Community

MwaO wrote:

I interpret properties that occur on an attack to have the condition that you are making an attack with that implement. A lot of people make that assumption by default.

The rules say that properties are "on" all the time, unless you turn them off (if they can be turned off).

Weapons have a specific rule overriding this.

Implements do not.

While it's not an unreasonable assumption to have that the override applies to implements as well, it's just that, an assumption. To enact it is to make up rules that don't exist, based on how you THINK the rules SHOULD be.

Understand, I don't think it's a BAD assumption, but again, to enforce it is to make up your own rules, thereby changing how the core rules work.

It's a house rule. It's actually a pretty good house rule. One I'd probably use in my home games. But it's still a house rule.

MwaO wrote:

KarmaInferno wrote:

From the D&D FAQ:
"If you wield a light shield and hold an implement in the same hand, you would not get the implement enhancement bonus to your powers, but you would still benefit from any property that the implement has."

That's not the full statement...

No. Using an implement to gain its bonuses is considered attacking with that implement.

If the property is a bonus, then it doesn't go. Also, again, if the property is based on the condition of attacking, I'd still read that as not affecting it.

Bonuses refer explicitly to Enhancement Bonuses, not magic item properties or powers. "Bonus" is a very specific term. You cannot mix and match.

Properties are not bonuses, they are properties.

Moreover, the FAQ, again, specifically tells us that an implement that is NOT being used in an attack still applies it's properties, but not it's enhancement bonuses.


-karma

Alphastream1 wrote:

MwaO wrote:

There's a difference between:
You can use the property of implement X that occurs on an attack while attacking with implement Y.

Those cases are clear, because the items states this. See Bloodcurse rod or many others.

Bloodcurse Rod (AV, p. 98)

Property: Your pact boon triggers when an attack you make with this rod makes a target affected by your Warlock’s Curse bloodied. (It still triggers when you reduce a target to 0 or fewer hit points.)

I don't see anything in the text that mentions benefiting from this property while attacking with a different rod.

I suppose I'm just going to have to DME eliminate all minions from all mods I run (replacing them with real monsters) or disallow the combo on whatever excuse I feel like coming up with at the time. (It all really amounts to DM fiat--place/spread/whatever or "I don't like it." The real reason is people are not allowing it is because they don't think that eliminating 12 monsters with a single minor action that requires no attack roll is worth 3 real monsters worth of XP).

Put me down in the: it's ludicrous column. Maybe I should just ask players "are you going to object if I disallow the combo?" first and then DME the minions into real monsters if they seem inclined to argue.

szwanger wrote:

Bloodcurse Rod (AV, p. 98)

Property: Your pact boon triggers when an attack you make with this rod makes a target affected by your Warlock’s Curse bloodied. (It still triggers when you reduce a target to 0 or fewer hit points.)

I don't see anything in the text that mentions benefiting from this property while attacking with a different rod.

That's my point. This rod specifically says "with this rod". That's what makes this rod (but not others that don't say that) require that you attack with it to gain the property. In addition to the FAQ and all the other points made earlier, you can clearly see the implements where a property is conditional because the conditions are stated. If there is no condition stated, it is always on, per the definition of property.

This has been argued on Infinite Monkeys to everyone's satisfaction, so I won't go into it further unless you have something new to add. I don't mean that in a bad way, its just ground that has been covered (and that even skeptics ended up agreeing with).

Elder_basilisk wrote:

I suppose I'm just going to have to DME eliminate all minions from all mods I run (replacing them with real monsters) or disallow the combo on whatever excuse I feel like coming up with at the time. (It all really amounts to DM fiat--place/spread/whatever or "I don't like it." The real reason is people are not allowing it is because they don't think that eliminating 12 monsters with a single minor action that requires no attack roll is worth 3 real monsters worth of XP).

Put me down in the: it's ludicrous column. Maybe I should just ask players "are you going to object if I disallow the combo?" first and then DME the minions into real monsters if they seem inclined to argue.

Again, DME does not allow you to not follow core rules. With the two rods, your recourse, if you really are looking for a loophole, is to say that 'transfer' is a keyword and different than 'place'. This allows limited use of the combo, such that Reaving only deals damage once. Works fine that way, really. Of course, the keyword ruling would mean that two warlocks could use the combo to each 'transfer' their curse onto a creature that had someone else's curse, since they would not be 'placing' the curse on them (which is the restriction on not cursing something twice).

There is no DM fiat when it comes to core rules in the RPGA.

I may find what you play to be ludicrous. If it works as written (Battlerager, Guileful Switch, blah, blah, blah), you can't change it in an RPGA game, no matter how much you hate it. When it comes to the two rods, it really is easy to work around. Try those things that I mentioned out and I promise life will be fine for you, regardless of what the PCs are using against minions.

As a DM, it is your job to ensure ther is fun at the table. That is what DME is for. what DME can do is not very welld efined. But rulinf against the rods combo is, imo, something a DM can and *should* do so ensure fun.
InfiniteMonkeys is totally irrelevant in that discussion, since it is not about RAW, but about DM responsibility.
Both allowing the rod combo and removing minions means that you make any area-attack class near useless, and the Minion Killer card a big laugh. That ruins fun, imo, and therefor, as a DM, I will rule against it, and, as a player, expect a DM to rule against it.

Gomez

Alphastream1 wrote:

That's my point. This rod specifically says "with this rod". That's what makes this rod (but not others that don't say that) require that you attack with it to gain the property.

Here's your logic spelled out:
This rod says that X is false.
Therefore with all other rods, X is true.

And in 3.5, that's a fine set of logic, because that's how 3.5 is built.

In 4e, there's a higher requirement - in order for something to work, it has to specifically say you can do it. So your conclusion isn't logical. It could be true, but then again, you're not the only character that can render your cursed target bloody. The writer simply might have been trying to make it clear that you had to make an arcane warlock attack and added the 'with this rod' to be 'clear' - no using Armor of Agathys as an example, getting a lucky opportunity attack, or using an encounter power from another class.

Let's look at the results of the two possibilities:
All encounters involving a major core aspect of 4e have that major core aspect instantly defeated and we don't have proof positive that we're allowed to do it.

All encounters work normally because we assumed a bit of sloppy editing by WotC. And we've all seen sloppy editing by WotC.

-------

This is precisely why I think Infinite Monkeys is worthless.

KarmaInferno wrote:

Moreover, the FAQ, again, specifically tells us that an implement that is NOT being used in an attack still applies it's properties, but not it's enhancement bonuses.

As long as the conditions are satisfied...

It doesn't require the use of a keyword to note that the wording for Rod of Corruption is different than the wording of Rod of Reaving. And that's more than enough for me to disallow it.

Oh, I don't dispute that this particular combo has enough wiggle room due to poor wording to be ruled either way.

I was just asserting that there's nothing in the core rules that prevents the general use of multiple implements for their properties, attacking with one and getting the properties (but not any enhancement bonuses) for all the others. Limited by how many implements you can actually have equipped, naturally. There are SPECIFIC exceptions, like the Bloodcurse rod, but those are all explicitly spelled out.

SO I suppose in LFR, you really can have a warforged warlock with 5 implements worth of properties operating. Star of Corellon, four rods or orbs.

Do I find this a bit silly? Sure. But that's the core rules, and that's what matters for LFR. DME only allows changes to the content of an adventure, not how the core rules work. You have wiggle room in how you INTERPRET those rules, but you can't actually change them or make new rules up.

In a home game, I'd definitely houserule that you only get the properties of an implement if you attack with it.

LC was a bit silly too, many people considered it a medieval version of a superhero game. I guess the more things change...



-karma

And all of this doesn't even take into account a decked out Warforged caster with embedded implements all over + held in the hand.

(I'm hoping for major clarification on it in the EPG, but not holding my breath)

GANADAI wrote:

DM: You just killed an infinate amount of orc minions with a minor action. Welcome to level 30.

Well said Sir! This is exactly why I don't allow this to happen when I DM with a minor action. I have a Gnome Feylock as a PC of mine to with some of Dark Pact powers, I just don't find it fun for me or the other players to unbalance a whole encounter with 1 minor action using the '2 rod cheese'. Now I have cursed a minion and then used Eyebite and killed it and spread the curse to alot of there enemies within 5 squares. Followed up with an action pointed to Cursebite which killed liked of cursed minions and damages some other enemies. However that was lots of resources used on my turn and allowed other PCs to focus fire on the non-minions in the encounter. Generally speaking if your wreck the whole encounter before others go or have more than 1 turn, it might not be that the majority of the players are having fun. To me it's important that everyone is having fun, since that's really the whole goal of playing the game and a big part of 4th design philosophy.

--
Thanks and always good gaming,
~Matt Butler

Champions of the Realms Yahoo Group- Indianapolis, IN
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/cha … therealms/

Champions of the Realms Warhorn Site
http://www.warhorn.org/ChampionsOfTheRealms/

Alphastream1 wrote:

Again, DME does not allow you to not follow core rules. With the two rods, your recourse, if you really are looking for a loophole, is to say that 'transfer' is a keyword and different than 'place'. This allows limited use of the combo, such that Reaving only deals damage once. Works fine that way, really. Of course, the keyword ruling would mean that two warlocks could use the combo to each 'transfer' their curse onto a creature that had someone else's curse, since they would not be 'placing' the curse on them (which is the restriction on not cursing something twice).

There is no DM fiat when it comes to core rules in the RPGA.

I may find what you play to be ludicrous. If it works as written (Battlerager, Guileful Switch, blah, blah, blah), you can't change it in an RPGA game, no matter how much you hate it. When it comes to the two rods, it really is easy to work around. Try those things that I mentioned out and I promise life will be fine for you, regardless of what the PCs are using against minions.

OK, so let me get this straight. "You can't use the rod of reaving/rod of corruption combo because it is neither fun nor healthy for the game" is not kosher. "You can't use the rod of reaving/rod of corruption combo because there is a difference between "place" and "spread" and the rod of reaving spreads the curse but doesn't place it" is kosher. And after explaining that you say there is no DM fiat in the RPGA. Pull the other one.

As a DM, I wouldn't accept that level of word-parsing from a player unless I liked the result--and I'm betting that you would not accept it either. (As a DM, the only reason I would even consider that argument for a second is because I like the result too; I certainly won't adopt that level of strict scrutiny for all powers and/or power combos because the game is not tightly written enough to withstand that scrutiny and still work as intended). So what you are actually advocating is applying one level of scrutiny to powers you don't like and another level of scrutiny to powers and abilities you do like. That IS DM fiat, especially when you are willing to accept any argument that supports your position.

No one here who advocates that argument has done so because it is convincing. It's not. Everyone who has done it has argued that they like the result and the so-called reasoning provides a fig leaf to hang their hat on. All well and good, but if you choose the argument to accept on its results rather than the strength of the argument, you're not adjudicating the rules anymore.

The only difference between that and straight-up DM fiat is that the guy exercising DM fiat can explain his reasons honestly and doesn't have to pretend to be convinced by the argument. Players will and should accept the so-called rules argument in exactly the same way as they accept any other kind of DM fiat and it has exactly the same effect on the game. As a player, if I think the result of the DM fiat is reasonable and the DM runs an enjoyable game. As a player, if the DM fiat is unreasonable and does not make for (or is not mitigated by) an enjoyable game, I won't play with that DM. Whether the DM dresses his fiat up in a transparently flimsy rules argument makes no difference except to demonstrate whether or not the DM can be honest about his reasons.

Elder_basilisk wrote:

OK, so let me get this straight. "You can't use the rod of reaving/rod of corruption combo because it is neither fun nor healthy for the game" is not kosher. "You can't use the rod of reaving/rod of corruption combo because there is a difference between "place" and "spread" and the rod of reaving spreads the curse but doesn't place it" is kosher. And after explaining that you say there is no DM fiat in the RPGA. Pull the other one.

As a DM, I wouldn't accept that level of word-parsing from a player unless I liked the result--and I'm betting that you would not accept it either. (As a DM, the only reason I would even consider that argument for a second is because I like the result too; I certainly won't adopt that level of strict scrutiny for all powers and/or power combos because the game is not tightly written enough to withstand that scrutiny and still work as intended). So what you are actually advocating is applying one level of scrutiny to powers you don't like and another level of scrutiny to powers and abilities you do like. That IS DM fiat, especially when you are willing to accept any argument that supports your position.

No one here who advocates that argument has done so because it is convincing. It's not. Everyone who has done it has argued that they like the result and the so-called reasoning provides a fig leaf to hang their hat on. All well and good, but if you choose the argument to accept on its results rather than the strength of the argument, you're not adjudicating the rules anymore.

The only difference between that and straight-up DM fiat is that the guy exercising DM fiat can explain his reasons honestly and doesn't have to pretend to be convinced by the argument. Players will and should accept the so-called rules argument in exactly the same way as they accept any other kind of DM fiat and it has exactly the same effect on the game. As a player, if I think the result of the DM fiat is reasonable and the DM runs an enjoyable game. As a player, if the DM fiat is unreasonable and does not make for (or is not mitigated by) an enjoyable game, I won't play with that DM. Whether the DM dresses his fiat up in a transparently flimsy rules argument makes no difference except to demonstrate whether or not the DM can be honest about his reasons.

Because DM fiat is supposedly not allowed in the RPGA, you have to come up with a rules argument that at least sounds like it might be valid.

That said, you are supposed to make any changes necessary to the module to make the module fair, challenging, and fun, so "not fun or healthy for the game" _is_ kosher, it just results in a different fix - ie, changing the encounters to not have minions or use them in different ways.

Sithobi1 wrote:

Because DM fiat is supposedly not allowed in the RPGA, you have to come up with a rules argument that at least sounds like it might be valid.

Why does it have to sound like it might be valid? All that seems to be required is that the DM accept it. It does not actually have to be valid. It obviously does not have to be persuasive on the merits. What people seem to be saying in this thread is that any amount of DM fiat is acceptable, provided it is dressed up in the flimsiest of rules arguments and passed off as an "interpretation." In that case, I don't see any reason why it even has to sound like it might be acceptable. All the DM need to say is that, "I don't interpret the rules to mean X; I interpret them to mean Y." Even if the rules seem to be perfectly clear on the point, the DM is apparently free to make up and accept the flimsiest of rules arguments regardless of the strength of reason, grammar, or logic behind them. So, even if it doesn't sound like it could be valid to you, what's the difference?

A DM who wants to deal with players honestly but still wants to disallow rod of reaving/rod of corruption in this manner would have to say, "I am familiar with the arguments, and I acknowledge that this is a flimsy argument that is not persuasive on the merits, but since I think it is the better decision for game balance/whatever, I am choosing the weaker argument. If you don't like it, find another table or call the head judge and see if he wants to take over running this table. It's not up for discussion. Oh, by the way, this is not DM fiat. (Which is not allowed by the RPGA). This is [dishonest] rules interpretation. (Which is allowed by the RPGA since dishonest rules interpretation cannot be distinguished from merely incompetent or obtuse rules interpretation)."

At this point, it is completely indistinguishable from DM fiat both in its presentation and its effect on the game. (And presenting it any other way is simply lying about your reasons and pretending to be more obtuse than you really are.) Players will either decide that it is not worth arguing over and/or that its general effects on the game are positive and play anyway or they will decide otherwise and won't be willing to play. That's exactly how players would treat any other kind of DM fiat. Pretending that this kind of "interpretation" is anything other than bald-faced DM fiat is an exercise in self-delusion. If the RPGA is willing to accept this kind of so-called "interpretation" but not DM fiat to the same effect, all it is doing is encouraging dishonesty and creating a little minigame where DMs have to borrow the emperor's new clothes to dress up the fiat in order to gain acceptance.

What is worse, dishonesty of the kind encouraged on this thread is, in the long term, unhealthy for the organization. It damages the trust necessary to the player/DM relationship. Also, by pretending that unacceptable DM fiat becomes acceptable when dressed up in the language of rules interpretation, it obscures the difference between the DM fiat that is both healthy and necessary to the game and the DM fiat that harms it. Either one is equally capable of being dressed up in the language of rules interpretation.

Normally I try to stay out of D&D rules arguments as 1) you never reach consensus, and 2) as a LFR admin, I cannot dictate the answer. But this one finally sucked me in. :P

While I doubt R&D intended for unlimited numbers of weapon properties to stack, and I would like to see a clear statement if the weapon/implement must be wielded to gain the property, since most characters have two hands it is hard not to accept that a warlock could have a rod in each hand, and both properties would be in effect.

I am unlikely to accept as a DM that properties of much anything stuffed in a backpack is in effect, unless I see some explicit rule saying that.

While I am not certain if R&D intended for the damage from the Rod of Reaving property take effect with the transfer of the Warlock's Curse via the property of the Rod of Corruption, I think the sematics of "place" and "transfer" is too strained and weak to make a good point, based upon my experience with how R&D designers think and write. I will accept it as a DM barring errata or FAQ to the different.

However, I am extremely confident that R&D did not intend and would never allow an infinite chain of dead minions stemming from a single minor action of a Dark Pact Warlock. No magical power or property has unlimited range or area of effect. Clearly the limit of within 5 squares of the orignal target as cited in the property of the Rod of Corruption applies. And it is RAW, I argue, once you accept that the property effects are NOT separate, sequential actions, nor actions at all, but added effects that are options to the original, single action. Within the original action, that instantaneous moment in time, the Warlock placing his curse, there is only ONE original target. Within that single action, the secondary targets do NOT become somehow original targets. That condition will never be true. From my point of view, there is no need for WotC to errata to make this clear; I think the wording and logic is sound. So in this case, in the instant the Warlock places his curse on the original target, if a minion, the target dies from the damage, and the curse is also placed on (or transferred to) all targets within 5 squares, who if minions, also die from the damage. To me, that is the clear upper limit of what can be justified.

So given my reasoning process, is this a broken combo? Debatable for sure. It gives the Dark Pact Warlock, for the cost of having two magical rods, a capability that is undeniably a good minion killer, clearly better than the lightning weapon daily power that has a 2 square effect (although the lightning weapon will probably cause more damage). I would think if they errata the range of the rod of corruption to 2 squares, then the cost of using two rods would balance the big benefit of this functionality an unlimited amount of times versus being a daily power.

Obviously opinions vary and I don't know if my thoughts will have changed even a single opinion.

Oh, don't be surprised that the designers may be reluctant to give a statement at a con; they like to think carefully before issuing errata. As well they should.

Keith

Keith53 wrote:

So in this case, in the instant the Warlock places his curse on the original target, if a minion, the target dies from the damage, and the curse is also placed on (or transferred to) all targets within 5 squares

And for me, it stops there. The first rod has damaged, the second rod has transfered curses, and that's it. Both properties worked within the one minor action. They don't work again within that action.

Gomez

Keith53 wrote:

However, I am extremely confident that R&D did not intend and would never allow an infinite chain of dead minions stemming from a single minor action of a Dark Pact Warlock. No magical power or property has unlimited range or area of effect. Clearly the limit of within 5 squares of the orignal target as cited in the property of the Rod of Corruption applies. And it is RAW, I argue, once you accept that the property effects are NOT separate, sequential actions, nor actions at all, but added effects that are options to the original, single action. Within the original action, that instantaneous moment in time, the Warlock placing his curse, there is only ONE original target. Within that single action, the secondary targets do NOT become somehow original targets. That condition will never be true. From my point of view, there is no need for WotC to errata to make this clear; I think the wording and logic is sound. So in this case, in the instant the Warlock places his curse on the original target, if a minion, the target dies from the damage, and the curse is also placed on (or transferred to) all targets within 5 squares, who if minions, also die from the damage. To me, that is the clear upper limit of what can be justified.

Now this is a solid arguement I can accept without reservation.

I was rather ambivalent before either way, due to most of the argument being centered around the word "transfer". Basing your position on vague semantics is inherently a weak position and just unsatisfying to the rules logic monkey in me.


-karma

I'm not seeing the logic in it - after all, if you rod of reaving a minion, kill it, corruption carries your curse to a minion 5 away... if you contend that it is killed by the rod of reaving, Keith53, then would not pact boon trigger? And if pact boon triggered, what would stop you from using the rod in response, as a different event?

After all, if you used rod of corruption without rod of reaving to curse several minions on killing a target, then cursebited, you'd expect to corrupt every target within 5 of each killed minion. So let's say that before cursebiting you took out a rod of reaving so you could do your curse damage... so that would do 1 damage to all within 5 of the cursebite-killed ones, and presumably kill all of those. Would you then argue that either reaving or corruption didn't work on that second round, for some reason? If not, would it change anything if instead of cursebite the killing happened from an ally's spell?

Overall I find that interpretation less satisfying than the place!=transfer one, and both less satisfying than "please refrain from making the game less fun".

Keith53 wrote:

However, I am extremely confident that R&D did not intend and would never allow an infinite chain of dead minions stemming from a single minor action of a Dark Pact Warlock. No magical power or property has unlimited range or area of effect. Clearly the limit of within 5 squares of the orignal target as cited in the property of the Rod of Corruption applies. And it is RAW, I argue, once you accept that the property effects are NOT separate, sequential actions, nor actions at all, but added effects that are options to the original, single action. Within the original action, that instantaneous moment in time, the Warlock placing his curse, there is only ONE original target. Within that single action, the secondary targets do NOT become somehow original targets. That condition will never be true. From my point of view, there is no need for WotC to errata to make this clear; I think the wording and logic is sound. So in this case, in the instant the Warlock places his curse on the original target, if a minion, the target dies from the damage, and the curse is also placed on (or transferred to) all targets within 5 squares, who if minions, also die from the damage. To me, that is the clear upper limit of what can be justified.

So given my reasoning process, is this a broken combo? Debatable for sure. It gives the Dark Pact Warlock, for the cost of having two magical rods, a capability that is undeniably a good minion killer, clearly better than the lightning weapon daily power that has a 2 square effect (although the lightning weapon will probably cause more damage). I would think if they errata the range of the rod of corruption to 2 squares, then the cost of using two rods would balance the big benefit of this functionality an unlimited amount of times versus being a daily power.
Keith

gomeztoo has a great point. If you are going to say that property effects are not sequential but apply to the single original action and target, why are you applying the rod of reaving property twice? Shouldn't it only apply the once?

However, it still leaves (to me) the unsatisfying situation where an already cursed enemy is killed by the warlock while holding both rods. The fig leaf transfer/place argument works better for me there.

I like your proposed errata. While it leaves the ridiculous situation where a sea of minions can be slain with a single at-will minor action (if we allow them to work sequentially), range 2 or 3 leaves much more room for viable encounter design.

One thing I see sometimes on the boards (and from some players) is using the LFR "no house rules"/"RAW" argument to derail and/or hurt fun at a table.

My store has the benefit of a pool of judges (10+) who confer with each other regularly (often when the games are going on) about whether or not a poorly-defined element (or an element they don't understand) works in a certain way. You might be surprised at just how many things in 4E are uncertain in that manner. We had the RoR/RoC discussion shortly after it came out and reached a group consensus on the matter (that it doesn't destroy all the minions).

Changing via DM Empowerment a module is a much more complex and much more time consuming thing to do than making a ruling that affects the game on a minor scale which is a temporary house rule, such as this one. GMs who see abuse in a build or other element of the game should make every effort to use the "Yes, but" philosophy at their game tables: allow the players to do X, but make sure it doesn't detract from the fun. In some situations certain elements should be allowed to be temporarily changed at a table. If I were at a table running a mod where I thought RoR/RoC would be a problem because a player would rules lawyer me to death about what the combo did, I would tell them, "You can't do this, BUT, I will allow you, solely for the purpose of this module, not permanently, to use a rod of the same level as the RoC". You're not taking anything away from the player but a combo that you think destroys fun, and you're giving them something to make up for that loss.

The same can be done for things like Guileful Switch if you have a problem with it ("Choose a different power for the purpose of this adventure"). Your DM should make an emphasis on fun *for the table*...which, most people tend to forget, *includes the DM*...not just for you.

Here's the problem with that, and the reason for the historical ruling that DMs must follow the RAW in the RPGA.

Players in the RPGA should have at least some expectation to not have their characters rules-yanked back and forth all over the place if they're a legal build.

While having variable rulings are understandable when there's actual ambiguity in the rules (see the rod combo), players merely taking advantage of a powerful ability that is clearly allowed by the book shouldn't get smacked down. (see Guileful Switch) It's not the players that are at fault in the second case - it's the rules. Players should not be punished for it.

At most, make it clear that if the players want to play hardball, so will the NPCs. I used to run across some stuff that was way overpowered. Remember how bad Holy Word was in 3E? My standard response was "Feel free to use it, but understand that the NPCs won't pull their punches either if you do."

My personal opinion? There's hundreds of ways of smacking down a 'abusive' player that don't rely on changing the rules. I feel it's unfair to my players and a little bit of a cop-out. DMs have all the power in the game already. You don't need houseruling to accomplish things.

Gamers all like different things. Some are deep roleplayers. Some are powergamers. Others are just there to socialize with other players. Most folks are a little bit of all of these.

None of these play preferences are "right" or "wrong". RPGA DMs need to recognize this and try their best to accommodate, without coloring the experience with their personal likes or dislikes about the rules.


-karma

I don't see this as a realistic option in 4th edition because monsters no longer operate by the same rules as players. Monsters don't get rods of corruption. Players don't have minions. To use a different example, if a player insists on teleporting his enemies into the air and then having them land prone and take falling damage because he's found one of a half-dozen powers that don't specify that you can't do so, odds are very good that no monster in the module has a teleportation power, and even if it does, it may have that restriction.

So, in 4th edition, monsters don't have the option to use the players' tricks against them. About the most a DM can do in the "hardball" department is remembering that area effects still target downed PCs and making liberal use of coup de grace--and that is not so much using the PCs tactics against them as simply using the most vengeful and punitive tactics you can against the PCs.

Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work in 4th edition.

KarmaInferno wrote:

At most, make it clear that if the players want to play hardball, so will the NPCs. I used to run across some stuff that was way overpowered. Remember how bad Holy Word was in 3E? My standard response was "Feel free to use it, but understand that the NPCs won't pull their punches either if you do."

MwaO wrote:

Here's your logic spelled out:
This rod says that X is false.
Therefore with all other rods, X is true.

And in 3.5, that's a fine set of logic, because that's how 3.5 is built.

Not at all. The example I offered was solely as 'backup' to the excellent points made by others. You already have properties being always on, not needing actions, not conflicting, plus the Customer Service and FAQ rulings. All I was really pointing out is that the wording of some rods makes it clear that the designers seem to have chosen when to stipulate "with this rod" vs. working with an off-hand.

(By the way, on Warforged, CS recommends that you be limited to 2 rods regardless of where they are held. A CS ruling is not a requirement for judges, but is guidance. It seems very sound in this case. There isn't a ruling that I know of for wield vs backpack, though the requirement to wield an item seems valid. I would chalk it up as not being clear, and I have trouble envisioning a player that would want to press that case).

As for the value of the rods, the real value is as follows:

Reaving: Adding +enhancement is moderately strong. It adds +1 dmg to everything you curse, comparable to a weak feat. It has a d8 crit, which is strong for rods. The crit range would only work as the wand you attack with, of course. At higher levels, the damage is still nice. 3 extra dmg with +3 Reaving is nice. Other primary rods, such as Vicious (makes curse D8 instead of D6) are also really good. Vicious is really strong once you do more than one die of curse damage.

Corruption: This is the real winner. When a cursed foe drops, you can move the curse about. One of the real drawbacks of a warlock is that your damage is weak on your power alone. Then you are working hard for that curse, which can only be on the closest foe (unlike the rogue). This makes it really hard to focus fire on enemies that aren't the closest enemy. But, the closest thing often dies soon, as the party attacks it while they figure out what everything else is. So, Corruption rocks because you can transfer your curse when that first thing dies, getting maximum targeting flexibility. We love it when the first thing we attack is a minion, because we gain instant targeting flexibility.

The combo working on minions is nice, but not ridiculous for warlocks. Sure, I totally see how it frustrates DMs, especially those seeing this for the first time. But, we are warlocks. We are so far behind the power curve of strikers. The feylock can zoom about the room... not a huge benefit. The infernal gets non-stacking HPs... no benefit. The Starpact gains a massive bonus to hit. Nice, but overkill at some point. The Darkpact gains the likely best benefit, though debatable with Star. The Star gets to attack knowing they hit. The Darkpact now has to somehow get the DM to attack them so the aura can be unleashed. That is NOT an easy task. In fact, it is so hard that many Darklocks only get to enjoy unleashing their aura in the few encounters where they can kill some minions up front. I've played 17 mods with my rod combo, truly, I know what I'm talking about. I've spent 5 rounds trying to be a target so I could get 4d6 aura on something, then ended the mod with 5d6 aura that goes to waste!

So, when we look at the actual effect on the game, it is really spike-driven. In most cases, the Star Pact will hit, the Darklock may get a lot of damage on one foe (but is just as likely if not more so not to), and the real effect is back to clearing a lot of minions.

Ok, so we cleared a lot of minions. I played a mod today with a ton of minions. Exactly how hard were they for the party to kill? Not hard at all. The ranger popped the Spitting Cobra stance and didn't even get to use it! That's how quickly the 10 or so minions dropped in the first round. Is that bad? Not at all. Minions, per the DMG, are supposed to fall to PCs like "a knife through hot butter". Sure, this took all of three standard actions instead of a minor. Understood, but far from a hugely broken impact. If this is broken, we need a new word for the truly broken things.

Elder_basilisk wrote:

OK, so let me get this straight. "You can't use the rod of reaving/rod of corruption combo because it is neither fun nor healthy for the game" is not kosher. "You can't use the rod of reaving/rod of corruption combo because there is a difference between "place" and "spread" and the rod of reaving spreads the curse but doesn't place it" is kosher.

Yes. You can't as a DM get rid of something you don't like. Correct. That's the way the RPGA works. Now, that may change. The designers clearly intend for 4E as a whole to be a lot more about the DM making judgment calls. However, when I ask them about how that applies to the RPGA, it produces head-scratching. Here's why. You want consistent play experience and you want players NOT to sit down at a table and get hit by house rules. For RPGA to work as a selling platform, it has to offer core rules. As an RPGA DM, you need a valid reason or a clear ambiguity. It so happens that, as with Battlerager, Guileful Switch, the ranger class, everything is really clear and thus must be run as is.

I get why people don't like it. And, like Keith, I agree that the full effect that can take place (endless jumping within-5 minion clearing) is not likely the intent. I also don't think they thought through the Battlerager, and I think they would have built a stronger Wizard and a weaker Ranger if they had the opportunity. But, they didn't. And, we are in the RPGA. In the RPGA, we run by the rules.

When we discussed this issue on Infinite Monkeys, I was (and am) prepared to accept better arguments. I'm a by-the-book guy. In reading the arguments on why the two-rods might not work, the absolute only argument that passed muster was that 'transfer' is intended as a keyword. Do I believe that? No way. I don't believe that for a second. I find it an amazingly weak argument and a troubling argument that opens the door for all sorts of silly reasoning. (What will the next keyword we make up be?) But, in reviewing this argument, I can't for sure say that it is not meant as a keyword. So, as far as I can tell, trying to be unbiased, it is a valid argument for LFR judges.

I'm not the kind of guy to go hunting for ridiculous cheese. There has to be a valid reason for me to choose powers. I don't find the two-rod combo to be a problem and I see lots of valid reasons for Star and Dark warlocks to use them. It isn't broken for me as a player, or for me as a judge, or for other players at the tables at which I play, though I do hear many players agree that the items should likely be changed. I get how it doesn't feel right, but it doesn't play badly. It speeds up tables, it makes the warlock a bit more flexible and stronger (albeit in erratic spikes, which is a bad mechanical way of doing it), and the only downside is that it can trivialize an encounter where there are a substantial number of minions. As I've written before, a DM can easily compensate for such a rare situation. Introduce the minions in waves, have some new ones come back, etc. Lots of options where everyone wins.

I agree, Keith, that the designers have good reasons not to answer questions at a con. The conversation I had was clearly in that light and I take it as such. That's why Andy turned my question back on me when I asked him if it sounded broken. He clearly saw how it worked and he didn't offer any reason it would not. In the end, he answered as I think they want to answer... up to the DM... but we have unique requirements in the RPGA.

The basic problem with the rods is the XP value of minions. The minions die as intended but have little bearing on most combats. That's where we need a fix. The rods really just need the clarification of not endlessly repeating. That's easily achieved by an errata to corruption, changing it to read "once per round" so that the curse only moves once per round. That way, you could clear a pocket of minions but not traverse the whole room.

As for my friend Ganadai's comment about the orc army, that's a 4E issue. The designers said the rules just aren't intended to roll up to the societal level. Think of Eladrin... how would their culture have to change to account for schoolkids being able to teleport out of their classrooms or jails? The designers said 4E just doesn't aim to work at that level. The rules are for our combats, not for the world as a whole.

Alphastream1 wrote:

(By the way, on Warforged, CS recommends that you be limited to 2 rods regardless of where they are held. A CS ruling is not a requirement for judges, but is guidance. It seems very sound in this case. There isn't a ruling that I know of for wield vs backpack, though the requirement to wield an item seems valid. I would chalk it up as not being clear, and I have trouble envisioning a player that would want to press that case).

yet, customer service responses amount to house rules as often as they amount to rules arguments. I would be more wary of saying that any DM is entitled to hide behind whatever customer service ruling he can name (or vaguely remember) than of just letting DMs house-rule. At least if it's the DM's house rule, he knows that he is expected to defend them on their merits rather than to appeal to the dubious authority of customer service.

And I do think this is a real issue. Unlike some others, I don't have much trouble imagining that a player would want to press the case of using a vengeful weapon stashed in his backpack. Recently, one of the players at my table DID press the case that his dimensional slash allows him to teleport a foe into the air (as long as it is still adjacent to him) and that the foe should then fall and take falling damage.

Yes. You can't as a DM get rid of something you don't like. Correct.

That's only half of the question. The other half is that, if I can get rid of something I don't like based on a customer service response (if you don't like the answer you get, ask again) or a transparently dishonest rules "interpretation" argument, how is that any different?

You have exactly the same problem with players sitting down at a table and not knowing what to expect as far as the rules go. (Yesterday, I sat down at a table and watched as another player was expected to roll saves and/or endurance checks to resolve something like 8 different instances of Mummy rot. "OK, you saved against level 12 mummy rot, and the first and third instances of the level 10 mummy rot, now you need to roll endurance checks to see if the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh instances of the level 10 mummy rot still apply.") If the rod of reaving/corruption trick doesn't work at one table but does at another that is the same issue whether the DM lies about his reasoning and pretends to believe the "place/spread" tripe or not. If the paladin's mark only functions once, ever, it is not going to make the situation at the table any better that a DM can support that with a literal reading of the RAW text (that he doesn't attempt to interpret nearly as closely in other instances).

In situations that should actually come up with DMs, it is the substance of the rules interpretation or DM fiat that is going to make it helpful or harmful to the game, not whether the DM is capable of dressing it up in the language of rules interpretation.

That's the way the RPGA works. Now, that may change. The designers clearly intend for 4E as a whole to be a lot more about the DM making judgment calls.

And as, is becoming increasingly clear, 4e doesn't work at all without DM judgement calls on rules issues.

When we discussed this issue on Infinite Monkeys, I was (and am) prepared to accept better arguments. I'm a by-the-book guy. In reading the arguments on why the two-rods might not work, the absolute only argument that passed muster was that 'transfer' is intended as a keyword. Do I believe that? No way. I don't believe that for a second. I find it an amazingly weak argument and a troubling argument that opens the door for all sorts of silly reasoning. (What will the next keyword we make up be?) But, in reviewing this argument, I can't for sure say that it is not meant as a keyword. So, as far as I can tell, trying to be unbiased, it is a valid argument for LFR judges.

So, how weak does an argument have to be before it ceases to become a valid argument for LFR judges? (And does the DM have to even say he believes it?) Anyone with a little training in language or argumentation can come up with obtuse or tendentious rules arguments for any position we want to adopt. The trouble with adopting "is there an argument that a DM might be willing to say he thinks is prima facia valid" as a standard for table judges is that any DM who is willing to be a little bit flexible with the truth (whatever the heck that is) can adopt any house rule he wants within that standard. If we insist on focusing on whether the DM was adept enough to dress up his house rules in the language of rules interpretation rather than whether or not those house rules are healthy for the game, we are asking for trouble. The dishonesty it encourages is going to harm player/DM trust. And the misplaced focus on the presentation of the house rules rather than their content will lead DMs to make worse decisions than they would otherwise be likely to.

KarmaInferno wrote:

Here's the problem with that, and the reason for the historical ruling that DMs must follow the RAW in the RPGA.

Players in the RPGA should have at least some expectation to not have their characters rules-yanked back and forth all over the place if they're a legal build.

While having variable rulings are understandable when there's actual ambiguity in the rules (see the rod combo), players merely taking advantage of a powerful ability that is clearly allowed by the book shouldn't get smacked down. (see Guileful Switch) It's not the players that are at fault in the second case - it's the rules. Players should not be punished for it.

At most, make it clear that if the players want to play hardball, so will the NPCs. I used to run across some stuff that was way overpowered. Remember how bad Holy Word was in 3E? My standard response was "Feel free to use it, but understand that the NPCs won't pull their punches either if you do."

My personal opinion? There's hundreds of ways of smacking down a 'abusive' player that don't rely on changing the rules. I feel it's unfair to my players and a little bit of a cop-out. DMs have all the power in the game already. You don't need houseruling to accomplish things.

Gamers all like different things. Some are deep roleplayers. Some are powergamers. Others are just there to socialize with other players. Most folks are a little bit of all of these.

None of these play preferences are "right" or "wrong". RPGA DMs need to recognize this and try their best to accommodate, without coloring the experience with their personal likes or dislikes about the rules.

Whilst this is true in many senses...

This is going to seem odd (rules-lawyering to prevent rules-lawyering), I could find nothing in the text either of the character creation guide, or the beginning text of a module, that indicates that house rules are unacceptable so long as they don't violate RPGA access rules (you can't allow someone to use something they don't have access to) or create new thingamabobbers or raise rewards beyond the caps.

"Make decisions and adjudications that enhance the fun of the adventure whenever possible."

If Bob's RoR/RoC combination destroys all the minions in a single sweep, I'd say that has a pretty negative impact on the fun of the adventure, not to mention "Don't make the adventure too easy or too difficult for the group."

I can find no text that indicates the historical ruling that DMs must follow RAW as written slavishly in the RPGA.

Now--I can certainly understand that this is desired, and I agree with it in ninety-nine percent of the cases in which it comes up. It's that last 1 percent that's the problem. When I'm running a table of tactical/strategic numbers players (what's the politically correct term for minmaxing power gamers?) I'm more than glad to allow them whatever tricks they want to use with their characters to optomize them and alter things from the perspective of the monsters to increase the challenge to a point where they get to show off.

But when I'm running a mixed table of players, where a powergaming min/maxer is mixed with other players who are there for a different kind of experience, I see no problems with making house rules as necessary to alter things. I'll be perfectly clear with the rules lawyers why I'm doing it, that it's temporary, and all the rest of that jazz, to enhance the fun at the table.

Fundin Strongarm wrote:

range 2 or 3 leaves much more room for viable encounter design.

Range 2 or 3 works for minion issues, but fails for the key use of the rod, which is to gain targeting flexibility. The range of 5 is a very good range for the curse movement. A smaller range would not make it worthwhile for most warlocks, I think (unless your sole reason for the rods was to pop minions, and I doubt anyone is taking those items for that purpose).

However, the issue really isn't the range of the rod's transfer effect. It is the XP value of minions, a core issue that the developer's acknowledge.

Elder_basilisk wrote:

To use a different example, if a player insists on teleporting his enemies into the air and then having them land prone and take falling damage because he's found one of a half-dozen powers that don't specify that you can't do so, odds are very good that no monster in the module has a teleportation power, and even if it does, it may have that restriction.

Forced movement is prevented from having a vertical component (PH 285). (I only learned of that recently).

Regarding the differences between monsters and PCs and "hardball tactics", throwing something back at the PCs isn't the point of any edition. You want to aim for fun. If the challenge, for any reason, is not sufficient, and you know the mod will fail to challenge later, then use DME in valid ways to adjust the challenge to a fun level.

There are two really important parts of this.

First, that you have to evaluate the challenge in light of the entire mod. In 4E, it is a core concept that the PCs should not struggle with every combat. Some should be easy (hopefully still fun and interesting). Thus, just because the PCs are skating through encounter 1 is not a reason to suddenly add make every monster an elite... the mod may be balanced very well and choose to start easy. My own approach is to only tweak one of the non-final encounters if I have run that mod before and know the challenge levels really well across the whole mod.

Second, that you are increasing (or decreasing) the challenge for your players, not for yourself. It doesn't matter if you don't like swordmages; if the battle is fun for the players, everything is fine at the table. Now, if the swordmage is trivializing the combat and the party looks bored and you know the mod, then that is a nice reason to up the challenge level for the players' benefit.

Alphastream1 wrote:

Forced movement is prevented from having a vertical component (PH 285). (I only learned of that recently).

You have to read it pretty strangely to not conclude that "forced movement" includes only pushes, pulls, and slides.

Elder_basilisk wrote:

yet, customer service responses amount to house rules as often as they amount to rules arguments. I would be more wary of saying that any DM is entitled to hide behind whatever customer service ruling he can name (or vaguely remember) than of just letting DMs house-rule. At least if it's the DM's house rule, he knows that he is expected to defend them on their merits rather than to appeal to the dubious authority of customer service.

I see your point. CS is guidance, though. Ultimately, the RPGA is expecting DMs to be mature, not to go to CS for the ruling they want. If a DM is willing to do that, there isn't much to be done for them. I've in the past had a CS response I liked, but which I realized was unlikely to be what they meant and likely thrown off by my poor wording. I rephrased, clarified, and asked again. They then ruled as I expected, which is what I go with as player and DM (but it wasn't what I would use in my home campaign). The issue is, we really can't use house rules. The way it works is like this:

1. DM or player finds issue the core rules do not address. We have ambiguity.
2. DM checks core rules, FAQ, issue is still ambiguous.
3. DM could make a ruling. DM checks CS and finds guidance.
4. DM makes ruling.

None of this is supposed to be forced or biased. It is all still about making a good decision. When you look at the rods, there is really no ambiguity about how they work. I'm not saying a DM couldn't mistakenly find one, but there isn't once you conduct a proper review. Turning to CS, you would find these statements:

FAQ and CS rulings: Show

The DM, ultimately, needs some pretty strong ambiguity to continue to not allow the combo. The only thing that seems to pass group muster is the idea that 'transfer' is intended as a rules keyword. It would mean CS is wrong. I do find it to be a flimsy argument, but it is one that I would accept if my DM ruled that way. (Ok, actually, I'll accept anything from a DM, but I would after the game want to talk to them about any random ruling).

Elder_basilisk wrote:

And as, is becoming increasingly clear, 4e doesn't work at all without DM judgement calls on rules issues.

I suspect you and I would get along really well at the table. I really agree with much of this, though I don't think 4E is so bad. I think, from what I hear from up high, that WotC really would like this to be the case (that DMs make rules calls). The problem is the issue of trust and consistency. We've seen on these boards many DMs say "my way or the highway" and that can create a real brand image problem (because it can ruin tables). If anything, you want the game to go the way of the players. (I mean the collective table, not any one player). As you move away from 3.5/LG where every table was like the other, the problem can be that you have no safety net for the game to be on solid footing. WotC/RPGA want the core rules used, not homebrew. At the same time, they want good DM judgement when needed. Currently, DME is ill-defined, but it is safe to say it is about the adventure and making sure the adventure runs well and play is fun.

Bringing it back to the rods, when faced with them (which again, I don't think is so terrible based on my 17 mods with them), there are lots of ways to use DME to ensure the mod is fun. The same is true of the Battlerager, or of the Battlestandard of Courage when combined with lots of other healing items. Sure, a new DM might not know the best path forward; just let the PCs have their fun. But, as you gain more experience, you learn how to work with these. And anyone can make the easy fix of having one more monster come onto the board, being mindful of overall mod challenge level.

Elder_basilisk wrote:

If we insist on focusing on whether the DM was adept enough to dress up his house rules in the language of rules interpretation rather than whether or not those house rules are healthy for the game, we are asking for trouble. The dishonesty it encourages is going to harm player/DM trust. And the misplaced focus on the presentation of the house rules rather than their content will lead DMs to make worse decisions than they would otherwise be likely to.

I don't think so, and here's why. It forces the DM base to at least think through what they are objecting to and why. Over on Infinite Monkeys, a judge didn't like Deft Strike and said he grants +2 cumulative bonuses to monster passive perception as a way of 'helping' the player diversify from using the same At-Will. The RPGA is better off if we can move away from that. That's a house rule. What we want is the judge to A) talk to the player about what they are thinking, and B) find the proper way to address the situation. The proper way is to have monsters, if it really is a tactical problem for them, send a monster over to the rogue. That's all it takes. Problem resolved and everyone wins.

That's why I bother with this discussion. I would honestly like to see DMs move towards a better comprehension of how the basic rules can be used to compensate challenge levels for certain situations (Battlerager, Battlestandard, rods, etc.) instead of DMs trying to come up with house rules. 4E and LFR DME already give every DM the methods by which to address problems in a legal way.

Sithobi1 wrote:

You have to read it pretty strangely to not conclude that "forced movement" includes only pushes, pulls, and slides.

Hmmm, interesting. I'm going by what a friend of mine concluded after looking into whether his Avenger could throw foes into the sky.

The text says "Whether you're pulling, pushing, or sliding a target, certain rules govern all fixed movement." However, it is under the "PULL, PUSH, AND SLIDE" header and the next header is "TELEPORTATION". Looking at teleportation, it has its own bullets. In the PH, these are clearly written for "you" and not other creatures. Then the PH2 corrects them for you and other creatures. Those bullets have no limitation on vertical movement.

I would have to agree with you. Looks like you can teleport foes into mid-air, barring errata. I'll ask on the PH2 errata forum.

Oh, and I'll shut up for the day. Sorry! I know I'm verbose, but I also do understand I don't have the only valid arguments here, as Sithobi so clearly points out!

Alphastream1 wrote:

Range 2 or 3 works for minion issues, but fails for the key use of the rod, which is to gain targeting flexibility. The range of 5 is a very good range for the curse movement. A smaller range would not make it worthwhile for most warlocks, I think (unless your sole reason for the rods was to pop minions, and I doubt anyone is taking those items for that purpose).

However, the issue really isn't the range of the rod's transfer effect. It is the XP value of minions, a core issue that the developer's acknowledge.

While the XP of minions may be too high, it's the combo's ability to kill endless minions with an at-will minor action that is the problem.

Alphastream1 wrote:

However, the issue really isn't the range of the rod's transfer effect. It is the XP value of minions, a core issue that the developer's acknowledge.

XP is a meta-game element that really is secondary to soemthing lse that is more important: fun at teh table.
A minor action that auto-kills all minions in an encounter is not fun, except perhaps to the warlock player. that is the real problem, and I believe a DM may adjust to counter that un-funness.

Gomez

I got to play my Wizard on Monday. In one fight I had 2 groups that were probably minions. So I threw up a Wall of Fire around one group and managed to kill all of them. But I did that as a Standard Action, it took a fairly powerful spell for me (I'm level 10), and 1 minion survived. Had we had a Warlock I would have simply waited for the Warlock to have his turn and it would have been dealt with through a minor action. Not as fun, or as expensive.

I'd be seriously annoyed if I played a wizard and a warlock kills all the minions in a fight with a minor action for which he doesn't even have to roll an attack.

Gomez

Especially if you have the minion slayer card...

I chased this as far as I could with CS (wrong computer so I cannot dig up the answers if I kept them).

The CS response to many of the finer points of 4E rules is simply "the DM Decides the way it works".

In LFR that means the Campaign admins, and this combo is something we could use a ruling on - for module designers, DMs and Players.

And Keith's answer is inherently flawed, as the RoC looks at each instance of a Cursed creature dieing for its source, so its either fiat, or wrong.

Cailte wrote:

And Keith's answer is inherently flawed, as the RoC looks at each instance of a Cursed creature dieing for its source, so its either fiat, or wrong.

Sorry, but I disagree. The Rod of Corruption explicitly states within 5 squares of the original target. I don't know why you think what you do, but there is no rules citation or argument on which to base your claim.

On a related note, there is an argument, perhaps weak but better than the place vs transfer argument, for Gomez's position. In the wording of the property for the Rod of Reaving, it does say "on a target" and "the creature" -- both being singular, not plural. That might be the basis for an interpretation that the Rod of Reaving cannot be applied to multiple creatures at the same time.

Keith

Cailte wrote:

I chased this as far as I could with CS (wrong computer so I cannot dig up the answers if I kept them).

The CS response to many of the finer points of 4E rules is simply "the DM Decides the way it works".

In LFR that means the Campaign admins, and this combo is something we could use a ruling on - for module designers, DMs and Players.

Won't happen. It's a core rules issue and the campaign administration never makes core rules rulings. Never has, never will.

Dragon9 wrote:

Won't happen. It's a core rules issue and the campaign administration never makes core rules rulings. Never has, never will.

I believe they're not allowed to by WoTC, in fact.

This is where we run into a brick wall. 4e requires (both implicitly and often explicitly) some DM interpretation and fiat. The DMG and the responses from CS both seem to imply this, as does the poor playtesting of some of the splatbooks and reticence to issue errata when the issues are highlighted (Orbizards were broken about a week after the PHB came out, and still are). In essence, DMs are expected to houserule/modify anything they don't like.

When it comes to LFR, where DMs are supposed to follow the rules to the letter, we don't have the freedom to do this, yet where there are points of ambiguity we get no official ruling. A number of things are quite ill defined, not least exactly what the official rule sources are (A CS ruling? The Character Builder?). For example, there was the same problem on the Warforged Reparation Apparatus issue (at least that one might be sorted out when the Eberron guide comes out, but for the meantime DMs have to put up with invincible warforged).

It's an issue I'd like to see WoTC address, and soon. The campaign is starting to get to the level (paragon soon) where things get more and more out of whack if some of the loopholes are not closed. Whether they do this by issuing more errata, more frequent FAQs, or just giving admins or DMs in LFR the right to make table rulings, you can't have a campaign that runs on RAW if the RAW are imprecise or just broken.

The way I look at it: It's been like this since 3e. Living Greyhawk managed to survive despite there being a metric ton of stuff that needed errata and lots of table variation. If you are goign to use a rules item that can be interpreted more than one way, then just be prepared for table variation and roll with the punches. If it's the crux of your PCs abilities and it can't function without it, then you may want to look to somethign else (for example: all the tears shed over unplayable PCs when Veteran's Armor changed).

Keith53 wrote:

Sorry, but I disagree. The Rod of Corruption explicitly states within 5 squares of the original target. I don't know why you think what you do, but there is no rules citation or argument on which to base your claim.

Relevant rule: "Property: Whenever your pact boon is triggered, instead of taking its normal benefit you can transfer your Warlock’s Curse to each enemy within 5 squares of the original target."

As a reminder, pact boons are not necessarily triggered by the warlock. This event could happen when the warlock's ranger buddy kills the target that starts the chain just as well, in which case he has no target for an attack - just the pact boon triggering, and spreading. It simply happens every time a cursed target dies, no matter how it dies.

The pact boon triggers every time you kill one of those RoC Reaved minions, ergo the property triggers. If you allow the spread to deal damage, you can't stop the spread from respreading by RAW. They are new original targets that's all. That's neither here nor there as far as what's reasonable, balanced, and healthy for the game, but I would suggest against language like "there is no rules citation or argument on which to base your claim" on messageboards, really, ever. It's just asking for trouble

On a related note, there is an argument, perhaps weak but better than the place vs transfer argument, for Gomez's position. In the wording of the property for the Rod of Reaving, it does say "on a target" and "the creature" -- both being singular, not plural. That might be the basis for an interpretation that the Rod of Reaving cannot be applied to multiple creatures at the same time.

Multiple attack powers deal damage to 'a target' and daze 'a target', because you consider each target in singular. Even two-fold curse would allow you to curse two creatures and reave them both, without going into the RoC - each time you plce the curse you look at the property of the rod. Yep, moving on.

Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised no one has tried an argument that somehow the reaving damages the target before it's _really_ cursed so there's no pact boon at all, in some odd timing loophole.

I wonder how many modules would be notably harmed by not having minions - it probably wouldn't be _that_ onerous to put together a DME guide for removing minions from all modules. Just list the encounters with things like 'Replace with an additional Gnoll Marauder'

Dragon9 wrote:

The way I look at it: It's been like this since 3e. Living Greyhawk managed to survive despite there being a metric ton of stuff that needed errata and lots of table variation. If you are goign to use a rules item that can be interpreted more than one way, then just be prepared for table variation and roll with the punches. If it's the crux of your PCs abilities and it can't function without it, then you may want to look to somethign else (for example: all the tears shed over unplayable PCs when Veteran's Armor changed).

Remember that Living Greyhawk also banned particularly eggregious items like wraithstrike and mass resist energy and restricted access to most non-core items such that access to them had to be found in a module. LFR has no banned list and does not restrict access to feats or items. Therefore the issue is likely to be more acute in LFR. In LG, only the warforged who played the right adventure at the right APL would have been able to have a reparation apparatus. In LFR, every level 6+ warforged character can have a reparation apparatus.

So, yes, we have had table variation before and it has worked. On the other hand it was not likely to be as frequent at that time since many of the questionable items that would have led to DMs embracing "interpretations" with weaker RAW support in the name of balance were either banned or were limited access.

Bigfluffylemon wrote:

When it comes to LFR, where DMs are supposed to follow the rules to the letter, we don't have the freedom to do this, yet where there are points of ambiguity we get no official ruling. A number of things are quite ill defined, not least exactly what the official rule sources are (A CS ruling? The Character Builder?). For example, there was the same problem on the Warforged Reparation Apparatus issue (at least that one might be sorted out when the Eberron guide comes out, but for the meantime DMs have to put up with invincible warforged).

It's an issue I'd like to see WoTC address, and soon. The campaign is starting to get to the level (paragon soon) where things get more and more out of whack if some of the loopholes are not closed. Whether they do this by issuing more errata, more frequent FAQs, or just giving admins or DMs in LFR the right to make table rulings, you can't have a campaign that runs on RAW if the RAW are imprecise or just broken.

I disagree. The campaign is fine. Yes, there is a difference in approach between WotC (DM should decide on 4E rules) and RPGA (must use core rules), but that isn't unhealthy.

First, understand the reality of the situation. People will always misread something. At the table you will see disagreement. The recourse is to argue/discuss the point or give in and just play. In my experience, you can't settle an issue easily at the table. Someone has to just suck it up (usually the player, historically, though 4E seems to slanted towards ruling for the players. There are so many powers and other effects that a single 'cheesy' think won't undo the adventure. 4E plays better when the DM is usually ruling for the players, whereas I think 3.5 was the opposite.).

Second, understand the two possibilities:

1. DMs follow core rules
Players know that core rules will be employed. You expect and in most cases will receive a reliable play experience, with the exception noted above.

2. DMs can do what they want with core rules
Now you have an RPGA home campaign. If a DM doesn't like how something works or just thinks they can improve upon it, they can change it. "Sorry, Twin Strike doesn't work at my table. Please choose another at-will, as it is too strong." "Sorry, at my table, the way Deft Strike works is..." "Oh, I should have mentioned. You can not get warlord bonuses to action points at this table, see, I think the game..."

Number 2 is horrible for players, DMs, the RPGA, and WotC. It creates an inconsistent experience. In a homegame, a DM can try out their own ruling and adjust. An RPGA table is not the place for that type of judgment call.

The other alternatives are for WotC to spend more time on errata, but they've said that they really can't do that without hurting business. They try to go for the biggest issues, and really, they are doing a hugely better job than back with 3.5. We just can't expect a huge change here beyond what we have right now.

One of the reasons everything is fine is that you have the power of DME. Ultimately, what DME allows you to do is to execute on story and on fun. If the final combat is supposed to be epic, you can make sure that happens. Monsters too easy/hard? Increase/decrease their level on the fly (can be easily done in the time a player is deciding their actions if you know how). Minions a problem? Space them out, introduce them in waves. Problems resolved, all using DME and core rules.

This conversation is happening, in large part, because there really is no ambiguity for the two rods but people don't like them. Most of the posts are hunting for reasons to say no, but the items are clear. Thus, we argue. But, at the end of the day, careful examination of the items shows they work. Everything (RAW, RAI, future books, developer comments, CS, etc.) points this way. It is what it is, just like many other strong things in the game.

Most other similar conversations get resolved because someone is misreading how the item/thing works. We look at the question, figure out that it doesn't work for some valid reason, move on, thread dies.

But, you can never have an RPG that is 100% clear. (I've never played one and I've never met someone who has). There will always be cases where you show up at a table and someone has crazy ideas of how something works. That's the time when the DM/Player should try to be reasonable, keep in mind the goal of "fun", and work out a quick agreement. "Well, I really think that should work differently. I could be wrong. Tell you what, let's see how this first combat runs, and if it is too easy, then I can increase the difficulty of the future combats, so long as the table agrees. Sound good?"

Keithric wrote:

I wonder how many modules would be notably harmed by not having minions - it probably wouldn't be _that_ onerous to put together a DME guide for removing minions from all modules. Just list the encounters with things like 'Replace with an additional Gnoll Marauder'

I'm glad to pull specific suggestions into the DME guide.

But, in general, most mods should be pretty easy to convert. Often, you have some pretty easy math involved. Take the number of minions and multiply by their XP value in their stat block. Now pick some other critter in the mod (doesn't even have to be that encounter, though that is often best) that has a similar XP value. Substitute. Ideally, you keep in mind that the total doesn't have to be the same, but it should not change the overall level of the encounter (see the DMG, p 57, using the XP shown at the beginning of the encounter and adding/subtracting the delta).

Also, you can consider leaving the minions, but leveling one or more of the non-minions. For example, if player tactics are making the XP of four 4th level minions meaningless, you have roughly the equivalent of a 4th level monster to add (175 XP). If the monster had the four minions and three 4th level non-minions, you could increase the non-minions from 4th to 5th at an XP cost of 25XP each (DMG, p56) and from 5th to 6th for 50XP each. Personally, I would look at their roles, as increasing brutes can be un-fun due to the HPs causing a grinding battle. But, increasing other roles can be a lot of fun (watch soldier defenses, though, making sure the party will still hit them). In general, err towards a minor change. In this case, keeping the minions in, a 1-level bump to the other 3 monsters should be ok. You end up with 100 extra XP, but I wouldn't increase the monsters further unless you were pretty confident in how that encounter runs.

Another option that works well is to add a trap or hazard. Minions often have the effect of slowing down the party. You could take the 175xp and buy yourself a Spear Gauntlet trap or put down two False-Floor pits. Both can achieve the same effect in a level 4 encounter and are not overly strong. It is pretty easy to drop these in on round 2 as the party closes in on the main guy, giving passive perception and other checks as they get close to the protective traps.

The end goal is for everyone to win. The DM should, instead of winning an argument, end up being able to have the mod play out at the right difficulty level for the benefit of the table.

The problem with keeping the minions in is that you basically autocurse everything, set up crazy dark pact auras or star pact attacks, and make the combat more cluttered when you do add more stuff. Now, it might be possible to do it other ways like have the minions trickle in in some fashion... and certain combats it's fine, because minions are very spread out, use ranged attacks, whatever...

But it's not so simple as you might think - which is part of the problem, of course

Keithric wrote:

As a reminder, pact boons are not necessarily triggered by the warlock. This event could happen when the warlock's ranger buddy kills the target that starts the chain just as well, in which case he has no target for an attack - just the pact boon triggering, and spreading. It simply happens every time a cursed target dies, no matter how it dies.

And when the warlock's ranger buddy kills the cursed target, that target is by definition the original target of said action, and the victims the curse is transferred to are defined as the secondary targets. No where I can find or shown to me does it say within the same action a secondary target becomes an original target, although some gamers apparently want to assume so.

To have the property work the way some think it does, I think it should be worded along the lines of: "...to each enemy within 5 squares of another, spreading out from the original target." But it does not say that.

I still disagree. Obviously there is no point in further discussion so I will cease posting on this thread.

Keith

Keithric wrote:

The problem with keeping the minions in is that you basically autocurse everything, set up crazy dark pact auras or star pact attacks, and make the combat more cluttered when you do add more stuff. Now, it might be possible to do it other ways like have the minions trickle in in some fashion... and certain combats it's fine, because minions are very spread out, use ranged attacks, whatever...

But it's not so simple as you might think - which is part of the problem, of course

Have you tried it? I've not had any problems with what you are describing:

1. Crazy aura/star pact
Warlocks are such sub-par strikers that they can use a boost. Darkpact aura, in most cases (4 minions) will create 4d6, for a whopping 14 average damage in the heroic tier. Even at double those minions, it isn't some absurd damage level, given the HPs on most foes. And, Darkpact already has terrific problems triggering its aura. They can use any boost they can get! Star Pact will gain a +1 for each kill, which is probably the strongest pact to benefit, as it will basically auto-hit for their next attack... strong, but not out of line with lots of warlord/bard/avenger/etc. capabilities.

2. cluttered combat
Valid concern, though you can introduce them in waves and you can open up the size of the playing field. Introducing in waves can be a ton of fun:

Undead: have them crawl out of the ground in outdoor settings, come out of coffins in dungeons, burst through walls and windows in villages.

Humanoids: have them come in through passages, doors, emerge from hiding, swing in from ropes/chandeliers, etc.

Monsters: come running down passageways, come out of crates, be summoned by casters and controllers, etc.

Keith53 wrote:

And when the warlock's ranger buddy kills the cursed target, that target is by definition the original target of said action, and the victims the curse is transferred to are defined as the secondary targets.  No where I can find or shown to me does it say within the same action a secondary target becomes an original target, although some gamers apparently want to assume so.

"Property: Whenever your pact boon is triggered, instead of taking its normal benefit you can transfer your Warlock’s Curse to each enemy within 5 squares of the original target."

The property should be self-contained in terms of its definition. The text should apply each time the condition is met, not retaining definition from a prior use (no matter how soon it happened). There isn't a strict rule on this, but it would cause a lot of problems to say otherwise. "Original" is just trying to clarify your starting point for moving the curse.

But, don't get disheartened, Keith! I like the way you are looking at the issue and the community loves what you are doing in LFR!

Alphastream1 wrote:

Warlocks are such sub-par strikers that they can use a boost

See... at the point where you start making decisions for how to DM the game based off gut impressions of the balance of the class, that's the point where it starts to get a little iffy for me.

Star Pact will gain a +1 for each kill

Probably +2, but eh.

Keithric wrote:

See... at the point where you start making decisions for how to DM the game based off gut impressions of the balance of the class, that's the point where it starts to get a little iffy for me.

That's far from a fair interpretaion of what I am saying. I'm just mentioning it isn't broken. That's all. I've said a number of times that it doesn't matter if you like something or do like something, the core rules are what you must use for the RPGA.

Keith53 wrote:

Sorry, but I disagree. The Rod of Corruption explicitly states within 5 squares of the original target. I don't know why you think what you do, but there is no rules citation or argument on which to base your claim.

The reference to "Original Target" is to the cursed creature that just died.

You can disagree all you like Keith. But you are taking a position that supports your interpretation of the way the rods should interact that isn't supported by the way the game rules use the term "target". Or what in this case "original target" refers to, which in this case is "the creature that died and triggered the Pact Boon".

eg: Creature 1 Dies under the Curse - it is the "Original Target" refered to in the Rod of Corruption Power. The Rod spreads the curse to all other enemies within 5 squares, with a Rod of Reaving they all take 1 damage. Two rounds later another creature under the effect of the Warlock's Curse (spread by the RoC) dies. The player decides to use the Rod of Corruption again, this new dieing creature is the "original target" refered to by the Rod, and so the curse is spread to all enemies within 5 of it.

Original Target = Dieing Creature
Other Targets = All Enemies within 5 of the Dieing Creature.

The Rod of Corruption doesn't care how the Curse got there, just that the Pact Boon is being triggered by a target dieing under the Warlock's Curse.

When there are no Minions in the equation everything is fine. When there are Minions and no Rod of Reaving in the equation, everything is fine. When there are Minions, and the Rod of Corruption and the Rod of Reaving working together, it is a potential problem. How much of a problem is debateable, and subjective to the individual player.

Yes, the combo has the potential to kill all minions in an encounter. For most encounters, there should still be a significant challenge, even without the minions.

Another point that some people seem, to be missing:
In order to use the Corruption property, the Warlock is not getting the benefit of his pact boon.

So, the Warlock is, definitely, going to get less benefit from his boon than if he took the boon effect at each cursed creature's death.

And, as another point, since he has to choose to forgo the Pact boon in order to use the rod's property, he might wind up not activating it when needed, or activating it when there is no one to transfer the curse from.

Firing "blind" is something that the Warlock will have to decide on, at some point. Are there any more creatures in the area of effect?

So, I can fully see placing creatures on the map only when and as they become visible, as a legal deterrent to using the combo, but there appears to be no true rules-based way to deny that the combo exists and works.

Keithric wrote:

Probably +2, but eh.

It'll be +1 per enemy death, and probably +1 for the feat. The feat only adds one per use of the bonus, not one per activation of the pact.

Ah, hmm. Guess I'll have to break the news to the Star Pact player I know - never read the feat too closely.

kinevon wrote:

Yes, the combo has the potential to kill all minions in an encounter. For most encounters, there should still be a significant challenge, even without the minions.

Typically, if minions are used they account for the equivalent of about one monster. Most encounters still offer some challenge if you remove one monster, but noticeably less so.
Then again, minions generally offer little challenge directly, and need to be used tactically to support their comrades, so the challenge they would have provided if not auto-wiped is not always that much.

kinevon wrote:

Another point that some people seem, to be missing:
In order to use the Corruption property, the Warlock is not getting the benefit of his pact boon.

So, the Warlock is, definitely, going to get less benefit from his boon than if he took the boon effect at each cursed creature's death.

Some people may have been missing this, but I think most people were realizing it's not really a problem.
Concider a fairly typical encounter design: 4 minions + 4 regular monsters vs a party of 5. The warlock (assuming only one in the party) can only curse 1/round normally, and the party is likely to take out all of the minions in the first two rounds even if they don't know which are which. So a non-RoC warlock perhaps curses 2 minions and 4 regulars during the first six rounds of the fight, collecting 6 pact boons. Two minions die uncursed. Alternatively the RoC warlock perhaps curses a minion early and has the RoC spread the curse to all remaining enemies and the collects 7 pact boons over the course of the fight. In this case the RoC warlock, by virtue of declining one instance of pact boon, gains more instances of pact boons than the non-RoC warlock.

There's a lot of variations on how things play out, but unless your entire party makes an effort to ensure the warlock gets his pact boons, it's quite common for the party to kill off enemies before they can be cursed. The Rod of Corruption can easily reduce the frequency of that occurance. While I can see it sometimes playing out that giving up the pact boon to spread your curse ultimately results in less boons taken, it's certainly not definitely the case.

Of course, WotC could always just fix it by makign it so the auto damage from the Rod (i forget which one) doesn't affect minions. After all, why should Warlocks get to gak minions with a minor action when everyone else has to (usually) spend a standard action to do so. It's not fair! Fight the power!

Elder_basilisk wrote:

Remember that Living Greyhawk also banned particularly eggregious items like wraithstrike and mass resist energy and restricted access to most non-core items such that access to them had to be found in a module. LFR has no banned list and does not restrict access to feats or items. Therefore the issue is likely to be more acute in LFR. In LG, only the warforged who played the right adventure at the right APL would have been able to have a reparation apparatus. In LFR, every level 6+ warforged character can have a reparation apparatus.

So, yes, we have had table variation before and it has worked. On the other hand it was not likely to be as frequent at that time since many of the questionable items that would have led to DMs embracing "interpretations" with weaker RAW support in the name of balance were either banned or were limited access.

That's the issue with a loaded gun it's more useful than an empty one but the price of it maybe the death of a friend or a complete jerk so buyer beware.

Keithric wrote:

Ah, hmm. Guess I'll have to break the news to the Star Pact player I know - never read the feat too closely.

I think a lot of players don't read the feat too closely.

To be fair, it doesn't actually come up that often

Keith53 wrote:

On a related note, there is an argument, perhaps weak but better than the place vs transfer argument, for Gomez's position.
Keith

If you, as the DM, are hunting for an argument for a result that you want.. then you're making a mistake. It's not ethical, and it doesn't lead to a fun table.

It's the equivalent of a player wanting to 'cheese' something out, but it's worse as the DM has more authority and thus more responsibility in that vein.

gomeztoo wrote:

XP is a meta-game element that really is secondary to soemthing lse that is more important: fun at teh table.
A minor action that auto-kills all minions in an encounter is not fun, except perhaps to the warlock player. that is the real problem, and I believe a DM may adjust to counter that un-funness.

Gomez

In a shared campaign, a DM 'adjusting' rules does NOT lead to fun, but rather frustration and lack of trust.

That a DM searches for a justification for the fiat is just worse, as it's not being honest either with his/her players or him/herself.

-James

I've run a few LFR mods where I had a warlock(one mod I had two warlocks) who had the combo. It wasn't a problem and it didn't take away from the fun. I don't see an issue with this.

JamesMaissen wrote:

If you, as the DM, are hunting for an argument for a result that you want.. then you're making a mistake. It's not ethical, and it doesn't lead to a fun table.

If a DM sees something that makes a module less fun for the table, it is entirely ethical to see if that something actually works that way.

And it can lead to a fun table.

I know of one warlock who did the reaving-corruption trick and saw it ruin one fight and make silly two more... then voluntarily never did it again, after a couple other players went 'Does it really work like that? That's crazy' - not even using the place-transfer interpretation to use it to get a curse off on everything within 5. Stronger reaction than the DMs and players, who actually still expected him to do that much.

But, whatever, saved me from having to refigure some adventures.

Keithric wrote:

If a DM sees something that makes a module less fun for the table, it is entirely ethical to see if that something actually works that way.

And it can lead to a fun table.

When I see a DM changing rules to suit their view points I tend to cry foul.

It might be from good intentions or not, but that paved road still goes south.

Besides if it's really that it's less fun for the *table* then like the situation you mentioned the player will refrain on their own. If they don't then it's better to talk after the game and have a discussion about it. Perhaps the player disagrees, and perhaps the rest of your table does as well.

-James

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.

Keithric wrote:

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.

Looking for a way to make your square peg fit a round hole isn't 'finding out how it works' it's having a conclusion and going from there.

When a player does this he is trying to 'cheese' the system.. when a DM does it, it is far worse.

The core of the issue:

If it's really just about 'fun for the table' then leave it to the table. Discuss it with the player or players and see how they feel.

However, if it's just about you wanting the rules to be a different way then make house rules and be upfront and honest about it. If that doesn't sit well with your players then you have to make a choice between your fun and the table's fun.

For me having a RPGA judge look for fringe interpretations to put forth their house rules as 'core' detracts from my game. I wonder what else they have changed, and how much I can trust them as a judge. Furthermore its put forth in what seems to me a dishonest way and that doesn't sit well with me.

-James

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 4E designers don't seem to have a problem with easy minion killing from warlocks. I was reading the Hexer paragon path in Arcane power... the 11th level encounter power is a close blast 5 that has an effect of placing your curse on all enemies in the blast. This removes the need for the Rod of Corruption, effectively freeing up a rod slot.

Open up with Hexblast, cursing everything with the effect and thus dealing damage with the Rod of Reaving (and clearing minions, though that isn't the point), then the power does additional damage to anything it hits. You could even AP and use Cursebite for more AoE damage on all the cursed foes. You could use a Vicious Rod as the main rod for better curse damage, or you could still go with Corruption if you think you really need to transfer the curse further, though Vicious or another Rod seems a better choice. It is a really nice power for increasing targeting flexibility, not to mention AoE damage.

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!

Actually, that doesn't affect the argument at all - Warlock's Curse is a defined class feature that takes a minor action. This lets you use it as a free action. When you use it you place a curse... etc

Alphastream1 wrote:

The 4E designers don't seem to have a problem with easy minion killing from warlocks. I was reading the Hexer paragon path in Arcane power... the 11th level encounter power is a close blast 5 that has an effect of placing your curse on all enemies in the blast. This removes the need for the Rod of Corruption, effectively freeing up a rod slot.

Two things Arcane Hexer specifically uses the word "place" and it also says "any single target" meaning to get all targets you still need a Rod of Corruption.

So if you want to hit multiple targets with the Curse you need the Rod.

Re-tangent: Apparently it's not so clear whether Improved Fate of the Void multiples or not, since a CS response indicates it does. Meh.

Keithric wrote:

Re-tangent: Apparently it's not so clear whether Improved Fate of the Void multiples or not, since a CS response indicates it does. Meh.

At the same time, this same CS person claims,

3)Does teleportation distance count as a part of the move needed to activate Shadow Walk's Concealment?
3. Teleportation will count towards the movement requirement of Shadow Walk.

when the MM says about teleportation:

A creature that teleports is removed from play at the
origin square and placed in the destination square.
Teleporting does not provoke opportunity attacks, and the
creature does not move through the intervening squares.

I've been told, by CS, that because the warlock doesn't move in the intervening squares, it's not movement.

Also, this same guy says that Shadow Walk allows you a Stealth check, and well, I'm pretty sure that's been well hashed-out already.

So I dunno.

I am not certain where I stand on this so here is my opinion on this debate. I will walk through my thought procees as I think about it. The words transfer and place are used because they are words and they convey meaning. Now I am not the best educated person in the world so to be specifc and fully understand the situation. So, to understand what these words mean I will look them up in a dictionary. Starting with place.

Main Entry: place
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): placed; plac·ing
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1 a: to put in or as if in a particular place or position : set

This could be what you are doing but if this was the correct definition then you could curse the floor or that seat over there. so I would have to say no this is not what it is meant when you curse someone.

b: to present for consideration

Also not what you are doing.

c: to put in a particular state

That's the ticket! This is what you are doing, you are making the target cursed you are placing the curse upon them or in other words you are cursing them.

d: to direct to a desired spot
e: to cause (the voice) to produce free and well resonated singing or speaking tones
2 a: to assign to a position in a series or category : rank
b: estimate
c: to identify by connecting with an associated context
3: to distribute in an orderly manner : arrange
4: to appoint to a position
5: to find a place (as a home or employment) for
6 a: to give (an order) to a supplier
b: to give an order for
c: to try to establish a connection for
intransitive verb
: to earn a given spot in a competition ; specifically : to come in second (as in a horse race)

no, no, no, no no and no. These are not the correct definitions so it looks like we have just one winner form the Merriam Websters dictionary. now lets look up transfer.

Main Entry: 1trans·fer   
Pronunciation: \tran(t)s-ˈfər, ˈtran(t)s-ˌ\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): trans·ferred; trans·fer·ring
Etymology: Middle English transferren, from Anglo-French transferrer, from Latin transferre, from trans- + ferre to carry — more at bear
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1 a: to convey from one person, place, or situation to another : move, shift

You are doing this you are moving the curse from one person to another but does this jive with the definition of place? I could say yes and this means the the original curse is being moved and no new curse is being created but the moving does put the target into a new state and that jives with eh definition of place

c: to put in a particular state

You are transferring the curse from one target to another putting the new target into the state of being cursed.

b: to cause to pass from one to another : transmit
c: transform, change

These also seem to be similar to the first.

2: to make over the possession or control of : convey
3: to print or otherwise copy from one surface to another by contact

Still nothing that would stop the secondary target from being put into a new state by the warlock which would fulfill the definition of curse.

well if the English language supports it then I suppose it works. If they were keywords then they would be different but I don't see them in the keyword lists. Then the only thing left is timing. Rod of Corruption says

When you place your Warlock’s Curse on a target, the creature takes 1 damage.

this is definitely active grammar and shows action on part of the warlock he is placing his curse, we know that placing means to put into the state of curse. This says that when the target is put into the state of curse one damage is dealt. This could be seen as at the same time as the curse is being placed or possibly being triggered by the placing of the curse. When denotes a point in time and that time is the placing of the curse so it could be seen either way. so does a creature trigger a pact boon or is it dead by the placing of the curse and not cursed at all. the timing would be: intent to put curse start to curse trigger event dead creature curse is not placed due to non living target. I could see this but D&D has no defining timing rules so I would probably say no to this interpretation in my games.

If not in the timing then maybe the active sentence the warlock is cursing and with the Rod of corruption it is what that does the cursing the warlock or the Rod? lets see Rod of Corruption says:

Whenever your pact boon is triggered, instead of taking its normal benefit you can transfer your Warlock’s Curse to each enemy within 5 squares of the original target.

Nope this is still active wording and the warlock is making the choice to have the other targets put into the state of cursed.

all in all I don't like combos but given that I can only find a loose interpretation of timing that doesn't really exist in the rules and nothing else to keep this combo from working I would have to say that it works and if some of the players at the table seem to not be having fun because of its use I will ask the player nicely not to use ti. I will not force him. if he decides he does not wish to give it up for the sake of the table then I will DME the creature to have less minions. I will try not to remove them all so he has something to kill with his combo but I will remove enough to keep the fight interesting for the rest of the table. On the other hand if the table seems cool with it then I will either add some minions for the combo killer to kill or not change the mods at all and run them how they are written.

Thanks, for letting me walk through my thoughts on the matter.
-red

redwulfe - you cannot curse an object because of the wording of the power. That doesn't move the usage of place off the most common definition - ie the first one.

ChainLink wrote:

I've been told, by CS, that because the warlock doesn't move in the intervening squares, it's not movement.

Yeah, I'm going to have to say that teleporting 3 squares qualifies and that the second CS person was on crack. But, CS is totally fallible

Also, this same guy says that Shadow Walk allows you a Stealth check, and well, I'm pretty sure that's been well hashed-out already.

At the time, it was true - there's been errata since then (you may have missed the date of the message).

Cailte wrote:

Two things Arcane Hexer specifically uses the word "place" and it also says "any single target" meaning to get all targets you still need a Rod of Corruption.

So if you want to hit multiple targets with the Curse you need the Rod.

The Hexer PP (Arcane Power, p 92) does use 'place', but the feats "Relentless Curse" and "Vengeful Curse" use the word 'use'. While I agree that the 'use' could just be an indication of applying the feature, it still is a third way the rules have referred to the placement of the curse, and waters down any argument that a certain wording was intended to signify a different rules application. If we can agree that 'use' is still 'place', the argument for saying 'transfer' is special becomes even weaker. Further, as you compare the Hexer powers to the Rod of Corruption, you see that the feature clearly does what the Rod does, suggesting R&D has either failed to see a problem (of killing minions) or doesn't see a problem at all (which would make sense given all their statements about the role of minions being to die easily, plus the CS responses). Hexer has a series of powers that are similar to the concepts behind the Rod of Corruption, allowing the warlock to more easily curse targets in a number of ways. (curse any target w/in 5 instead of closest, blast 5 curse application, immediate reaction curse, curse all adjacent). All of these would trigger the Rod of Reaving damage without question. The Duel Implement Spellcaster feat, separately, gives clear indication that R&D intends for spellcasters to be able to wield two implements, now providing a way to combine the enhancement bonus towards damage.

With Hexer, the wording of Hexblast is "Target each enemy in blast" and effect is "You can place your Warlock's Curse on the target". That gives you a once/encounter ability to curse everything in a blast 5, which is pretty darn nice. While a Rod of Corruption is still nice for the creatures not within the blast, it becomes much less necessary. Corruption is a really strong tactical choice, but with Hexblast it would likely be stronger to go with Vicious. For something like Hexblast, the effect (cursed) is before the attack, so you would apply your Rod of Reaving damage when you curse everything in the blast 5 (applying Reaving damage and killing any minions, no argument as to 'place' or 'transfer' since the Rod of Corruption is not involved), then do your power's damage to any targets you hit and apply curse damage (with Vicious Rod) to one of the targets.

ChainLink wrote:

I've been told, by CS, that because the warlock doesn't move in the intervening squares, it's not movement.

Can you post that link? Teleportation is a form of movement and it is expressed in squares... with some teleportation referring to your movement rate. I agree that you aren't passing through those squares, but it does seem you have moved x squares (through teleportation and whatever that involves magically). It would seem it should qualify for something like the warlock's shadow walk.

Keithric wrote:

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

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.

It's a question of motives in my mind.

To whit, I see the later actions as at least honest (even while inadvisable in a shared campaign), while searching for support for a conclusion you desire is not. That damages the table. It damages the trust you have in the judge.

Its one thing to come to a conclusion, it's another to have a conclusion and work to get there. Its obvious when players do it 'trying to read things into' something that's not there. It's less obvious but just as deplorable (if not more so) when the judge does likewise.

Trying to make up keywords and split hairs here does not seem honest but rather result oriented. It is bad judging and bad gaming.

If there's really a problem with something then address it head on. What's the problem with doing this?

If the table will not be fun with this (or something else) then deal with it directly. If that's really the case then likely the players will handle it themselves.

If it's a question of differing play styles amongst the players, then that's something to be dealt with in abstraction. Not everyone likes or dislikes the same things. Give and take. Share your toys. Other things you learned in Kindergarten.

But trying to come up with reasons because 'this can't be right' or 'this is broken' is a road paved with good intentions but going south...

-James

Except there's still no moral difference between the judge who goes 'Oh, wait, that weird thing with two rods doesn't work because it requires that you place the curse like with your minor action, not transfer from a rod' and the one who goes 'Healing Word doesn't heal everyone in the burst, just one target in the burst'. They both saw something that seemed wrong, cracked open a PHB or asked online and found a rule that seemed to say otherwise.

Just because the judge is more clearly correct in his 'it says close burst, and that means it can affect all 4 of those party members, but the target line that it's you or one other still applies' than the place/transfer doesn't mean the other judge is making stuff up. I have seen several times where a judge has jumped online and gone 'So, uhh, rod of reaving + corruption seems broken, is there a rule I'm missing?' and someone has responded 'oh, yeah, corruption transfers the curse, it doesn't place it, so it doesn't work' and the judge goes 'Oh! Okay, well, I wish that was more clear!' and yeah, totally.

Of course, part of me suspects they're going to either revamp minions next year, or write them off almost entirely, so I guess we'll see what happens with them in general. In the meantime I'll continue to be happy that I only run for one warlock who took the combo, saw some combats get silly/dumb, had a discussion with the group about it, and hasn't used it since... I imagine something like a convention judge has to deal with it a lot more.

Alphastream1 wrote:

Can you post that link? Teleportation is a form of movement and it is expressed in squares... with some teleportation referring to your movement rate. I agree that you aren't passing through those squares, but it does seem you have moved x squares (through teleportation and whatever that involves magically). It would seem it should qualify for something like the warlock's shadow walk.

I don't have a link, but this is the text from the email:

Does teleportation of at least 3 squares allow a Warlock to use his Shadow Walk power for concealment?
The answer for this question is actually in the Glossary of the Monster Manual under the description of Teleportation, page 283. You would not be able to do this as teleportation is not movement. You take your character off the battle field and place him back on in a different location.

This was from Aaron on 9/22/08, and that's how I've been playing it ever since, as the MM entry does indeed say, "the creature does not move through the intervening squares."

I guess it's a question of whether Shadow Walk depends on your movement, or if it's just a matter of if you are 3 or more squares away from your starting position, regardless of how you got there.

Teleportation is movement, but you do not move through the intervening squares. That is completely correct.

Shadow Walk is based on where you end wrt to your original position, not how many squares you declare as part of your move. For example, if a warlock shifted onto a slope and slid four squares down the slope as a result, that would be enough for Shadow Walk.

Keithric wrote:

Except there's still no moral difference between the judge who goes 'Oh, wait, that weird thing with two rods doesn't work because it requires that you place the curse like with your minor action, not transfer from a rod' and the one who goes 'Healing Word doesn't heal everyone in the burst, just one target in the burst'. They both saw something that seemed wrong, cracked open a PHB or asked online and found a rule that seemed to say otherwise.

I guess I differ in my opinion. I, for one, don't see any rule invoked here.

I see people contorting to make up terms that are just English in order to further a conclusion that they desired.

Nor do I find the argument of 'must protect the table from not having fun' as valid, as that is something that is shared amongst all the participants and is not contingent upon deciding that these words must be specific and different terms otherwise bad things happen.

-James

You don't see a rule invoked either because you read the rule more clearly than the judge in question, or didn't read the rule in question more clearly, however time decides to make things work. I used to think I could guess intent, but unfortunately arguing intent on a game with so many hands at the helm, with the hands talking to each other so erratically... eh, too murky. If I had to bet, I'd have guessed that it works by RAW, and there's literally no RAI because they didn't think about the combo at all, in any way. Not even sure how much testing went into rod of reaving with minions at all.

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.

It's an odd nitpicky ruling, to be sure, but I could easily have seen someone in R&D going 'Ooh, I've got all kinds of ideas for warlock things to trigger when they take an action to place a curse' and another guy goes 'Okay, but what about when it spreads via corruption, or using a paragon path, or something?' and the other guy going 'Hmm, yeah, maybe we should think about it. Make a note for us to get back to a ruling on that one'...

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

Which brings us back to the judge who searched for the correct ruling for healing word being morally corrupt and less trustworthy, because in play it didn't seem right that healing word heal everyone in the close burst.

If a judge isn't supposed to research rules when something seems wrong, when exactly are they supposed to?

Yes, this ruling is far more questionable, to the extent that I've chosen not to take the combo on my warlock so that I wouldn't have to bother my DM by bringing it up, but your stance is a disservice to perfectly reasonable DMs.

Keithric wrote:

Which brings us back to the judge who searched for the correct ruling for healing word being morally corrupt and less trustworthy, because in play it didn't seem right that healing word heal everyone in the close burst.

To put words in James' mouth, I think the point is that in your Healing Word case, the judge goes on a search but does not have to make an iffy rules interpretation - "Oh, I see. It says 'One target in burst'. I guess it doesn't get everyone".

In the two rod case, the judge goes on a search and has to make a pretty tenuous leap - "obviously when they use 'place' and 'transfer' to describe the same event, they mean different things"; any time you have to get out the dictionary, as I've seen done in this very thread, you are definitely moving out of RAW/RAI territory, and into Rules-As-Desired [RAD] territory. You can bet that the guy writing the PH did NOT have a dictionary open on his desk with "place" and "transfer" dog-eared...

It comes down to motivation in the end. It's the difference between "That seems broken. I'll check and see if it's actually legal" and "That seems broken. I'm going to find a way to make it illegal." It's a fine point, but it's certainly a distinction.

It's the difference between "That seems broken. I'll check and see if it's actually legal" and "That seems broken. I'm going to find a way to make it illegal." It's a fine point, but it's certainly a distinction.

Yeah, there's definitely a difference... but my point is that if the DM asks on any messageboard, it appears they're almost guaranteed to get the transfer!=place argument as one of the replies. I found it came up on at least five different sites on a quick google.

So, DM finds situation broken, goes looking for help, is told it doesn't work because of a quirky ruling. Is also told that it works, but sees there is considerable argument over that point. At that point, different DMs do different things, but I'm not going to question the morals of any of them.

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.

Yep, DME seems to be the most comprehensive solution.

Keithric wrote:

Yep, DME seems to be the most comprehensive solution.

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.

Err, yes, I mean DME for the mod. Didn't even occur to me there could be for the rules - though I guess thinking about it, a home group could probably adopt houserules for play (but not character creation) pretty safely. Eh.

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.

I think folks were referring on altering the numbers, positioning, and tactics of the minions, not actually changing how their rules worked.

Like spreading them out or staggering their appearance in waves.

That's significantly different than altering a minion's stat block.


-karma

JamesMaissen wrote:

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.

I don't think anyone should have read 'place' or 'transfer' as a keyword.

Keywords are a specific 4e term unique to powers...which are also called out.

That doesn't mean the combo works, though.

Basically, using DME to add, remove, or alter the positioning of enemies such that they will be a reasonable challenge for the PCs is a good thing. For example, I can think of multiple encounters that are basically a ton of minions all within a 5 spread of at least 1 other minion. You might DME it so that there are less minions and more normal creatures, and/or make the minions show up in waves so they're not all there at the very start of the combat, or they come in from different directions, etc.

bgibbons wrote:

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.

As the other posters said, my point is that you can't do either of the above. You can use DME to alter the adventure, adding more monsters, swapping minions, spacing them out, pacing their arrival. All legit good DM stuff that follows the RPGA rules.

I used the rod combo today after asking. The table agreed with using it so as to shorten the fight. Went fine, no issues. The fight still went on for another 1.5 hours and, if anything, the rods focused the combat on what mattered.

Just wanted to post to let everyone know that we were both right! As written it did work to allow infinite minion clearing. And, WotC did agree that it needed fixing!

Let's all walk hand-in-hand into the sunset!

Well, I mean, I would walk hand-in-hand, if I weren't holding these two rods...

Wouldn't the minions do the rejoicing now they have become immune to rods of reaving property?

I think it may have been an effect of the spellplague.

As for their rejoicing, between Hexblast (blast 5, curse, then attack), Rods of Quickcurse (curse anything as free action), plus Cursegrind and Cursebite (both attack anything cursed within burst 20), the chances that they will enjoy the changes for long are slim.

In reality, the two-rod combo is generally an effective strategy before paragon. After that, the lure of damage through better rods (Vicious, Darkspiral, etc.) is generally hard to resist and more effective than moving your curse around. If you really need to curse something, you can use Quickcurse or other possibilities (feats, paragon path features, etc.). Not damaging the minions becomes just fine, as you probably were going to take them out via another action anyway. Reaving, interestingly, is still a strong choice. You gain a pretty dependable way of boosting your damage with an off-hand rod. If you will be cursing 5 things in a combat, that's a pretty decent damage boost compared to other rod options. And, you can get the best of both worlds by starting with Reaving, get your curses out early, then swap to something else.

If a warlock lacks feats or other ways to gain flexibility in getting the curse out, then the Rod of Corruption can still be a good idea (especially at low levels). You can curse the minions, take them out with any other power (through you or an ally) and transfer your curse to gain more curses on minions and other foes. You just delay things and give others a chance to minion clear, but still can get the huge pact boon triggers if desired.

As they tweak minions (and I expect we will see a lot of new minions in later books that are big improvements on the PH ones), the impact of removing them becomes greater. Whether minions are there or gone in one of the first few cores, for example, has minimal impact. But, at later levels where you can use stronger minions in encounters, it becomes more important for game balance to give them at least some opportunity to take actions and require a to-hit roll. I suspect that was the idea they were going for and what they saw at R&D.

But, truly, I would have preferred a broad rule change to minions, since there are so many ways to take them out. Making them a little harder to kill across the board (rather than one warlock item) might have been better for the game.