Community

Keithric wrote:

But declaring morals because a judgment goes against your personal feelings on a ruling, when an easy google shows that this particular rules discussion has spawned threads on many different websites, and the rules invoke of transfer!=place has appeared in so many of those threads. I mean, seriously, it's staggering how many times I'm seeing it show up - that's a heck of a meme, if it's not an interpretation actually being arrived at by multiple people.

I'm declaring morals because the motivation to examine the wording so closely comes from the 'this can't be right' and looking for a 'way out' of ruling it that way. That's the foundation of deciding that 'place' and 'transfer' are suddenly keywords.

Perhaps it's a pet peeve of mine, or that I've seen such used to bad effect in the past. When I see a judge do things along these lines I immediately wonder what else they will decide to 'interpret'...

Engendering trust is a very important part of being a judge in a shared campaign, and this imho erodes it. And to what effect? If the motivation really is that it makes the table less fun then it's better dealt with directly and honestly.

I don't think anyone has read 'place' and 'transfer' as keywords without first seeing this combo and deciding that they didn't like it.

And that's my point.

-James

I was against the ruling that this combo worked at first due to Transfer!=Place, or at least when it was first brought up to me in a game a ran. I looked it up in the D&D books at the time and made a ruling based on my interpretation. I then later went onto the boards and saw the tons of arguments happening over this combo. I thought that I would just look up the definitions of the words to see if there was any founding to the definition being used for transfer and place and the findings that they are not synonymous. So, I then went to a dictionary to make sure that I was not misinterpreting the wording and from what I found it depends on how you define the word "place." If you go by the first definition that the curse is put on a position or in a specific place i.e. the target, then I could say that RoC/RoR possibly doesn't work. if you go by the definition of change of state that the warlock is changing the state of the target to curse then any time he changes the state of a target to cursed then yes the combo works. I feel that it is the second but it seems to me that by RAI it was not meant to work this way but wizards doesn't care if it does.

All in all this should be a table decision by the DM based on more factors than personal feelings. If the table is going to have more fun if the combo works then let it, so long as it doesn't affect the story. maybe DME the mod to replace the minions with an appropriate creature and then allow the minions to die quickly by making them group up and do other stupid things that allow them to fulfill their function dieing quickly. If someone at the table will not have fun then use your best judgment.

Personally I will allow the combo and DME depending on the table to make the combats fun for all. this means that the player is happy that he gets his combo and the others are happy because the combats do not suffer due to this combo.

or at least that's my two cents.

Alphastream1 wrote:

Agreed, so long as we are talking about DME for the mod and not DME for core rules (which does not exist). I think that's your point, but people make the mistake often.

Bah. Semantics.

The difference between using DME to say "Minions in this adventure have a special property that makes them immune to being killed by a Rod of Reaving/Corruption combo" and saying "Regardless of what the rules may or may not say, the Rod of Reaving/Corruption combo doesn't work at my table" is so slight as to be irrelevant.

Considering that the latter is more honest than the former, I'd prefer that answer from a DM.