Superior Implement Proficiency?

[HeyThereImBear]

Alright, I've a master blaster Elementalist in the works, and as sorcerers, I noticed they gain daggers as an implement.

But, if you apply the SIP feat, what does that dagger then become?

The feat simply states you can use a superior version of the implement you're already prof. in, so I'm curious what in the world a "superior dagger" would be. Enchanted, maybe?

[NecroRebel]

The concept of superior implements was introduced in PHB3. You take Superior Implement Proficiency in one particular type of superior implement - for instance, you might take Superior Implement Proficiency (accurate dagger) and when you use an accurate dagger to make implement attacks, you gain the benefit from it. On the other hand, if you had Superior Implement Proficiency (accurate dagger) and used a lancing dagger to make implement attacks you wouldn't gain any benefit from the fact that it's a lancing dagger.

Superior implements can be enchanted, and if they are, the cost of being a superior implement is overridden by the cost of being enchanted. The superior implement ability applies on top of any enchantments if the user has the appropriate proficiency, but anyone who is proficient in that implement type still benefits from the enchantments. For instance, the character with Superior Implement Proficiency (accurate dagger) could use a +2 lightning lancing dagger, but it wouldn't be any different from a normal +2 lightning dagger, just as if they had no superior implement proficiency at all.

[Mando Knight]

There are specific Superior Implements for most basic implement types. Each kind of Superior Implement needs its own proficiency feat, and has its own properties.

[HeyThereImBear]

The concept of superior implements was introduced in PHB3. You take Superior Implement Proficiency in one particular type of superior implement - for instance, you might take Superior Implement Proficiency (accurate dagger) and when you use an accurate dagger to make implement attacks, you gain the benefit from it. On the other hand, if you had Superior Implement Proficiency (accurate dagger) and used a lancing dagger to make implement attacks you wouldn't gain any benefit from the fact that it's a lancing dagger.

Superior implements can be enchanted, and if they are, the cost of being a superior implement is overridden by the cost of being enchanted. The superior implement ability applies on top of any enchantments if the user has the appropriate proficiency, but anyone who is proficient in that implement type still benefits from the enchantments. For instance, the character with Superior Implement Proficiency (accurate dagger) could use a +2 lightning lancing dagger, but it wouldn't be any different from a normal +2 lightning dagger, just as if they had no superior implement proficiency at all.

Hm. Makes sense. I'll go re-tear through the phb3 real quick to see if I can figure out which one would be best for the build, or if I even want the feat at all.

[NecroRebel]

Hm. Makes sense. I'll go re-tear through the phb3 real quick to see if I can figure out which one would be best for the build, or if I even want the feat at all.

The superior implement daggers aren't actually in PHB3. I think they were first in one of the Dragon magazines, but I don't remember which one and can't look it up due to the Compendium only saying "multiple sources" :smallannoyed:

[HeyThereImBear]

The superior implement daggers aren't actually in PHB3. I think they were first in one of the Dragon magazines, but I don't remember which one and can't look it up due to the Compendium only saying "multiple sources" :smallannoyed:

the PHB3 gives the superior qualities that can be applied to a superior implement, but I'll have to look to see if the dragon mag ones are better. At the moment the only one that looks any good is "energized", but I don't think the +2 damage would be better than getting over teifling fire resistance, considering I know for a fact the first boss is a teifling.

[NecroRebel]

the PHB3 gives the superior qualities that can be applied to a superior implement...

No, it gives the qualities a superior implement can have. You don't get to make superior implements with whatever qualities you want - particular superior implements have particular qualities. There's no staff with energized (poison) and distant, for instance.


...but I'll have to look to see if the dragon mag ones are better.

I don't believe there are any new superior qualities in Dragon, but the list of the actual superior daggers is there.

[HeyThereImBear]

No, it gives the qualities a superior implement can have. You don't get to make superior implements with whatever qualities you want - particular superior implements have particular qualities. There's no staff with energized (poison) and distant, for instance.



I don't believe there are any new superior qualities in Dragon, but the list of the actual superior daggers is there.

The feat is becoming less and less desirable all the while .-.

[NecroRebel]

The feat is becoming less and less desirable all the while .-.

Accurate implements are usually considered the best, because +1 attack is typically quite worth a feat, and there's an accurate implement of each type AFAIK.

[masteraleph]

The feat is becoming less and less desirable all the while .-.

Not really.

If you're an Elementalist and you want to be using daggers, you really have 3 basic options: Accurate, Incendiary (particularly if a fire elementalist), Lancing (if you're Air; might still want to go Accurate though)

They were detailed in D385, and reprinted in Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, if having a print source helps.

[HeyThereImBear]

Accurate implements are usually considered the best, because +1 attack is typically quite worth a feat, and there's an accurate implement of each type AFAIK.

Hm. It still doesn't seem worth the feat, when the +1 attack would still end up dealing less damage than if I had hit without surging flame. It's a good feat in some cases, I think. But I don't really know if it has a place in this build.

I do certainly appreciate all of your help though :D

[HeyThereImBear]

Not really.

If you're an Elementalist and you want to be using daggers, you really have 3 basic options: Accurate, Incendiary (particularly if a fire elementalist), Lancing (if you're Air; might still want to go Accurate though)

They were detailed in D385, and reprinted in Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, if having a print source helps.


The incendiary one might be helpful, I'll check it out, ja.

[HeyThereImBear]

Not really.

If you're an Elementalist and you want to be using daggers, you really have 3 basic options: Accurate, Incendiary (particularly if a fire elementalist), Lancing (if you're Air; might still want to go Accurate though)

They were detailed in D385, and reprinted in Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, if having a print source helps.

A feat for +2 damage and +1 to hit isn't that great. Maybe good at early levels, but this character should be paragon in a few sessions (sessions last ages...).

[INDYSTAR188]

can't look it up due to the Compendium only saying "multiple sources" :smallannoyed:

I HATE that! I wish they'd throw at least one of the sources in to the search result.

[Mando Knight]

Accurate implements are usually considered the best, because +1 attack is typically quite worth a feat, and there's an accurate implement of each type AFAIK.
Note the "usually." If you're using only Fire powers that target Reflex, for example (which is thematically fine, but not necessarily optimal), an Incendiary dagger is superior since it gives the accuracy bonus and some extra damage.

[masteraleph]

A feat for +2 damage and +1 to hit isn't that great. Maybe good at early levels, but this character should be paragon in a few sessions (sessions last ages...).

Err...yes, it is that great. It's superior, for example, to Implement Focus/Fiery Blood (in paragon). It's superior to an Expertise feat, in Heroic (not once you hit paragon, but you should have one then, anyways). It's superior to Hellfire Blood, if you're a Tiefling (you haven't said). And if you are, say, a Tiefling Fire Elementalist, then you want Expertise and Hellfire Blood already in heroic.

Don't think of "+1 to hit" as "oh, it's just +1." +1 to hit is +5% to hit. Since you're not dealing damage on a miss, it's +5% to the power's average damage...and that's not even including the +2/3/4 damage.

[GPuzzle]

Also, Accurate Daggers weren't a +2 to hit? And since you can pick Dual Implement Spellcaster, wielding an Accurate and an Incenidary Dagger for the bonus damage and the to-hit bonus, which stack.

[NecroRebel]

Also, Accurate Daggers weren't a +2 to hit? And since you can pick Dual Implement Spellcaster, wielding an Accurate and an Incenidary Dagger for the bonus damage and the to-hit bonus, which stack.

Accurate weapons are only +1 to hit, but work for every attack made through that implement.

Undeniable, Unerring, and Unstoppable give +1 to hit, but work for only Will, Reflex, and Fortitude attacks, respectively, but they actually appear with other effects.

All superior implement effects work only for attacks made using that implement, so holding a second one in your off-hand won't let the effects stack. More to the point, no, wielding an accurate implement in one hand and an energized implement in the other hand won't let you get the benefits of both, Dual Implement Spellcaster or not, because you're still making the attack using only one of the two. Dual Implement Spellcaster doesn't let you use two implements at once, it just gives bonus damage if you're wielding magic implements in both hands.

[Kurald Galain]

A feat for +2 damage and +1 to hit isn't that great. Maybe good at early levels, but this character should be paragon in a few sessions (sessions last ages...).


Don't think of "+1 to hit" as "oh, it's just +1." +1 to hit is +5% to hit.

Well, HeyThereImBear has a point; small numerical bonuses are way overrated in 4E. +5% just isn't a lot; as you make about five attacks per combat it gives you an extra hit every fourth combat, or less than once per adventuring day. It's an ok feat to have, but hardly impressive, and for most builds it shouldn't be a priority until high paragon or so, when you've ran out of better feats.

[masteraleph]

Also, Accurate Daggers weren't a +2 to hit? And since you can pick Dual Implement Spellcaster, wielding an Accurate and an Incenidary Dagger for the bonus damage and the to-hit bonus, which stack.

It doesn't work like that- the only thing DIS does is add the enhancement bonus from one to the other. Nothing else gets added.

[masteraleph]

Well, HeyThereImBear has a point; small numerical bonuses are way overrated in 4E. +5% just isn't a lot; as you make about five attacks per combat it gives you an extra hit every fourth combat, or less than once per adventuring day. It's an ok feat to have, but hardly impressive, and for most builds it shouldn't be a priority until high paragon or so, when you've ran out of better feats.

So what would your feat list for a heroic fire Elementalist be? Because mine would look something like:

War Wizard's Expertise
Hellfire Blood (if Tiefling)
Superior Implement Expertise
Superior Will

That leaves 2 more feats in Heroic tier. One of those might well be a multiclass (say, Pact Initiate so you can get Long Night Scion as a PP), and the last might well be retrained as soon as you hit 11 (say, Secrets of Belial or Reserve Maneuver). Imperious Majesty, Improved Defenses, Improved Initiative would be nice, if you can fit one of them in.

[Inevitability]

So what would your feat list for a heroic fire Elementalist be? Because mine would look something like:

War Wizard's Expertise
Hellfire Blood (if Tiefling)
Superior Implement Expertise
Superior Will

That leaves 2 more feats in Heroic tier. One of those might well be a multiclass (say, Pact Initiate so you can get Long Night Scion as a PP), and the last might well be retrained as soon as you hit 11 (say, Secrets of Belial or Reserve Maneuver). Imperious Majesty, Improved Defenses, Improved Initiative would be nice, if you can fit one of them in.

I'm quite found of skill powers myself. Some of them are really nice, and if you have a free feat, why not?

[Kurald Galain]

So what would your feat list for a heroic fire Elementalist be? Because mine would look something like:
I'd probably go for Skill Power and a MC feat, plus Staff Expertise, White Lotus Riposte, and Arcane Familiar, and most races have a few racial feats worth looking into. I generally take anything that gives me extra options before I spend feats on small numerical bonuses; for most classes, gaining a extra non-standard-action power via Skill Power or MC is a better deal than becoming 5% better at what you already do.

[Zaq]

Well, HeyThereImBear has a point; small numerical bonuses are way overrated in 4E. +5% just isn't a lot; as you make about five attacks per combat it gives you an extra hit every fourth combat, or less than once per adventuring day. It's an ok feat to have, but hardly impressive, and for most builds it shouldn't be a priority until high paragon or so, when you've ran out of better feats.

That really depends on a few assumptions. First, five attacks per combat is about a bare-bones minimum; AoEs, off-turn attacks (AoOs/defender punishments/stuff like Strikebacks or Battle Awareness), leader-granted attacks, multi-hit attacks, minor action attacks, multi-target attacks (yeah, I said AoEs already, but whatever) . . . there's a LOT of ways to be making more than one attack roll per round, and basically everyone (aside from perhaps the leader—the defender should be making AoOs and maybe punishment swings, the controller should be making AoEs, and the striker should have multi-tap powers and should be in position to get an extra swing or two from the leader, as appropriate, all at a bare minimum) should be able to take advantage of at least one or two of them, particularly given how many there are. So "five attacks per combat" is seriously lowballing it. Sure, you won't be likely to take advantage of ALL of those things I listed, but it's a rare character (and a fiercely rare party) who can't take advantage of ANY of them. (I'm tempted to even say "well, the fewer attacks you make, the more important it is that each one connects," but that's having my cake and eating it too, so we'll take this argument in another direction.)

Second, since it's barely an exaggeration to say that everything of consequence in 4e is an attack, sooner or later you have to face a sad truth: if you don't hit, you don't matter. A turn where you don't succeed at attacking is a turn where you're going to have a minimal effect on the battle. (There are a couple exceptions, like leader heals, but they are, as I said, exceptions.) It doesn't matter how cool your tricks are if those tricks never get to see the light of day, right? It really is in your best interest to hunt down every single little +1 you can get your greedy murderhobo mitts on. There just aren't a lot of ways you can meaningfully affect the battlefield if you aren't hitting consistently—there are basically no worthwhile autodamage builds, almost no powers with "half damage on a miss" are actually strong choices even when they hit, and while there are SOME powers with cool Effect lines, building just for that is going to be gimmicky on a good day. (A lazy leader is sorta viable, but they're just shifting the responsibility of hitting onto someone else, usually the striker.) Every non-lazy character needs to hit to matter, and I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that every player wants to matter. (Hell, even pacifist Clerics want to hit; they don't do any damage, but they still have effects that they want to inflict on the enemy, and they can't do much of that without hitting.)

What's more, the system more or less expects that you're going to be grubbing around for nickel-and-dime bonuses. The math in 4e is actually relatively balanced; you're just not going to get too many low-defense monsters you can hit without investing, at least not with at-level enemies (which most groups will find to be, if anything, too easy). Monsters will have a little bit of pattern to their defenses (the quick and dodgy guy probably has a higher Ref than Fort, and the rampaging barbarian-type guy probably has a higher Fort than Will), but for most post-MM3 monsters, the gap between their low NAD and their high NAD is going to be two or three points at most. So you can't even just aim for the monsters' weak points, because those weak points are still going to be, well, decent. So it's not often that your massive attack bonus is going to be overkill, and you don't have an alternative.

Maybe you view me as a pitch-perfect example of "bonuses being overvalued," but they're valued the way they are for good reason. If you don't hit, you don't matter, and even a gimmicky build is going to rely on hitting, with only the rarest of exceptions.

Sure, every bonus has a cost. I'm not saying you're a bad player if you choose to not take each and every opportunity to increase your to-hit (though you had better be getting something darned cool with the alternative). I AM saying that if you don't look at those opportunities and carefully consider why they matter, then you probably don't get how the system is balanced, or you're way more trusting of your dice than I am.

[Kurald Galain]

That really depends on a few assumptions. First, five attacks per combat is about a bare-bones minimum;
Considering the class we were talking about, it's actually a fair estimate. Combat doesn't last more than 3 - 4 rounds, after all. Yes, the number is somewhat higher for most classes, and much higher for controllers in particular.


A turn where you don't succeed at attacking is a turn where you're going to have a minimal effect on the battle.
See, that's a common misunderstanding. The point isn't that tiny bonuses are bad, but that there are better feats you should be taking first, because there are numerous feats that actually do measurably better things than giving a tiny bonus. That's why you shouldn't take superior implement (or weapon) on most builds before mid-paragon tier.


What's more, the system more or less expects that you're going to be grubbing around for nickel-and-dime bonuses.
It's the players that expect this, not the system. You're confusing math with psychology.

[Necroticplague]

It's the players that expect this, not the system. You're confusing math with psychology.

No, the system actually does. Average monster AC (not sure about other defences) goes up by 1 every level, while your bonus to hitting them only goes up by one every 2 levels. So by level 30, in order to just break even, you have to come up with +15 worth of boni. A really expensive +7 weapon gets you little under halfway there, only +8 more to go. Now to go run and look for some little +s to your attack. Relevant expertise getting a bit over 1/3rd of work done by itself is why its commonly considered a tax. Now you only have +5 more to scrounge up.

[NecroRebel]

No, the system actually does. Average monster AC (not sure about other defences) goes up by 1 every level, while your bonus to hitting them only goes up by one every 2 levels. So by level 30, in order to just break even, you have to come up with +15 worth of boni. A really expensive +7 weapon gets you little under halfway there, only +8 more to go. Now to go run and look for some little +s to your attack. Relevant expertise getting a bit over 1/3rd of work done by itself is why its commonly considered a tax. Now you only have +5 more to scrounge up.

Those other +5 will come from stat increases - you're assumed to get +8 to your primary stat, minimum, by level 28, and many epic destinies give +2 to one or two stats which are also assumed to apply to the primary. So, by level 30, monster defenses have increased by 29 (not 30; level 30 monsters are only 29 levels above level 1 monsters) compared to level 1, while player attack bonuses increase by a minimum of 15 (levels) + 6 (enhancement) + 4 (attribute increases), or 25 total. An expertise feat brings it to 29 vs 28 increase compared to level 1, which is very near parity, and if you assume an ED bonus to primary stat it's 29 vs 29.

In other words, all "grubbing around for nickel-and-dime bonuses" beyond an expertise feat leads to attack bonuses above parity, so no, the system does not assume that. Even that statement assumes that the system assumes that monsters and players will improve at parity (admittedly that assumption is justified by designer statements, but still).

[Sol]

the point is that the system makes a lot of assumptions, which in turn heavily penalizes players who opt to not start with an 18/20 in their primary stat, who use +2 profiency weapons, who boost other stats at 4/8/tier, who choose an epic destiny that fails to boost their primary stat, and who opt out of expertise feats.

A character who made all of those choices simultaneously would be a minimum of -7 to attack compared to a character who made all "correct" choices. If the "optimised" character took additional boosts - destined scion, hellfire blood, a way to permanently gain CA, etc, she might well be attacking with a bonus 11 points higher than the character who favored flavor.

If the baseline assumption is that a player character should hit on an 8, the "bad" player will need to roll a 15, and the "OP" player will need to roll a 4.

Man, all of those meaningless 5% chances really add up!

[Kurald Galain]

the point is that the system makes a lot of assumptions, which in turn heavily penalizes players who opt to not start with an 18/20 in their primary stat, who use +2 profiency weapons, who boost other stats at 4/8/tier, who choose an epic destiny that fails to boost their primary stat, and who opt out of expertise feats.
Your comparison is rather silly, first because an expertise feat is +3 whereas everything else you mention is only +1; and second because not boosting your primary stat at level 4 and 8 is just pointless as there's clearly and literally nothing better you can do with that stat boost. Those two already take care out of 6 points of the 7-point difference you mention.

Again, the point isn't that tiny bonuses are bad, but that there are better feats you should be taking first, because there are numerous feats that actually do measurably better things than giving a tiny bonus. It's about opportunity cost.

[Sol]

Your comparison is rather silly, first because an expertise feat is +3 whereas everything else you mention is only +1; and second because not boosting your primary stat at level 4 and 8 is just pointless as there's clearly and literally nothing better you can do with that stat boost. Those two already take care out of 6 points of the 7-point difference you mention.

Again, the point isn't that tiny bonuses are bad, but that there are better feats you should be taking first, because there are numerous feats that actually do measurably better things than giving a tiny bonus. It's about opportunity cost.

I was assuming only -1 for dumb stat bumping, and -1 for dumb starting stats.

Silly or not, I see people start with 14-16 post racial primaries all the time, I see people bump "incorrect" stats all the time. Not at every opportunity, but it only takes missing one +1 to be down a point of accuracy in the end. Usually these players also pick terrifyingly bad powers, spam a bad at-will instead of using their encounter powers, and play binders, Bladesingers, vampires, and cavaliers.

I'm not pretending that you're arguing against expertise; I understand that you're merely saying it's not the end of the world to defer it to paragon in favor of more immediately useful feats. I agree. I'm just making note of how many places the system expects players to make intelligent choices, giving a frustrating minority way too much opportunity to drag the entire party down by going against the grain.

[HeyThereImBear]

I was assuming only -1 for dumb stat bumping, and -1 for dumb starting stats.

Silly or not, I see people start with 14-16 post racial primaries all the time, I see people bump "incorrect" stats all the time. Not at every opportunity, but it only takes missing one +1 to be down a point of accuracy in the end. Usually these players also pick terrifyingly bad powers, spam a bad at-will instead of using their encounter powers, and play binders, Bladesingers, vampires, and cavaliers.

I'm not pretending that you're arguing against expertise; I understand that you're merely saying it's not the end of the world to defer it to paragon in favor of more immediately useful feats. I agree. I'm just making note of how many places the system expects players to make intelligent choices, giving a frustrating minority way too much opportunity to drag the entire party down by going against the grain.

As fantastic of points you've both made, I'm going to point out that I already decided the feat I was going to take, and you're both totally off topic.

Another point I'm going to make is that the entire party is at least "a" teir, with the majority of us being "s" teir. So vampires or other bad classes are not present. We're not really dragging anyone down.