|
Choose an implement from the options to which you have access. You begin play with a mundane item of that type, and you gain the initiate benefit for that implement. While an implement is useful to you, it typically has no value if sold. If you acquire a new object of the same general implement type, you can switch your implement to the new object by spending 1 day of downtime with the new item.
So the implement we start with is mundane. And an implement typically has no value if sold. Additionally, if we acquire a new, similar item we can make that our new implement with a day of downtime.
Suppose I have a wand implement and our group happens upon a wand of Fireball. Can that be my new wand implement?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. That case is simple. If anything seems more ambiguous about whether it is an appropriate item for the implement type, that will be a GM question. Being non magical is not a necessary criteria to meet, though.
Oh! I never thought about this. Use a real magic wand as wand implement. This could be pretty interesting in combination with Wand of Manifold Missiles Wand of Shardstorm.
If implements had to remain mundane items the weapon implement would be pointless.
It is a tricky question that isn't fully answered by the rules.
No, there is no restriction on future implements that they have to continue to be mundane.
As mentioned, Weapon implement would be rather terrible if you couldn't put runes on it. It would also make the damage scaling of Implement's Empowerment not make any sense.
But only some other types of implements have corollaries in the item lists. Wand has an item category. Mirror has a couple items that are described as such. You could maybe argue that a couple of items, such as a bottomless stein qualify as a chalice implement. I can't think of any magical items that would qualify as Regalia. But Amulet thaumaturge is definitely left out in the cold. There is a category for their implements, but the ones that I am finding, such as a Channel Protection amulet have 'Usage: worn' and the Invested trait. Since the Thaumaturge Amulet has to be 'Usage: held in one hand', that means that you have to take off the amulet in order to wield it as an implement - thus losing your investment of the item.
So why do only some implement types qualify to have items with their own abilities and powers, but others don't? Can you really make an argument that the ones that don't are 1) actually specified, and 2) more powerful that the other implement types in their own right that they deserve to not get the boon of having dual purpose?
|
It is a tricky question that isn't fully answered by the rules.
No, there is no restriction on future implements that they have to continue to be mundane.
As mentioned, Weapon implement would be rather terrible if you couldn't put runes on it. It would also make the damage scaling of Implement's Empowerment not make any sense.
But only some other types of implements have corollaries in the item lists. Wand has an item category. Mirror has a couple items that are described as such. You could maybe argue that a couple of items, such as a bottomless stein qualify as a chalice implement. I can't think of any magical items that would qualify as Regalia. But Amulet thaumaturge is definitely left out in the cold. There is a category for their implements, but the ones that I am finding, such as a Channel Protection amulet have 'Usage: worn' and the Invested trait. Since the Thaumaturge Amulet has to be 'Usage: held in one hand', that means that you have to take off the amulet in order to wield it as an implement - thus losing your investment of the item.
So why do only some implement types qualify to have items with their own abilities and powers, but others don't? Can you really make an argument that the ones that don't are 1) actually specified, and 2) more powerful that the other implement types in their own right that they deserve to not get the boon of having dual purpose?
IIRC the GM is encouraged to give some leeway in how Implements are described as long as they fit the theme.
We are not actually given precise descriptions for any Implement either. For example, "Amulets are items carried for good luck and protection. Your amulet might be a magical diagram, a religious symbol, a preserved body part such as a rabbit's foot, or a lucky coin. "
I think you can probably hold an amulet while it is around your neck. Hunter's Brooch springs to mind as an amulet with both a worn usage and an interact activation.
Regalia is actually quite open ended for what qualifies. Anything in the rod or scepter family certainly qualifies, as would staves. I've seen people argue for weapons as a badge of office, or even shields with heraldry on them. I've been leery of the arguments but they're out there.
Items like the bottomless stein and jug of fond rememberence should definitely qualify for chalice. "Chalice implements are vessels that fill with liquid, associating them with healing, nourishment, and life. Your chalice might be a traditional cup or goblet, but it could also be a small amphora, a polished gourd, or even a hollowed-out skull." If a hollowed out skull qualifies, you can't convince that a mug does not when its a pretty traditional cup. Jug of fond rememberence would be my pick there. It is a great item on its own out of combat, and the Thaumaturge could utilize the bonuses for in combat stuff like Bon Mot or Recall knowledge. Its also a credible tool to heal people and then utilize the +2 bonus within the next month.
Lantern and Tome have less that impresses me, but I've seen some campaign specific rare or unique items in Abomination Vaults which are cool choices.
Not sure this was intended, but it is a stealth patch for the chalice.
I think you can probably hold an amulet while it is around your neck. Hunter's Brooch springs to mind as an amulet with both a worn usage and an interact activation.
I think that interact item activation does not require holding the item in a hand. So that does not conflict with 'Usage: worn'.
It is a pretty strong argument that 'Usage: worn' and 'Usage: held' are mutually exclusive.
It does make the argument against Amulet implement a bit more tenuous that Amulet only has 'Requirement: You're holding your amulet implement' instead of actually having 'Usage: held'. The two do seem pretty synonymous though. It is likely something that GMs are going to raise eyebrows at.
At that point, though, it's not really a conversation about magical items but the vagaries around juggling implements. I'd certainly allow someone to use an amulet around their neck for the reaction-- that's a pretty iconic pose for warding off vampires or using material spells for clerics.
Agreed.