Community

What are the rules for turning an existing implement into a superior implement?  Do you just pay the cost for a superior implement, or do you need to use the Transfer Enchantment ritual to move the enchantment?

I'm curious, as well.

My assumption is that one would have to use Transfer Enchantment, similar to moving an enchantment from (for example) a longsword to a bastard sword, but I'd like to see confirmation of that.

Yeah, buy one then transfer enchantment.  (Don't forget the feat too)

I just paid my taxes. Now I have more?

Strangely enough...

A dagger costs one gold piece. A magical +1 dagger costs 360 gp, not 361.

A superior spiked chain costs 30 gp. A magical +2 chain costs 1800 gp, not 1830.

A standard wand costs 7 gp. A magical +1 rod costs 360 gp, not 367.

A superior oaken wand costs 25 gp. A magical +1 oaken wand costs, what? 360 gp or 385?


(not that such amounts matter in the least once you've gained a few levels, but it's curious that the rules don't specify)

The rules state that the masterwork cost is included in the cost of magical implements.

Only if you are buying one outright.  If you are looking to swap out an implement you already have for a superior version, you can buy one for whatever the cost and pay 200 gp for the ritual scroll + components.

No offense but are you really getting that nit-picky about a few gold pieces?

I didn't realize these could be used with enchantments (not sure why I didn't).

So, in theory, could I have an Accurate Master's Wand of [***]? 

Mar 16, 2010 -- 6:44AM, Ore wrote:

No offense but are you really getting that nit-picky about a few gold pieces?

Nope. As I said in my post "not that such amounts matter in the least".

So, in theory, could I have an Accurate Master's Wand of [***]? 

Yes.

I'm looking more at the feat tax, not the actual gold being spent.

Feat tax worth it at level 1

Mar 16, 2010 -- 10:15AM, Hibiki54 wrote:

I'm looking more at the feat tax, not the actual gold being spent.

A large number of my melee PCs grab a Superior Weapon at level 1 or 2, so I guess it's not any worse for a Superior Implement.  I don't think it's a tax in this case.

Superior Implements are, in most cases, better than superior weapons.

All superior implements can give +1 to hit over normal implements (except Tomes).

Superior Greataxe (Execution Axe), nope.

Superior Maul (Mordenkrad), nope.

Superior Greatsword (Fullblade), nope.

Superior Longsword (Bastard Sword), nope.

Superior Warhammer (Craghammer), nope.

Superior Battleaxe (War Axe), nope.

A character wielding any of these weapons can easily do without a superior weapon until epic since they only increase average damage by 1 per [W]. +1 to hit is far better than +1 damage.

Unless you're a tome wizard Superior Implement Proficiency is a tax.

If I squint and hope that accurate doesn't make up 90% of the superior implements, I can even figure that they're more flavorful than superior weapons.

It would be neat if more of your feats should be used for odd or interesting things, instead of, say, +1 attack here, +1 damage there, ad nauseam. I really wish dnd weren't so based around specialization in a specific form of weapon/implement - I miss when going from a +3 sword to a +4 axe was an actual thing you did. But, eh, a bit off topic there.

It's not a feat tax.  You can get by just fine with Expertise with normal implements.  It isn't necessary to "correct the math" as people had said expertise was needed for.  It's an extra bonus.

Although any more if there's a feat that adds a bonus to hit or AC it's automatically labelled a feat tax.

Yea, a feat tax IMO is a feat that you have to take to make the math of the game work. So expertise, paragon defenses, etc... Superior Implement Proficiency is a really good feat, maybe even OPed. But I hate it when people throw the words feat tax around.


BTW, Greatspear does give a +1 to attacks  vs its military cousin, longspear.
But otherwise, Ferol has a point about superior weapons and superior implements not being that similiar. I could see +1 vs a certain defense and only that defense(should have just stuck with that) rather than +1 to all attacks.

Mar 17, 2010 -- 10:36AM, ARlife wrote:

But otherwise, Ferol has a point about superior weapons and superior implements not being that similiar. I could see +1 vs a certain defense and only that defense(should have just stuck with that) rather than +1 to all attacks.

Supposedly, the default for weapon-users is a weapon with a +2 proficiency bonus.

Not all military weapons have accurate superior versions because, for many of them, you're getting the accurate property for free already.

Mar 17, 2010 -- 10:36AM, ARlife wrote:

Yea, a feat tax IMO is a feat that you have to take to make the math of the game work. So expertise, paragon defenses, etc... Superior Implement Proficiency is a really good feat, maybe even OPed. But I hate it when people throw the words feat tax around.

You're right. It's not a actual 'tax' but it's still crummy because its a feat that is so overwhelmingly good that the vast majority of players will have to take it. That, IMO, is poor design.

BTW, Greatspear does give a +1 to attacks  vs its military cousin, longspear.

Please read my post again. I said, "in most cases". There are a few weapons where upgrading from military to superior does give a bonus to attacks. Most do not.

I didnt say it wasnt poor design that the feat is that good. But it isn't neccessary to make the game function. Yes you did say that in "most cases" superior implements are better than superior weapons, but to be fair, having a proficiency to hit is generally better than not having one.(When you have the best possible attack bonus as a caster and miss on a 14 on the die, where as a weapon user, you would hit on an 11-12, you see these things).

Great Axe to Executioner and Maul to Mordenkrad is a prime example. You're only playing up for the Brutal property.

I temporary took this feat for my Sorceress thanks to the Dragon article. Hopefully a new P2 mod comes out before I'm nerfed.

Mar 17, 2010 -- 10:59AM, ARlife wrote:

(When you have the best possible attack bonus as a caster and miss on a 14 on the die, where as a weapon user, you would hit on an 11-12, you see these things).

True, though, in most cases, a caster is going against a NAD, while a weapon user is going against AC...and, in most cases, monsters' NADs are weaker than their ACs.

Since ARlife didn't seem to understand this I'll break it down for every weapon that has a superior equivalent.

Weapons that do get a bonus to attacks for going from military to superior

Longspear -> Greatspear

Flail -> Hydra Flail

Crossbow -> Superior Crossbow

Weapons that do not get a bonus to attacks for going from military to  superior

Greataxe -> Execution Axe

Maul -> Mordenkrad

Greatsword -> Fullblade

Longsword -> Bastard Sword

Warhammer -> Craghammer

Battleaxe -> War Axe

Javelin -> Tratnyr

Shortsword -> Rapier

Longbow -> Greatbow

Except when weapons users can attack NADs on a regular basis with proficiency bonus. I mean piercing strike vs say a magic missile. Both just do damage, but piercing strike can be up to +4 higher accuracy wise than the magic missiler.  Or sometimes the NADs are higher than the AC of the creature. This actually shouldnt be a feat, they should just be a properties for implements like how weapons have brutal/high crit/etc.. But we take what we can get.

BTW, thank you Ferol, for mentioning all the superior weapons and their counterparts.

Mar 17, 2010 -- 11:02AM, Hibiki54 wrote:

I temporary took this feat for my Sorceress thanks to the Dragon article. Hopefully a new P2 mod comes out before I'm nerfed.

You're not even empowered yet, since superior implement daggers aren't currently legal. End of month!

Exactly. When new P2 mods come out.

Nads were supposed to often be lower than AC, but play a storm sorcerer using thunder powers vs fortitude for a while and you'll see just how annoyingly high fortitude is on a lot of monsters.  Fort is even higher than AC for most brutes, which makes the lack of a proficiency bonus quite painful since brutes seem to be pretty common.

check out this enworld link for the first MM stats

www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-ru...
 
Implement users vs will and reflex are fine, since it's a 2-3 point lower average than AC, Fort starts at less than a 2 point difference below AC and ends at less than 1 point below ac average at epic.

A "Feat Tax" would be a feat that gives implement users an untyped +1 bonus to hit fort, or better yet a +1 at paragon and +2 at epic.  To bring it in line with implement attacks against will and reflex. 

Mar 17, 2010 -- 12:02PM, Thanlis wrote:

Mar 17, 2010 -- 11:02AM, Hibiki54 wrote:

I temporary took this feat for my Sorceress thanks to the Dragon article. Hopefully a new P2 mod comes out before I'm nerfed.

You're not even empowered yet, since superior implement daggers aren't currently legal. End of month!

Superior Implements are currently legal.  PHB material is legal upon release (see RPGA CCG v. 1.95, p. 2).  PHB 3 has been released -- in fact many of us have had it for over a week.  Therefore, Superior Implements are legal (even though they haven't been added to Character Builder yet.

Daren

Mar 17, 2010 -- 1:39PM, Drezden wrote:

Mar 17, 2010 -- 12:02PM, Thanlis wrote:

Mar 17, 2010 -- 11:02AM, Hibiki54 wrote:

I temporary took this feat for my Sorceress thanks to the Dragon article. Hopefully a new P2 mod comes out before I'm nerfed.

You're not even empowered yet, since superior implement daggers aren't currently legal. End of month!

Superior Implements are currently legal.  PHB material is legal upon release (see RPGA CCG v. 1.95, p. 2).  PHB 3 has been released -- in fact many of us have had it for over a week.  Therefore, Superior Implements are legal (even though they haven't been added to Character Builder yet.

Daren

Superior dagger implements however are in dragon and not phb3, so they are not legal till end of month.

Mar 17, 2010 -- 1:39PM, Drezden wrote:

Superior Implements are currently legal.  PHB material is legal upon release (see RPGA CCG v. 1.95, p. 2).  PHB 3 has been released -- in fact many of us have had it for over a week.  Therefore, Superior Implements are legal (even though they haven't been added to Character Builder yet.

Except for superior daggers, which only exist in the current uncompiled Dragon, which is what is being referred to above.

EDIT: NINJA'D 

Mar 17, 2010 -- 10:54AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

You're right. It's not a actual 'tax' but it's still crummy because its a feat that is so overwhelmingly good that the vast majority of players will have to take it. That, IMO, is poor design.

It's not necessary, but you have to take it?  That makes no sense. 

Mar 17, 2010 -- 1:40PM, ibixat wrote:

Mar 17, 2010 -- 1:39PM, Drezden wrote:

Mar 17, 2010 -- 12:02PM, Thanlis wrote:

Mar 17, 2010 -- 11:02AM, Hibiki54 wrote:

I temporary took this feat for my Sorceress thanks to the Dragon article. Hopefully a new P2 mod comes out before I'm nerfed.

You're not even empowered yet, since superior implement daggers aren't currently legal. End of month!

Superior Implements are currently legal.  PHB material is legal upon release (see RPGA CCG v. 1.95, p. 2).  PHB 3 has been released -- in fact many of us have had it for over a week.  Therefore, Superior Implements are legal (even though they haven't been added to Character Builder yet.

Daren

Superior dagger implements however are in dragon and not phb3, so they are not legal till end of month.

Oh, guess I should pay more attention. 

Daren

Mar 17, 2010 -- 11:21AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Greatsword -> Fullblade

Technically on this one, but in name only. Fullblade is very popular among the 'I'd otherwise be using a Greataxe' group for the +1.

You also left out Spiked Chain, which similarly gives that kind of bonus to flail and a bump to reach. 

Superior Implement is definitely a feat tax, in that getting a permanent +1 to hit for the cost of one feat is seen as so much better than most other feats that it's really not a choice whether or not a character should take the feat.

I'm not saying that popular opinion is right about this, but traditionally most people on message boards gawk and fawn over every to-hit bonus they can get. So yes, I would expect nearly all implement characters to get Experise and Superior feats early in their heroic career.

Mar 17, 2010 -- 2:01PM, Dragon9 wrote:

Mar 17, 2010 -- 10:54AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

You're right. It's not a actual 'tax' but it's still crummy because its a feat that is so overwhelmingly good that the vast majority of players will have to take it. That, IMO, is poor design.

It's not necessary, but you have to take it?  That makes no sense. 

To rephrase and add in all the unspoken background:  it's not an actual tax (because characters will function fine without it), but it's still poor design because the benefit (of +1 to attacks) is so good (in a character optimization sense when compared with almost all other feats) that the vast majority of players any player who cares about optimization will have to take it.

Get rid of the "accurate" property, and superior implements are balanced, flavorful, and a welcome complement to superior weapons.

t~

Then again I've heard a lot of pople grumble that even with Implement Experttise they feel implement wielders are behind the curve.  Although I do just fine with mine.

Mar 26, 2010 -- 6:08AM, Dragon9 wrote:

Then again I've heard a lot of pople grumble that even with Implement Experttise they feel implement wielders are behind the curve.  Although I do just fine with mine.

Look at it from their perspective when they pick up a PHB I, II, III, Adventurer's Vault I, II, or read issues of Dragon they see page after page of weapons and when they look for implements there are just a handful of pages for all 8 different types (Orbs, Staffs, Wands, Holy Symbols, Daggers, Rods, Totems and Bard implements).    

Well, when I said behind the curve I meant in the to-hit department.  Not the redistribution of items department. 

Mar 26, 2010 -- 6:08AM, Dragon9 wrote:

Then again I've heard a lot of pople grumble that even with Implement Expertise they feel implement wielders are behind the curve.

Since both weapon and implement wielders can get Expertise, that's a wash.

Theoretically, all of the following are supposed to be true:
* Non-AC defenses are 2 less than AC;
* Weapon wielders use +2 proficiency bonus weapons and target AC;
* Implements wielders are able to choose which non-AC defense to target.

In practice, none of the foregoing are universally true.
* There are creatures--many creatures--where either all of its NADs or just the one you're targeting is equal to or even higher than its AC.
* The default for weapon-wielders is a +3 proficiency bonus weapon, unless they choose to give that up to take a weapon they feel gives them more of a benefit.
* Many encounter powers let weapon-wielders target a NAD.  It is very uncommon for an implement power to give a +2 over the normal attack bonus.
* Many implement-users have little choice as to which defense they target.

So, in sum, yes, implement-wielders have the short end of the stick as far as attack bonuses go.

Even superior implements only help slightly.  They mean that implement-users now have the option of spending a feat to get the equivalent of Weapon Proficiency (Longsword) instead of being stuck using a mace.

Mar 26, 2010 -- 3:55PM, bgibbons wrote:

* Non-AC defenses are 2 less than AC;

According to the MM statistics, this is absolutely true on average. You say there are "many creatures" for which it's not, but for "most" creatures this seems to work out well.

* Implements wielders are able to choose which non-AC defense to target.

I fail to see how this was a design principle. It is neither generally true, nor does it generally make a big difference. There are some exceptions (e.g. brutes and fort defence) but in most cases the spread between NADs is pretty small.

However, one more point: Implement users tend to have more area attacks than weapon users. Again, not universally true, but I believe that e.g. wizards compensate for their lower to-hit mod by the ability to target two or three enemies with every single attack. Statistically that's a very good deal.

Mar 30, 2010 -- 2:38AM, Kurald_Galain wrote:

Mar 26, 2010 -- 3:55PM, bgibbons wrote:

* Non-AC defenses are 2 less than AC;

According to the MM statistics, this is absolutely true on average. You say there are "many creatures" for which it's not, but for "most" creatures this seems to work out well.

yeah.. not really, in theory sure but you don't attack "nad" you attack a specific nad and fortitude averages far less than 2 below ac and only gets worse as you level up, reflex and will bring that average in line. The biggest problem I see is that their are types of attacks that if you want to focus on a specific energy type or do something specific you get stuck attacking fort sometimes as your only option to stay in your concept.  

Honestly I just don't think any creature should ever have higher nads than AC, at best they should only ever be equal to the AC defense.

stats below Show

Mar 30, 2010 -- 4:56AM, ibixat wrote:

yeah.. not really, in theory sure but you don't attack "nad" you attack a specific nad and fortitude averages far less than 2 below ac and only gets worse

I don't think it's fair to say that 1.76 is "far less than" 2.

The biggest problem I see is that their are types of attacks that if you want to focus on a specific energy type or do something specific you get stuck attacking fort sometimes as your only option to stay in your concept.

Are there, in practice, any concepts like that, which do not get sufficient bonuses from having solid synergy to make up for hitting a grand total of 5% less often?

Mar 30, 2010 -- 5:05AM, Kurald_Galain wrote:

Mar 30, 2010 -- 4:56AM, ibixat wrote:

yeah.. not really, in theory sure but you don't attack "nad" you attack a specific nad and fortitude averages far less than 2 below ac and only gets worse

I don't think it's fair to say that 1.76 is "far less than" 2.

The biggest problem I see is that their are types of attacks that if you want to focus on a specific energy type or do something specific you get stuck attacking fort sometimes as your only option to stay in your concept.

Are there, in practice, any concepts like that, which do not get sufficient bonuses from having solid synergy to make up for hitting a grand total of 5% less often?

1.14 and .88 are far less than 2 when our range of numbers is 1-3, at that point 1.76 is also a decent chunk lower. That 1.76 is only for levels 1 through 10, once you reach paragon the 1.14 and at epic the .88 averages kick in.  And you tend to spend more time in those tiers than heroic.


And yeah, there are lots of concepts that are boned by attacking fort, storm sorcerer's for one if they try to focus on thunder powers,  

Mar 30, 2010 -- 1:56PM, ibixat wrote:

1.14 and .88 are far less than 2 when our range of numbers is 1-3, at that point 1.76 is also a decent chunk lower. That 1.76 is only for levels 1 through 10, once you reach paragon the 1.14 and at epic the .88 averages kick in.  And you tend to spend more time in those tiers than heroic.

Sophistry. The range of numbers is 1-20 given how the dice work, anyway, so you'll never notice a 0.86 point difference in actual gameplay.

And yeah, there are lots of concepts that are boned by attacking fort, storm sorcerer's for one if they try to focus on thunder powers,  

If you can name only one example, and can't even explain how he's boned in practice, then there aren't "lots of concepts" that have trouble with it.

If you do the math, you'll see that getting area attacks (like a storm sorcerer does) more than makes up for a 4.3% lower to-hit chance. Theoretical optimization sometimes gets out of touch with the reality of gameplay, and this is precisely such an example.

Mar 31, 2010 -- 3:13AM, Kurald_Galain wrote:

If you do the math, you'll see that getting area attacks (like a storm sorcerer does) more than makes up for a 4.3% lower to-hit chance. Theoretical optimization sometimes gets out of touch with the reality of gameplay, and this is precisely such an example.

Except that the alternative to a storm sorcerer is (say) a cosmic sorcerer, who's still firing off AoEs but isn't hitting Fortitude.

Kurald, be less rude please. It's easy to notice a difference the difference of .88 in game.  It's especially easy when that .88 is the difference between AC and fort yet the attacks against those defenses vary by 2-4 points.  

One of the biggest problems with fortitude attacks is that an entire type of monster, Brutes, have a fort that is on average higher than ac by .8ish, Soldiers are not quite as bad because they have both high AC and fort but again fort is on average only about 1.5 behind while reflex and will average more than 4 lower.    Attacking fort is just a bad idea overall, that is what I'm pointing at really.   

Wizards have a lot of single target implement attacks against fortitude, invokers. Most NAD attackers have plenty of attacks vs fortitude that are basically inherently penalized just for attacking fort, it's not like they give some immense benefit because they attack a higher defense than will or reflex.

Mar 31, 2010 -- 4:51AM, Thanlis wrote:

Except that the alternative to a storm sorcerer is (say) a cosmic sorcerer, who's still firing off AoEs but isn't hitting Fortitude.

You're still doing theory only, and not giving any practical examples. It is simply not true that a storm sorcerer will always target fort, or that a cosmic sorcerer will never target fort, or that the former is "boned" as a result.

Mar 31, 2010 -- 4:58AM, ibixat wrote:

It's easy to notice a difference the difference of .88 in game.

No, it is not. That's because when you make twenty-three attacks, it comes up once. That means you can and will go through several combats without this making any difference.

Attacking fort is just a bad idea overall, that is what I'm pointing at really.

...but it's really not. Look at how often you hit a monster's defence precisely, in that rolling one point lower would have caused you to miss. If you feel this happens once every twenty attacks, you are correct. Then, realize that in most combats, you'll make significantly less than twenty attacks (not counting the "cleanup" phase, in which it isn't relevant what you do any more, and which most DMs here skip anyway). If we estimate that you'll make eleven attack rolls per combat (four rounds times two targets on average, plus an action point and an OA) then targeting fortititude would make you miss a single attack every other combat. That's the "big deal" we're talking about.

In practice, it's even less, because very few builds target one defense exlusively, and any build that can target fort-or-something-else knows which attack to use on the obvious-to-spot brutes.

Mar 31, 2010 -- 5:14AM, Kurald_Galain wrote:

Mar 31, 2010 -- 4:58AM, ibixat wrote:

It's easy to notice a difference the difference of .88 in game.

No, it is not. That's because when you make twenty-three attacks, it comes up once. That means you can and will go through several combats without this making any difference.

Look, I'm not a big fan of the charop boards, but let's at least get the math right. You're treating it like it's a flat change, which is true in terms of how often it'll make a difference to your roll but which misses out on the effect on damage.

If I generally need an 11 or better to hit, I will hit ten times out of 20. Dropping that to 9 times out of 20 represents a reduction of 10% in the overall damage I do.

If I generally need a 16 or better to hit, I'm hitting 5 times out of 20. Dropping that to 4 out of 20 reduces my damage by 20%. Likewise, it means that I'll be applying status effects 20% less often, and so on.

Mar 31, 2010 -- 5:14AM, Kurald_Galain wrote:

Mar 31, 2010 -- 4:51AM, Thanlis wrote:

Except that the alternative to a storm sorcerer is (say) a cosmic sorcerer, who's still firing off AoEs but isn't hitting Fortitude.

You're still doing theory only, and not giving any practical examples. It is simply not true that a storm sorcerer will always target fort, or that a cosmic sorcerer will never target fort, or that the former is "boned" as a result.

Mar 31, 2010 -- 4:58AM, ibixat wrote:

It's easy to notice a difference the difference of .88 in game.

No, it is not. That's because when you make twenty-three attacks, it comes up once. That means you can and will go through several combats without this making any difference.

Attacking fort is just a bad idea overall, that is what I'm pointing at really.

...but it's really not. Look at how often you hit a monster's defence precisely, in that rolling one point lower would have caused you to miss. If you feel this happens once every twenty attacks, you are correct. Then, realize that in most combats, you'll make significantly less than twenty attacks (not counting the "cleanup" phase, in which it isn't relevant what you do any more, and which most DMs here skip anyway). If we estimate that you'll make eleven attack rolls per combat (four rounds times two targets on average, plus an action point and an OA) then targeting fortititude would make you miss a single attack every other combat. That's the "big deal" we're talking about.

In practice, it's even less, because very few builds target one defense exlusively, and any build that can target fort-or-something-else knows which attack to use on the obvious-to-spot brutes.

Ok, don't claim to know what my play experience is like first of all, I'm not talking theory only I'm talking in game actual experience.  You have no problem claiming that my issue is all based on theory and not actual game play but all you have shown in return is theory and math.  I have a level 15 storm sorcerer, I got rid of all my attacks that target fortitude because compared to the reflex attacks they were completely unreliable.  I've run across far too many creatures that were missed on a 14 vs fort but hit on a 10 vs reflex to even begin to think attacking fort is a good idea when considering which dailies and encounters to pick.

Since I happen to have a list of monster defenses handy, just to get the numbers on the table, here's the breakdown of the difference between Fort and Ref for MM1 monsters:

11: 1
9: 2
8: 8
7: 6
6: 18
5: 40
4: 36
3: 59
2: 69
1: 57
0: 29
-1: 51
-2: 62
-3: 26
-4: 11
-5: 4
-6: 2

That's 1 monster with a Fortitude 11 points higher than its Reflex, and so on. You can see that there's a reasonably even distribution from +2 to -2, but the plus side has a big fat tail that goes out to +5, and there are still a significant number of monsters with Fortitude 6 points higher than Reflex. They actually mostly fixed the problem in MM2:

9: 1
7: 2
6: 3
5: 10
4: 10
3: 21
2: 57
1: 41
0: 39
-1: 55
-2: 62
-3: 7
-4: 2
-5: 4

Not completely even, but close enough in my eyes. But there are still a lot of MM1 monsters out there, obviously.

There is no doubt that newer monsters have better balanced defenses and stats and attacks, but the averages are heavily skewed by the first monster manual still, and unless a future version actively tries to balance out the old existing monsters stats with new ones instead of just being balanced on their own.

There are 441 monsters in both books combined with a fort higher than reflex, and there are only 286 with reflex higher than fort, 68 are even.

Mar 26, 2010 -- 9:28AM, Vamroc wrote:

Mar 26, 2010 -- 6:08AM, Dragon9 wrote:

Then again I've heard a lot of pople grumble that even with Implement Experttise they feel implement wielders are behind the curve.  Although I do just fine with mine.

Look at it from their perspective when they pick up a PHB I, II, III, Adventurer's Vault I, II, or read issues of Dragon they see page after page of weapons and when they look for implements there are just a handful of pages for all 8 different types (Orbs, Staffs, Wands, Holy Symbols, Daggers, Rods, Totems and Bard implements).    

Which, ironically, is how (at least this) druid player felt, when reading the section on superior implements. They really got overlooked.