Community

Changing the rules to suit your view isn't allowed.

But researching the rules to prove that something doesn't work a way that seems it surely can't is most definitely allowed.

There's a very important distinction there.

It's also important to remember that people get the rules wrong an awful lot - sometimes you need to pause and go 'Err, does it really work that way' and depending on the player or DM, it may or may not, but checking is certainly important.

So, if a player was under the impression that healing word worked on all valid targets (ie, you and allies) within a close burst 5 and that seemed wrong to a DM, so they researched how it worked, and let the player know that no, it's just one target, would that be bad? Would it only be bad if someone from customer service had responded to a question with 'uhh, I guess it's a close burst 5 so it works' and the DM contradicted the CS person?

You're absolutely right that judges and players should not try to break the system to the detriment of the table.

That's quite different from 'Err, this seems broken, does it actually work that way?' and someone responding 'no, because place and transfer are different keywords' - which oddly is a position I've probably encountered from more sources than that I have that it works (which surprises me, given the way most folks on the internet seem to deal with D&D), with at least some claiming they had seen CS rulings to that effect (and I think one actually produced a copy, though my memory only reproduces the ones where CS said otherwise so I'm a little iffier there)... at any rate, as far as I can tell, that makes it not a fringe case where a DM is trying to screw someone, but an honest to goodness quandary that has been brought up to the folks running the game as an 'Err, what?'.

Now, if a DM wanted to say 'Rod of Reaving doesn't kill minions. Nor Cleave, nor Rain of Steel, etc - you need to _hit_ them' and a player pointed out that it was clearly not the case, and the DM said 'well, they'd be too easy to kill if I let that work' and persisted, then I completely agree with you.

The 'transfer v. place' debate is likely settled by Arcane Power. There are at least two feats where the term 'use' is employed (such as with Relentless Curse: "When an enemy cursed by you is reduced to 0 hit points, you can use your Warlock's Curse as a free action"). Given that this third word to describe putting a curse onto a foe, and here with clearly no differentiation as to effect, I would think this should settle whether 'use', 'transfer', or 'place' are keywords. (Of course, I'm sure someone can come up with a reason, but it would seem pretty flimsy an argument at this point).

And I think the feat Shared Pact likely settles any problems with the difficulty of triggering aura damage for the Darklock, as you can put your boon on someone else within 3. Good stuff in Arcane Power!