It's really only notable to me because it was where I got into gaming, and so it's where I draw a lot of my opinions on how magic "should" work: a wizard can cast spells without a staff, but it's better to have one than to not. In D&D terms, I suppose that a wizard with no staff would be like a fighter with a regular sword, and a magic staff should be as rare as a magic sword.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:33PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
While I like the idea of casters using impliments - be they wands, staves, orbs, holy symbols, etc, I don't think doing so with non-magical versions quite fits my image. And I don't think they should have to use them.
One of the dumbest things I've ever encountered was when I played a 4e bard.
I had some low lv at-will(?) power that did d8+cha. bonus damage at range & required an impliment (wand) to use for some reason. Either outright required or for some bonus, I forget.
So it came to pass that my best attack was to stand in the corner & shake charisma fueled damage at my foe from a non-magical stick (AKA: a wand).
No thanks.
I think that it should be important/really usefull if a wizard finds or crafts a (wand). Just not mandatory.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:39PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
One thing to remember about implements is that they can be magical without being "magical." More specifically, an implement like a normal staff or wand can have magical properties, just nothing so strong as to grant a bonus to additional affect to casting a spell. The implement is inherently magical because it is the focus of the caster's power when working magic, but it is not strongly magical in a way that would influence the power being channeled through it. EDIT: And I love the idea of dissarming a caster by taking away their implement.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in an thread with GM_Champion" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against AzureShade when card design is on the line!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:41PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
After the first few sessions, any enemy (or even justified law enforcement) will have to go to extremes to have much chance of keeping PCs locked up. The PCs either need to be killed or constantly kept unconscious, which kind of defeats any story purpose for the capturing, and pretty much halts the game until the jailer messes up in the routine. Unless you're playing incredibly lawful PCs who honor the terms of the surrender, how and why would the DM ever have the villains take the PCs captive?
This was an issue even in 2e, but became a significantly more pronounced problem in 3.x and 4e.
I certainly don't want the PCs to be easily and constantly made helpless, but many interesting or traditional storylines are rendered moot by this problem. You miss out on the escape attempts, the interactions with villains and potential allies, the meeting a fellow prisoner(s) who prove useful or worth rescuing, etc. Plus it makes every fight "to the death" instead of any reason for knocking unconscious.
Well, the means to restrain PCs should become more extensive as they grow in level. At 1st level you can toss them in the county jail and they'll have to figure a way out, but at 10th the Fighter will just rip the door out. So you have to take them to that prison from Face/Off, and then once they're too much for that you take them to that high gravity planet that Gene Starwind got stuck on (for my fellow "Watched Toonami Too Much" colleagues). The means to hold them get more and more extreme because they're more and more capable.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:42PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
What do I think of the idea? "Oh, great. System-enforced gear dependency. Again."
I don't think that's quite a fair assessment of the idea. After all, the idea essentially just makes spell-casters exactly as gear-dependant as more martial character are and have always been, no more, no less. In fact, depending on how you used material components in previous editions, it may not actually change how gear-dependant they are at all.
Spell components are not an idea that I will entertain, though. They're just flat-out stupid, and both Charmander and Squirtle agree that they should stay dead.
One of the dumbest things I've ever encountered was when I played a 4e bard.
I had some low lv at-will(?) power that did d8+cha. bonus damage at range & required an impliment (wand) to use for some reason. Either outright required or for some bonus, I forget.
No such power exists that I can find.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 1:46PM
#17
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I blogged about this in October. Here was my compromise. An implement is the caster's weapon. It provides a base damage die of d4. If you have a second hand free for somatic components, increase the damage by a die. If you are able to utter verbal components, increase the damage a die. This can get you up to d8, which is typical. Silence then prevents verbal components, reducing damage a die. Spells that can hamper movement my prevent somatic components, reducing damage a die. If you lose your implement, then you are fighting unarmed. If you can speak and gesture, you attack with a base die of d4. If you lose your implement and either have your hands bound or are silenced, you can't spellcast. For spells that don't inflict damage, different rules will be necessary (possibly affecting saves or duration) An optional module would allow you to substitute consumable material components for an implement. My idea was that any campaign world would have a list of components. Maybe you use sympathetic magic, which prevents you from affecting a target unless you possess something that the target once owned (like a lock of hair or piece of clothing). Maybe you use goofy components, like eye of newt for transmutation, and bat guano for evocations. The game can offer suggested default lists, but any DM can customize them himself. The component list may even be a back-up rule. So you can run adventures like the Scourge of the Slave Lords, in which the players were captures, stripped of all possessions and left on a deserted island. They have to scrounge makeshift weapons and spell components to survive and, eventually, get off the island.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 2:17PM
#18
|
|
|
While I like the idea of casters using impliments - be they wands, staves, orbs, holy symbols, etc, I don't think doing so with non-magical versions quite fits my image. And I don't think they should have to use them.
One of the dumbest things I've ever encountered was when I played a 4e bard.
I had some low lv at-will(?) power that did d8+cha. bonus damage at range & required an impliment (wand) to use for some reason. Either outright required or for some bonus, I forget.
So it came to pass that my best attack was to stand in the corner & shake charisma fueled damage at my foe from a non-magical stick (AKA: a wand).
No thanks.
I think that it should be important/really usefull if a wizard finds or crafts a (wand). Just not mandatory.
To note, in 4E, the implement keyword didn't mean you required an implement, it just meant that implements were the type of equipment that enhanced the power.
If your DM forced you to use a wand to attack with Vcious Mockery, then y'all both missed the section in PH2, pg 67, under the Implement section of the Bard Class Features that explains without a wand you can still use these powers.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 2:32PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I feel the nonmagical implement should have a purpose.
Dugtrio the Geomancer casts with his magic orb.
Just make the stereotypical quartstaff a focus along with orbs, rings, keys, bracelets, daggers, and mirrors.
Then maybe a certain level, they don't need focuses anymore.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 2:47PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2002
|
Since they're currently using a +2 bonus to attack rolls with magic, just like it seems they're using something similar for weapon attacks, I may just incorperate that into implements. Not having your wand gives you an attack penalty, then. I like the idea of taking a spellcasters implement away as a way of disarming them, just like weapons, so I'm with Squirtle.
|
|
|
