[4e] Dilettante and implements

[Ubercaledor]

I don't know if this has been addressed before, but I was just checking whether there was any standing rule about required implements?

As far as I can tell, implements are required for many classes, but which implement can be used is tied to the class, not the skill.

My example is a Half-elf Warlock with Misdirected Mark (Bard) as a dilettante power. The warlock would be able to use both rods and wands, whereas the Bards can only use wands. Thus would it matter if the warlock was using a rod? Or am I just being pedantic?

[Oracle_Hunter]

There are no required implements, but you cannot use an implement with a power unless:

(1) You are proficient with it AND
(2) The target class uses said Implement

So feel free to Eyebite as a Dilettante - but don't expect to get any Implement Bonuses to hit.

Arcane Implement Proficiency (a Heroic Feat) fixes this by making one Implement universally applicable.

[Ubercaledor]

I guess it would just be easier to give her a wand and go with that anyway. Thanks for the response.

[Kurald Galain]

Note that it would not be particularly overpowering to houserule that the Dilettante Power counts as a power of your class with respect to implement usage.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Note that it would not be particularly overpowering to houserule that the Dilettante Power counts as a power of your class with respect to implement usage.
Seconded.

The Implement Rule is more of a prophylactic measure, anyhow. There's a reason that Arcane Implement Proficiency is limited to Arcane Powers only - WotC (wisely) fears easy intermixing between classes, and the possibility of a Divine Class grabbing a theoretical Magic Arcane Implement and running rampant. As of yet, I can't think of any broken (or even overpowered) combination along this lines, but that's the reasoning (IMHO) for the rule as is.

[Kurald Galain]

WotC (wisely) fears easy intermixing between classes, and the possibility of a Divine Class grabbing a theoretical Magic Arcane Implement and running rampant. As of yet, I can't think of any broken (or even overpowered) combination along this lines,

Let me think...
(1) Holy symbols don't require a body slot.
(2) Staffs tend to be very powerful, whereas wands tend to be very weak. I believe this is intentional, and this is why e.g. warlocks and bards can use wands, but not staffs.
(3) As a corollary, part of the power of wizards is that they can use so many different implements. This is their feature and shouldn't just apply to any implement-using class.

[Oracle_Hunter]

^ See, I knew there had to be an actual reason for this rule :smallbiggrin:

[Ubercaledor]

Yeah, I see. Thanks for the input.

I did consider the implications of using arcane implements in the place of holy symbols and vice-versa, which was why I was initially hesitant- but I guess in the case of my example, it probably isn't so much of a problem.

But, you're also talking about giving a class an implement that it would not otherwise have, when really, I'm talking about giving a class' legal implement a cross-function, which in the true spirit of the rule (dilettante= adapting to an ability which is otherwise not available) quite valid.

How about another example: Warlock with "Sacred Flame" (Cleric). In this case, we're crossing power-sources from Divine to Arcane, in both power and implement. Would there be an agreement that this would DEFINATELY be non-compatible with an arcane implement?

[Kurald Galain]

How about another example: Warlock with "Sacred Flame" (Cleric). In this case, we're crossing power-sources from Divine to Arcane, in both power and implement. Would there be an agreement that this would DEFINATELY be non-compatible with an arcane implement?

...no.

On the contrary: if the warlock is not allowed to use his regular implement for his once-per-encounter Sacred Flame attack, then this attack becomes progressively more useless in paragon and epic tier, ending with a -9 to hit even aside from attribute discrepancy. This, incidentally, is why the half-elf race is not as good as it seems, except in certain highly specific combos, or of course for weapon powers.

I would say, restrict classes to their listed implements, but when you use half-elf or a power swap feat to gain an implement power from another class, allow that to be used with your existing implement. Those options are already less than stellar and don't need to suffer from math problems as well.

[Oracle_Hunter]

...no.

On the contrary: if the warlock is not allowed to use his regular implement for his once-per-encounter Sacred Flame attack, then this attack becomes progressively more useless in paragon and epic tier, ending with a -9 to hit even aside from attribute discrepancy. This, incidentally, is why the half-elf race is not as good as it seems, except in certain highly specific combos, or of course for weapon powers.

I would say, restrict classes to their listed implements, but when you use half-elf or a power swap feat to gain an implement power from another class, allow that to be used with your existing implement. Those options are already less than stellar and don't need to suffer from math problems as well.
Do keep an eye out for Versatile Master - by making the Encounter an At-Will, you risk the sorts of problems we've already talked about.

[Ubercaledor]

Yeah, I see...

[Kurald Galain]

Do keep an eye out for Versatile Master

That's a good point.