(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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
The FAQ says: "19. Can a Warlock benefit from holding two rods? "Yes, a warlock can gain the properties from two rods but he still can only use one to make an attack. "
CS/FAQ also says you can carry a wand/rod in an off-hand that holds a light shield, though you can use only the property (not the enhancement bonus/crit, since you can't attack with it). This is item #3 in the FAQ: "3. If you wield a light shield, you can also hold an item as well, although you can't attack with it. What if that item is an implement? Can you apply its implement bonus to your powers? No. Using an implement to gain its bonuses is considered attacking with that implement. 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."
CS has said a Warforged should probably only gain from a maximum of two rods, regardless of embedded slots.
"Q: Does a Warlock wielding both a Rod of Reaving (PHB 240) & a Rod of Corruption (PHB 239) have the ability to curse a minion, deal the 1 or more points of damage from the Rod of Reaving's property then since the minion has only a single hit point it dies activating the Rod of Corruption's property spreading the curse to all enemies within 5 squares of the orignal minion giving each of them the 1 point of damage and if they are minions does the cycle continue? A: Implements can be weilded in each hand to gain the properties of both. If you Dungeon Master is willing to allow your Warlock access to both of those implements, you could utilize both effects as described in your e-mail (effectively becoming a minion-killer of doom)."
(Incident 090209-000257): Q: Could we have this escalated and reviewed? The items seem to work well together by a reading of the items and the rules. The real question seems to be whether there is an implied rules significance to the terms 'place' and 'transfer'. If the terms are just descriptive, suggesting the same underlying mechanic, then the two rods seem to work together just fine, as in the first two Customer Service answers. If the terms are meant to be actual gaming/rules terms, then 'transfer' would seem to not be the same as 'place' and the rods would not work together. A: "The two rods do work well together. Transferring does trigger the rod of reaving and so you could destroy minions in a completely unlimited fashion if they were to group up correctly."
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
