Community

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

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'

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?"