2 hours ago, Wisconsen said:

Maybe you should re-read it.

I was speaking to the base magic system as presented in the CRB, as presented by the Original post, quoted above for reference. Now if you want to talk about the evolution of the discussion from the base system in the CRB into homebrew territory that is also perfectly fine by me.

If you are removing magical implements, which are as far as the system is concerned with regards to the attack magical action, you need to have a fair comparison for a baseline. To do such you cannot compare a magical attack to any weapon attack, as you have removed their equivalent of weapons. It's not worth delving into all of the ways this continues to make magic far superior to natural attacks available via the CRB (again if you want to debate natural attacks via homebrew that is a completely different discussion).

However, making magic viable without implements just needs a base damage modifier on the attack magical action. My suggestion would be base +3 modifier. Or even break it up depending on tradition. For example if the specifics of the setting has Arcane magic as the magic of war, maybe the arcane attack action gets a +4 (akin to a staff). If, in this same setting, divine is not often used for offensive measures maybe only a +2 as it would still be effective when it is intended to be via the holy/unholy effect. As two such examples.

Though an easier, better, and more balanced way (in my opinion) would be to tie and bake in differing implements directly to either the magic types themselves (divine, primal, arcane) or the method of access to the magical ability. For example you could very easily bake the holy icon into divine, and druid circlet into primal. Then, emulating varied fantasy sources, bake in the remaining and/or desired implements into arcane via method of usage. If you learned arcane via a war mage school it might be a staff. If you learned via apprenticeship maybe an orb, a wizard academy or school a wand, and natural ability (akin to sorcerers from DnD and other fantasy archetrypes) magic rings. From there you bake in the damage bonus on the attack action as well as a secondary affect that is applicable within the narrative.

For example using a system outlined above if a Arcane Caster studied as a War Wizard, their attack action would be a +4 damage and they get the first range upgrade for free, thus baking the effects of the staff into it without actually using a staff in the narrative. This fulfills the narrative need with minimal mechanical mess, and maintains most of (though not all off) the balance of the system as presented via the CRB.

You are right, I had to reread it. Instead of saying it in his first post, he said it in his first reply. I was so off. I’ve bolded and italicized the relevant text.

On 5/25/2018 at 10:05 AM, Archlyte said:

Thank you so much for the responses thus far I am trying to understand the default mechanics so I can see what I need to tweak in order to get the feel I want. I want to have a version of this magic system that does not rely on the implements, but instead has magic as an innate ability of the caster (I like the idea of implements but not for the setting I am using). Would you suggest I just add the average of the implements rating? Or maybe add the Skill Level to damage? I didn't see the 2 Strain thing, but I am still reading.

As for whether or not we can compare a magic attack to a weapon attack, the notion that you can’t is, simply put, silly. They are both attacks, they both do damage.

Implements are not the equivalent of magic weapons. They are the equivalent of weapon attachments. Magic itself is the equivalent of the weapon with baseline damage and various upgrades you can make when casting a spell. There is nothing inherent to the system that requires a magic implement in order to increase damage, it’s just the default way the developers did it. Fortunately for us, the developers also gave us a very open ended system that allows for the creation of talents and other abilities so we don’t have to rely on the magical equivalent of weapon attachments if it doesn’t fit our ideas for a setting.

Your solution is mostly fine, if a little overpowered for starting characters. The only flaw I see is that you provide no room for the magic caster to improve, other than just by base skill. At the risk of becoming subject to your wrath once more, let me point out again the magic/weapon comparison. Unless you’re providing some other means for the caster to advance in power, your solution is essentially like giving an archer a base bow and never offering anything better. Any solution that allows for a path to upgrade without diving into the world of magic implements is going to create a little mechanical mess. I would rather bake the mechanical mess into talents, myself.

7 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

The bonus damage probably isn’t even the main benefit of implements, it’s the reduced difficulty they bring which ultimately leads to more powerful spells, or at least better range on the spells.

Very true, @Richardbuxton , which is why I would probably convert those bonuses to non-stackable 15- to 25-point metamagic talents.

3 hours ago, Simon Retold said:

You are right, I had to reread it. Instead of saying it in his first post, he said it in his first reply. I was so off. I’ve bolded and italicized the relevant text.

I don't know why you are being so hostile about this, and in your original post replying to me. But it's really not helpful nor conductive to a discussion on the matter. If it is unintentional or misconstrued, then i do apologize but would ask you clarify that if you choose to respond to this. It is unbecoming and turns the conversation from a debate into a argument. I will wholeheartedly participate on a debate predicated upon common courtesy and focused on the ideas and topic. I will not be party to an argument with passive aggressive undertones.

3 hours ago, Simon Retold said:

Implements are not the equivalent of magic weapons.  They are the equivalent of weapon attachments.

Implements are the equivalent of magic weapons. Here are the reasons why i posit that.

Like Weapons they ...

... have a damage code and and properties much like weapons do.

... have a use an attribute to derive a base damage for an attack action, specifically melee and brawl weapons.

... are objects usable in and of themselves not requiring another base object to be modified in order to function.

... can be disarmed.

... can be sundered.

Specifically Staves are weapons themselves, in addition to being an implement.

3 hours ago, Simon Retold said:

Magic itself is the equivalent of the weapon with baseline damage and various upgrades you can make when casting a spell.

This is the same as saying the person making a brawl or melee attack is the weapon, and the weapon itself, which contains various upgrades (weapon qualities), are closer to attachments than actual weapons. Following that line of thought the only actual weapons we have are ranged weapons which do not use an external source to provide a baseline damage.

3 hours ago, Simon Retold said:

There is nothing inherent to the system that requires a magic implement in order to increase damage, it’s just the default way the developers did it. 

I actually agree with this. Though, as with any system modification, there exists a need to understand not just what the original designers did, but why they did it. The why is often more important. The reason why the developers did is clearly laid out for us on page 218 of the Genesys Core Rule Book under the section labeled "Magic Implements". Specifically these two parts.

"Magic, as with any other skill, can be augmented and
enhanced by various items. You may recognize them as
magical staples such as staffs, wands, and orbs. We call
them magic implements, and they’re a type of equipment."

" ... Most of the magic tools also boost the base
damage of attack spells. This represents magic doing
more damage when focused correctly, and it brings
the damage totals in line with regular weapons"

Quite specifically and in no uncertain terms that they are there to balance the baseline damage of magical attacks to be "in line with regular weapons". The implication being that they are akin to weapons for magical attacks.

@Richardbuxton tagging you here, as it is the relevant point to do so with regards to implements and damage bonus. I value and respect your opinion on FFG's narrative system. Though we have only ever had tangential contact via the forums here, the genesys/SWRPG reddit, and the genesys discord.

However, i would say that really depends on the implement. Staves are used more for the +4 damage, than the free range increase. Speaking on mechanical terms the +4 damage is valued at 4 net successes, and the range increase is simply a 1 purple increase. Though that is speaking to it in very broad strokes using the most favorable example. Dice math in genesys is generally never so straight forward and easy. But in, once again, very broad and simple terms anything with +2 damage and a effect that adds a 1 purple increase, the greater value is from the raw damage added more often then not.

Lastly,

3 hours ago, Simon Retold said:

At the risk of becoming subject to your wrath once more

You have not been, though for some reason you seem to have something to prove or a bone to pick. I don't understand why. I have been and will continue to be respectful and cordial though any correspondence. And as i said earlier the passive aggressive tone is unbecoming and unnecessarily argumentative, intentional or otherwise.

3 hours ago, Simon Retold said:

your solution

I gave 2 examples of barebones systems. They could be used as the structure to build a homebrew solution around, they are not a solution in and of themselves. They would need testing, refinement, and several rounds of iteration to be even review ready, much less play ready.

3 hours ago, Simon Retold said:

giving an archer a base bow and never offering anything better.

That is always better than the alternatives I've heard here of taking away the bow, but giving them talents they need to spend XP on in-order to "earn" it back. That is just adding a XP tax to playing a magical character. Which is perfectly fine if that is what is fun for the group at the table, but it is not a table i would enjoy or recommend playing at.

Homebrew is great, and wonderful. And, genesys is a amazing system because of how open it is. However, most homebrew is ill-conceived and rarely accomplishes what it set out to do. And that is ok. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs to be fun. However, i would always urge people to ensure they fully understand not just " How " a rule works, but " Why " a rule exists before attempting to change it. And then to change as little as possible to get the desired affect on the system and game. Finally, never homebrew to fix a interpersonal problem, it never ends well.

But as always, i might just be spouting crazy, it's been known to happen.

Whilst I think talents are the simplest way to replace implements they have one major blance issue; you can’t use multiple implements at the same time, but you can have multiple talents stack.

One way to counter that problem is the Terrinoth method of “Fire is free, but you cannot use ice” unfortunately that reduces your characters flexibility.

Another method would be to have a Mechanic where you can add additional effects at a cost of Strain instead of Difficulty Dice.

A third option would be to split Attack spells into a number of separate attack actions, some focus on range whilst sacrificing Damage, others may have high Damage levels but limited range. That way you could restrict the upgrades available to each as well, and for talents you can have something that applies to only one of the spells

3 hours ago, Wisconsen said:

I don't know why you are being so hostile about this, and in your original post replying to me. But it's really not helpful nor conductive to a discussion on the matter. If it is unintentional or misconstrued, then i do apologize but would ask you clarify that if you choose to respond to this. It is unbecoming and turns the conversation from a debate into a argument. I will wholeheartedly participate on a debate predicated upon common courtesy and focused on the ideas and topic. I will not be party to an argument with passive aggressive undertones.

Allow me to apologize then, for coming across as hostile. I may have misunderstood the intent in your prior response on this thread after my first response to you. I can look back and see how you might think it was hostile... I can assure you, it was not. My next post, not so much. I can feel the hostility in it when I read it back to myself. I am sorry.

Let's keep this to debate - point and counterpoint - and move forward.

3 hours ago, Wisconsen said:

Implements are the equivalent of magic weapons. Here are the reasons why i posit that.

Like Weapons they ...

... have a damage code and and properties much like weapons do.

... have a use an attribute to derive a base damage for an attack action, specifically melee and brawl weapons.

... are objects usable in and of themselves not requiring another base object to be modified in order to function.

... can be disarmed.

... can be sundered.

Specifically Staves are weapons themselves, in addition to being an implement.

I was concede that, in a couple of those ways, magic implements are more like weapons, but would suggest that perhaps you're not 100% correct in a few of them.

• First, while they do add damage, none of them (as far as I'm aware) bear any weapon properties (like Knockdown, Vicious, etc.). The weapon properties come in the form of upgrades to the spell itself.
• The magic implements do indeed add to the damage of an attack, like melee weapons, but unlike those weapons the same attack can generally be made without the implement.
• There is nothing in the description of the magic staff that suggests it can be used as a weapon.

On the other hand, there are ways they act more like attachments.

• They are not the item that creates the base attack, but enhance that attack. (Brawl weapons do this, as well, and the book describes them as augmenting the base attack, but other weapons are the thing you are attacking with .)
• They provide additional options that normally wouldn't be available by using the weapon (magic) itself.
• They have mods like weapon attachments, in the form of the materials used to make them (in Realms of Terrinoth ).

3 hours ago, Wisconsen said:

"Magic, as with any other skill, can be augmented and
enhanced by various items. You may recognize them as
magical staples such as staffs, wands, and orbs. We call
them magic implements, and they’re a type of equipment."

" ... Most of the magic tools also boost the base
damage of attack spells. This represents magic doing
more damage when focused correctly, and it brings
the damage totals in line with regular weapons"

Quite specifically and in no uncertain terms that they are there to balance the baseline damage of magical attacks to be "in line with regular weapons". The implication being that they are akin to weapons for magical attacks.

So maybe you and I are just reading this differently. To me, if it says this "represents magic doing more damage when focused correctly, and brings the damage totals in line with regular weapons," it sounds like they're saying that it brings magic - the innate skill of the caster - in line with the damage of other weapons. In other words, the implements themselves are add-ons designed to adjust how magic works, much like attachments are add-ons designed to adjust how weapons work.

3 hours ago, Wisconsen said:

That is just adding a XP tax to playing a magical character. Which is perfectly fine if that is what is fun for the group at the table, but it is not a table i would enjoy or recommend playing at.

There are significantly more talents for ranged and melee combat than there currently are for magic combat or magic in general. This is meant as a legitimate question, and not being hostile at all, but do you consider the Duel Wielder talent an XP tax on playing a melee character, or the Rapid Archery an XP tax on playing an archer? Creating talents for a caster is no different.

3 hours ago, Wisconsen said:

Homebrew is great, and wonderful. And, genesys is a amazing system because of how open it is. However, most homebrew is ill-conceived and rarely accomplishes what it set out to do. And that is ok. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs to be fun. However, i would always urge people to ensure they fully understand not just " How " a rule works, but " Why " a rule exists before attempting to change it. And then to change as little as possible to get the desired affect on the system and game. Finally, never homebrew to fix a interpersonal problem, it never ends well.

I understand that. I made it plain pretty early on that I wrote the talents I listed earlier in the thread on the fly; there was no play testing, not even running numbers at Anydice.com. They were, like you presented, a homebrew barebones idea that could be expounded upon and adjusted (and, if you look closely, we already started doing so in this thread after c_beck's response). And yes, I understood the why behind the developers adding implements, but I was presenting a solution to a problem the developers hadn't addressed, specifically a world where magic was 100% dependent upon the caster's innate ability. That's all. Adding a handful of talents - properly tested and balanced - is a minor change to a game like this, and one promoted by the developers in the core rule book.

That isn't to say your solutions aren't just as valid. I just like mine better. *shrugs*

32 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

Whilst I think talents are the simplest way to replace implements they have one major blance issue; you can’t use multiple implements at the same time, but you can have multiple talents stack.

One way to counter that problem is the Terrinoth method of “Fire is free, but you cannot use ice” unfortunately that reduces your characters flexibility.

Another method would be to have a Mechanic where you can add additional effects at a cost of Strain instead of Difficulty Dice.

A third option would be to split Attack spells into a number of separate attack actions, some focus on range whilst sacrificing Damage, others may have high Damage levels but limited range. That way you could restrict the upgrades available to each as well, and for talents you can have something that applies to only one of the spells

That's something I was already working on in the next implementation of those talents, @Richardbuxton - adding that only certain metamagic talents can work coherently with each other. It seems to be the most elegant of the ideas you've suggested.

Yep, you could perhaps have the talents worded such that you can’t combine them on one spell check but you are not excluded from using them ever. For the Fire example it could be something like “You may add the Fire effect to a spell for free, if you do so then you may also not add the ice effect at the same time”

1 hour ago, Simon Retold said:

Allow me to apologize then, for coming across as hostile. I may have misunderstood the intent in your prior response on this thread after my first response to you. I can look back and see how you might think it was hostile... I can assure you, it was not. My next post, not so much. I can feel the hostility in it when I read it back to myself. I am sorry.

Let's keep this to debate - point and counterpoint - and move forward.

At work, and on mobile, so this will be very short and quick.

Thank you it is appriciated, i wanted to ensure we were on the same page ? will respond with counterpoints to the rest when i have the time to do so properly.

11 hours ago, Simon Retold said:

I was concede that, in a couple of those ways, magic implements are more like weapons, but would suggest that perhaps you're not 100% correct in a few of them.

• First, while they do add damage, none of them (as far as I'm aware) bear any weapon properties (like Knockdown, Vicious, etc.). The weapon properties come in the form of upgrades to the spell itself.
• The magic implements do indeed add to the damage of an attack, like melee weapons, but unlike those weapons the same attack can generally be made without the implement.
• There is nothing in the description of the magic staff that suggests it can be used as a weapon.

On the other hand, there are ways they act more like attachments.

• They are not the item that creates the base attack, but enhance that attack. (Brawl weapons do this, as well, and the book describes them as augmenting the base attack, but other weapons are the thing you are attacking with .)
• They provide additional options that normally wouldn't be available by using the weapon (magic) itself.
• They have mods like weapon attachments, in the form of the materials used to make them (in Realms of Terrinoth ).

I agree, that the "magic weapon" is not a perfect analogy, however i do maintain that it is the closest and most accurate.

• While they do no bear properties like weapons, that is because they are differing systems.
• Brawl attacks can also be made without brawl weapons, again does this make brawl weapons attachments instead of weapons?
• A staff is a weapon, as per RoT weapon table on page 84. I would find it illogical that you could not use a implement staff as a staff weapon. Though i will grant that a staff weapon cannot be used as a implement staff in the same logical fashion. So yes, RAW a Implement staff is not a weapon, though provided the description of both items (page 94 and 97 for weapon and implement respectively) i find it should be applicable.
• Implements are the thing you are attacking with as you are using them to attack. Again, it is the same as saying that brawl/melee weapons are not the thing you are attacking with, instead they are a vehicle for the kinetic force your body (via brawn and skill) are producing. Or that the bow is not a weapon, but the arrow is. You are using the bow to attack with the arrow, not actually hitting them with the bow.
• Again, melee and especially Brawl Weapons fall into this same area.
• Materials are a new system introduced in RoT, and applies to Weapons as well, does this mean weapons are attachments and the craftsmanship/materials are mods to those attachments?

11 hours ago, Simon Retold said:

So maybe you and I are just reading this differently. To me, if it says this "represents magic doing more damage when focused correctly, and brings the damage totals in line with regular weapons," it sounds like they're saying that it brings magic - the innate skill of the caster - in line with the damage of other weapons. In other words, the implements themselves are add-ons designed to adjust how magic works, much like attachments are add-ons designed to adjust how weapons work.

Again, this is the Brawl/Melee weapon argument. If the added damage from brawl/melee are weapons despite adding damage to a stat, the same must be true of implements via the same logical course.

11 hours ago, Simon Retold said:

There are significantly more talents for ranged and melee combat than there currently are for magic combat or magic in general. This is meant as a legitimate question, and not being hostile at all, but do you consider the Duel Wielder talent an XP tax on playing a melee character, or the Rapid Archery an XP tax on playing an archer?

It is an XP Tax, because it is taking something present, for free, in the base system and making it something you need to spend XP on to "reacquire". It would be the same as saying that you need a talent to use a Bow as an archer, not the talent rapid fire. Or, you need a talent to duel wield at all, not the duel wielder talent. Again this goes into homebrew. And, there is no perfect answer, only the perfect answer for the group at the table. But imagine taking weapons away, then giving talents to gain the ability to use those weapons and/or replicate their effects. It would be an XP tax because you are locking baseline options behind a XP expenditure. And that might not be a bad thing. There are a multitude of factors that go into it. Setting, tone, feel, and intended power balance. Without all of those specifics we can only use the rules presented in the CRB as a baseline point. As an example, RoT gives awnsers to those specific questions within it's setting. And thus explains the changes from the CRB, such as not having druid circlets or rings as implements, but adding the verse and runes skills (and related mechanics).

Quote

Creating talents for a caster is no different.

I agree in principle, but creating options by taking existing options and repackaging them is creating false options. It is akin to creating a rule that says "you cannot make social checks" then adding a talent saying "you can make social checks". Yes this does create another talent for social characters. However it does so in a bad an unhealthy way, by removing baseline options, and putting a "XP Tax" on them. Talents should enhance the base system, not serve as locks and guardians to use it. They should provide additional options, instead of adding back in options removed to create them.

11 hours ago, Simon Retold said:

That isn't to say your solutions aren't just as valid. I just like mine better. *shrugs*

I agree completely. I wasn't trying to say your solution was wrong by any means. That is why i didn't reference it specifically. As i do see some fairly glaring balance issues (however, as stated it is a initial iteration and thus those are expected to exist). I was simply putting forth an alternative, why i thought it was better, and the logical arguments to support those things.

And maybe this isn't something we can see eye-to-eye on and agree. That is ok. After all despite all the esoterica and debate around RAW, RAI, balance, and homebrew. The only thing that really matters is the fun for the group at the table. Everything else is moot at the end of the day.

Just to add a bit of grist to the arguments: Trading XP for something that normally costs currency is a regular part of the Star Wars system (available at character creation) and should work quite well for Genesys, too. I suppose you might argue that magical implements are somehow more like narrative aids than gear, but I don't completely buy that. This leads me to reject the "XP tax" argument for a magic system where implements aren't available. And even if it is a "tax," I don't think it's unreasonable to charge a character for access to superhuman powers he or she can use at will with no gear required.

Making magical damage bonuses an XP expenditure seems a perfectly elegant solution. Another analogy is to making an unarmed fighter in Star Wars: it takes lots of talents to make the character as effective as someone with weapons, but it opens the door to that kind of character. For talents to do the same for a mage (even if it's the default for your setting) makes sense to me.

That's not to say there aren't other possible solutions, mind you. I just don't see Simon's suggestion as a bad one.

Without a specific setting and the relevant information contained therein. I still respectfully disagree.

Trading XP for currency can be perfectly fine, but that isn't exactly what we are talking about. Especially in the context of SWRPG where there is a whole other set of mechanics involved, Duty, Obligation, and Morality. Where you are trading those mechanics for extra currency or XP, not directly trading XP for currency.

The core of my argument for a XP tax, is that something is being taken away, only to be re-granted based upon an xp expenditure.

Again i will say, would locking the ability to use weapons behind talents be fair?

What if we say you can make brawl attacks, but we aren't using brawl weapons. Instead there is a series of talents that say "T1, ranked, +1 brawl damage" or using talents as a old weapon proficiency system something like "Blades Proficiency, T1 ranked, you can use daggers, at t2 you can use swords, and at t3 you can use greatswords." That is putting an xp tax on those things, because the base system allows for all of that without XP investiture.

Now i'm also not saying that is wrong, but it is very very setting and group specific. If the goal is to disincentivise that playstyle, or to show something specific related to the setting of the game. Then that is perfectly fine. However if the goal is, as was posited originally.

Quote

I want to have a version of this magic system that does not rely on the implements, but instead has magic as an innate ability of the caster (I like the idea of implements but not for the setting I am using).

It does not do that. Yes it remove implements, and yes it makes it more of an innate ability. However, it also radically alters the balance from the CRB and actively taxes magic. If that wasn't the goal and/or is not an acceptable/wanted change, then it is a problem. I'm assuming it is a unwanted side effect instead of the actual intended effect.

@Wisconsen : We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this for a number of reasons. You seem to think (and I could be wrong here) that the magic rules have to be taken as a whole or not at all, which doesn't seem to be the case, since the devs themselves a) put the magic rules in the Alternate Rules section of the book and b) drop at least one implement in the core book for Realms of Terrinoth , specifically because it wasn't setting-appropriate.

Moreover, if magic implements were intended to be weapons, they would include weapon stats. We've seen rules that show one object being able to be used for alternate purposes - a light spear, for instance, is listed as a melee weapon, but has thrown weapon stats in its description - so if the magic staff was intended to be used as a quarterstaff, you'd think the devs would include that information in the text. Then there's the classification of magic implements in the Realms of Terrinoth book, which are distinct and discrete from magic weapons and other items.

Finally, the argument of claiming that magic implements are like melee or ranged weapons is invalid, since the magic itself comes from the user, not the weapon. The magic is what is doing the damage, and that power is innate in the character, not the implement, which only services as a focus of that power. If indeed they were the weapon itself, the caster would be unable to perform magic without it. Suggesting that Brawl weapons disprove my point doesn't work, because the CRB already points out that Brawl weapons work differently, that they augment the brawl attack, rather than allow it . A bow allows a ranged attack. A magic implement augments a magic attack, not " the thing you are attacking with as you are using them to attack," as you claim. This is made plain in the CRB section you quoted earlier, which read:

Quote

Most of the magic tools also boost the base damage of attack spells. This represents magic doing more damage when focused correctly [...]

(Emphasis mine, of course.)

So then the question lies, what is the source of the magic? Answer that question and you will understand the why behind implements not being the item used to attack. (Yes, that was probably snarky. But you are right; it's good to know the why of things.) Perhaps the best way to look at both magic implements and Brawl weapons would be to see them as something intermediary - somewhere betwixt a weapon and an enhancement - that augments the attack (especially since this is how the CRB pretty much already defines Brawl weapons).

Also, I suppose the simplest and most elegant solution would be - in a setting in which there were no implements - simply double the base damage (Characteristic x2) for spells normally, and have the Empowered upgrade increase that to three times base damage (Characteristic x3). Other effects caused by implements can be folded into talents (as was done in Realms of Terrinoth ) or can be a side benefit of magic items (ones that are not necessarily implements).

I am not saying at all that the rules need to be taken as a whole or not at all. I'm saying 2 things.

1 - Rules Design needs to be taken very carefully to prevent unintended side effects that can be a determent to the play experience, often unintentionally and unknowingly. One should understand not just the how of the rules and their interactions, but also the why. Then work towards a change for the desired effect, with as little side effects as possible.

2 - Under the CRB design, Weapons are the closest thing we can compare Implements to for a large number of reasons, which i have previously listed.

Specifically, in your own words.

13 minutes ago, Simon Retold said:

Suggesting that Brawl weapons disprove my point doesn't work, because the CRB already points out that Brawl weapons work differently, that they augment the brawl attack, rather than allow it . A bow allows a ranged attack. A magic implement augments a magic attack 

As i said, it is not an exact comparison, but it is the closest within the CRB. And, as i have said several times, without additional setting specific information the only point of comparison we have is using the CRB as a baseline.

In addition we do have a specific setting with that specific information as an example of the design intent to further support the CRB in Realms of Terrinoth. With rune magic, you must use a runebound shard as a implement, you cannot use rune magic without it.

So i maintain that weapons are the closest, most accurate comparison for Implements. If we cannot agree, as i have said before, that is perfectly fine. I'm laying out the logical arguments for my stance, and the refutations presented have not only failed to change that, but further reinforced it.

30 minutes ago, Simon Retold said:

So then the question lies, what is the source of the magic?  An  sw  er that question and you will understand the  why behind implements not being the item used to attack  .   (Yes, that was probably snarky. But you are right; it's good to know the why of things.)

Snark is often mistaken for wit instead of recognized as just a passive aggressive ad-hominem. Again, i ask you to refrain from them and stick to the discussion and facts.

CRB page 218 under implements

"So, if your character has an orb and a wand, for example,
they choose which one to use when casting a spell."

Implements are used when casting a spell with them. It was never a question about the source of the magic, but application, impact, and affect implements have on the system.

1 hour ago, Simon Retold said:

Quote

Most of the magic tools also boost the base damage of attack spells. This represents magic doing more damage when focused correctly [...]  

Lastly i'll leave the the rest of that quote from the implements section on page 218 of the CRB. " ... and it brings the damage totals in line with regular weapons." Again, the CRB using weapons as a balancing point and direct comparison to implements.

I just had another idea for a way to replace implements; introduce a Style system. You create a collection of Styles that have the same mechanical effects as implements, only one Style can be used at a time, and switching between Styles requires a Manoeuvre.

This achieves a number of things, it prevents excessive stacking of benefits, it maintains the current action economy, and makes balancing the mechanics simple.

The only question becomes how these styles are learned, and that can be answered in multiple ways. Potentially they can be Talents, ranging from T3 for a Staff equivilant to T5 for the equivalent of a Ring. But these can also be narrative objects, things learned from interacting with other magic users, granted as rewards for completing a story arc, or paid for through training with a tutor.

Edit: for example you could create a style “Way of the Dragon; You may add the Burn effect without increasing the difficulty of the spell, also increase the base damage of your attack spells by 3”

That could be a good basis for a system. With the ability to swap as a maneuver between known styles, that gives a good reason for the talent xp cost. Though i would suggest having magical careers start with 1 known style if going the talent route.

If fulfills the inherent balance of the system, and provided they could start with a style (preferably with some RP reason) it would avoid adding an xp tax to the system. Though it remove the "disarm/break the caster's weapon" aspect. But you could account for that with a 3 advantage (the same cost as a disarm) cost "unbalance" static expenditure, think an additional entry on the combat chart.

Would need play testing and iteration, but it's a solid base to work from.

Another advantage of paying for the effects of an implement with a talent is that it actually maintains system balance. Innate magical ability cannot be lost, stolen, or broken like an implement can. It makes a lot of sense to charge XP for that, so, again, I respectfully don't see it as an XP tax at all. Just wanted to bring the point up, since it hasn't been part of the debate between Simon and Wisconsen as far as I recall.

ETA: Having the magical power be innate rather than item-based also helps the character by freeing up their hands. A character with talent-based magic can wield other weapons, a shield, etc., while a mage holding a wand or a staff has to use maneuvers to switch between an implement and another weapon. There's a lot of utility in having talents replicate the effects of gear.