So a player in a game that I am also in took 1 swift action and 2 immediate actions in one turn for saving throws...etc, and I called him on it. He then said "You are purposefully trying to kill my character." and got angry at me for "rule lawyering him to kill him."
Note that I do the same thing to myself, having to look something up after my turn was done and wasn't sure, even if it was not beneficial to myself and speaking up about it. Including anyone else that isn't aware or playing the game correctly.
Should I just shut up and let people do whatever and let them bend the rules to their favor?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
point out that if he starts doing those things, then he should reasonably be able to expect his enemies to begin doing those same things, which might turn around and get him killed. Explain that you hold yourself to the same standards.
At least that's how I handle similar situations.
@ Lady J , Yeah, we are just using normal rules.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pointing out a rather basic rule for the action economy isn't exactly rules lawyering.
Thanks for the replies everyone
Gonna say 'Ask the GM' on this one. It could just be a rather extreme case of fudging the rules, and then there's nothing wrong as long as it doesn't cause too much of a conflict. There's no real way to convince someone to adhere to the rules that were presumably and silently agreed to at the start of the game, if they choose to just outright disregard them.
The actions per turn and action economy are a particularly dangerous system to just 'overlook', as whole classes are balanced based on it. It's always nice to have someone at the table that's aware of how things 'should' work, in case the GM wants a reference. Otherwise, it's all GM's choice.
So a player in a game that I am also in took 1 swift action and 2 immediate actions in one turn for saving throws...etc,
Making a save is not an action. You don't need to use any swift or immediates for them.
So a player in a game that I am also in took 1 swift action and 2 immediate actions in one turn for saving throws...etc,Making a save is not an action. You don't need to use any swift or immediates for them.
Mythic characters can get a boost to saving throws as an immediate action.
Making a save is not an action. You don't need to use any swift or immediates for them.
True, I was assuming they were using some sort of ability to better a saving throw, or allowed a second at the cost of an immediate action...
What Exactly is the situation?
A swashbuckler in the group used mythic surge - immediate action, Charmed Life -immediate, and another swift action that I forgot the name of in one round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel your pain, OP. I'm pretty scrupulous about ensuring that I follow the rules, and expect the same of my party-mates. If I do something against the rules by mistake and realize it later, I'd be the first one to point it out to the DM.
Not everyone feels the same, however, and I've had several co-players take liberties with the rules at times, or just make honest mistakes about how things work. The DM often catches and corrects these things, but he/she often has a lot on the go, so things slip by.
That puts me in the awkward position of whether to call the rule-fudging/mistake out (which somehow feels rude, or confrontational), or to let it go. I tend to deal with it on a case-by-case basis, but because we use Roll20 + Skype, my most frequent move is to privately message the player who is 'breaking' the rules to advise them, and then let them determine whether or not they want to flag it for the DM to consider.
Feels a little less confrontational that way, and even if they choose not to say anything (which happens with a distressing frequency with certain players -- probably the ones who know they are fudging the rules), at least I've got it off my conscience without causing any significant in-group conflict.
Should I just shut up and let people do whatever and let them bend the rules to their favor?
It's rough. On the one hand, you're not the GM. On the other hand, rules violations are rules violations. The rules govern the game you're all playing together, and not following them in circumstances they cover is anarchic.
What next? Your character takes seven standard actions in a round to kill the bad guy "so I don't die"?
The point behind winning is winning within the framework of the game, not winning because you've changed the game.
I'd talk to the GM. They may not appreciate the helping-hand with regards to rules, or they may, because it may appear you're usurping their authority. From there, comes the player.
You can definitely do a swift on your turn and then do an immediate, since an immediate takes up your next swift; but no, you're not a jerk at all.
We all do the same at our table - for good or ill - pointing out, "Did you remember your -2 from sickened?" "Did you remember to add +2 from flanking?" etc. Sometimes we give each other a hard time about it, but it's always in good fun.
Just last session one of our players was helping the GM with the mythic power attack rules for a mythic foe we were facing and included the bit that he could spend a point of mythic power to negate the attack roll penalty. We all jokingly gave him a hard time about it, but it was right for him to have done so.
Your friend needs to not get upset over the rules of the game, and I'm sure he hasn't been upset any of those times you've pointed out something helpful. When you sit down at the gaming table and agree to play PF, the social contract is that we're all agreeing to use and abide by this rule structure.
You can definitely do a swift on your turn and then do an immediate, since an immediate takes up your next swift; but no, you're not a jerk at all.
We all do the same at our table - for good or ill - pointing out, "Did you remember your -2 from sickened?" "Did you remember to add +2 from flanking?" etc. Sometimes we give each other a hard time about it, but it's always in good fun.
Just last session one of our players was helping the GM with the mythic power attack rules for a mythic foe we were facing and included the bit that he could spend a point of mythic power to negate the attack roll penalty. We all jokingly gave him a hard time about it, but it was right for him to have done so.
Your friend needs to not get upset over the rules of the game, and I'm sure he hasn't been upset any of those times you've pointed out something helpful. When you sit down at the gaming table and agree to play PF, the social contract is that we're all agreeing to use and abide by this rule structure.
Thats not true, it says specifically here.
"Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn.
You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your
turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn).
You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed."
Maybe I should have specified he did both on his turn.
But thank you for your post!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I do something against the rules by mistake and realize it later, I'd be the first one to point it out to the DM.
It was a seven. The Demogorgon got me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, to clarify, on your turn you may use one (1) swift action. You may substitute an immediate action for your one (1) swift action. Once your turn has finished, you may use one (1) immediate action at any point before your next turn, but doing so uses that turn's one (1) swift action.
In other words, if a fight lasts 5 rounds and you use more than 6* swift/immediate actions, then something's wrong.
*: In the final round it is possible to use next round's swift action as an immediate action, provided that your turn in the final round occurs before the death of the enemy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a player in a game that I am also in took 1 swift action and 2 immediate actions in one turn for saving throws...etc, and I called him on it. He then said "You are purposefully trying to kill my character." and got angry at me for "rule lawyering him to kill him."
Note that I do the same thing to myself, having to look something up after my turn was done and wasn't sure, even if it was not beneficial to myself and speaking up about it. Including anyone else that isn't aware or playing the game correctly.
Should I just shut up and let people do whatever and let them bend the rules to their favor?
You are the BEST KIND ON RULES LAWYER. The impartial one. The one who questions his/her own accounting of the rules as well as others. I can't remember all of the rules of this game so I rely on the more rules saavy members of my table and I'm fortunate to have at least two players like yourself who correct me when I'm wrong and who hold each other accountable at the table.
My advice is no, DON'T silence yourself. Present the rules as they should be if you see otherwise but then let the DM/GM be the final arbiter.
If I do something against the rules by mistake and realize it later, I'd be the first one to point it out to the DM.It was a seven. The Demogorgon got me.
Awesome reference, Gulthor. What a great mini-series...
Also, related to your prior comment, it sounds like you've got a great group. The majority of people I've played with have a similar approach, but it seems like there's always one or two players who get worked up when you're 'working against them' by pointing out unfavourable rules. The downside to joining groups via Roll20, I suppose.
As long as you watch your tone, it's not really a problem. Sometimes you'll get the stink eye and get treated like teacher's pet, but it's good to remain fair and impartial for everyone involved, including yourself. Without knowing the situation but looking at what they said, it sounds like they got caught fudging and didn't appreciate it.
One of my buddies does it by phrasing it as a question. Like "You can do two immediate actions and a swift action in one go?" Seems to soften the blow a bit. Maybe that will work?
Thanks for the replies everyone.
It also helps to choose your battles. Remember that every interupption gets in the way of the flow of the game. So if it is something super small, I wouldn't sweat. For this, maybe it's best to talk after the game to the player. Generally, one on one is handled a lot better than calling them out in front of everyone.
True, but if I had said something after the game for instance. He would still be alive compared to dead for the 2 extra actions that he could not normally take. For something this grand of a scenario, I felt like waiting for the after would be cheating in order to stay alive.
|
I am the same way but i also help on both sides of it. I will call a player out just as easily as calling the DM out (I usually refrain from calling the DM out in the middle of a judgement call or ruling and tell him in a down period) But at the same time i will also inform people the players of beneficial uses of certain rules in situations that will help them out that they didn't know about. I will also inform the DM of these same things if they need it lol. 2 of these instances get groans and "come on you trying to get us killed" from the party and 2 of these get "Oh cool thanks didn't know that, you just probably saved us" from the party.
Its a act of balance and picking battles on what matters too. If a player does more actions then would be allowed by rules on his turn to accomplish something cool, i wont steal his thunder from him for that turn but comment off hand after the game or during a break that was to many actions. If the same player or multiple people start abusing that and doing to many actions i will say ok guys calm down a bit that is to many actions, remember this is all you have for 1 turn as what you can do.
I've something similar happen to me once. A player jumped up from the table and yelled "stop it with the rules already, you're going t get us all killed!" at me. This was during a public Pathfinder Society event while surrounded by a small crowd of onlookers.
I've something similar happen to me once. A player jumped up from the table and yelled "stop it with the rules already, you're going t get us all killed!" at me. This was during a public Pathfinder Society event while surrounded by a small crowd of onlookers.
I try to restrain myself these days.
I still get urges.
Given the one example from the OP, I don't see a problem here. Even the most experienced GMs forget rules from time to time and certainly the players do too. A lot, of course, depends on the tone used, but as mentioned above something even as simple as "Do you have an ability that gives you extra actions?" etc. can make a world of difference. You aren't being accusatory, just curious.
In games that I've played in, we've had one player in particular who was known to help out the GM a lot and we'd often joke "Stop helping the GM!" but it was always a joke. The way I see it is that part of what makes the game fun is the chance of losing (i.e. character death). A character that makes it to high level doesn't really mean much if said character was never really in jeopardy to begin with. If the PCs can't die, the players (and GM) might as well just sit around a table and tell stories, because that's really all you are doing at that point. The dice don't mean anything, the rules don't mean anything, etc.
To be fair though, I do think its appropriate to check with the group/GM to see how they feel about it in general. It could be that they just want to sit around the table and essentially have story time. Nothing wrong with that if that is what they find fun. Additionally, a GM might not like a player seeming to know more than the GM. While I don't mind that when I GM, others might.
I had a player blow up on me when I was a GM for a PFS game. I knew the rules and applied them and he blew up that I disagreed with him.
first was he was unconscious and then healed bake to conscious. I had always played that people know if you're conscious, but that you didn't know difference between unconscious and dead without a check. He's like, "Shouldn't he need to make a check to tell?" and I was like, "Okay sure, that sounds reasonable, he'll need to make a fairly low DC check." Didn't end up mattering since they guy acted first and ran away. Asked this on the forums afterwards and basically there is no rule and various ideas of how to run this.
Then I guess he didn't know that summon monsters are controlled by the GM and just attack unless you speak it's language to direct it. He wanted to move it so it would provide flanking later, but I said with no language it's just going to go and attack normally. He was aghast that I wasn't letting him control his summoned creature, "no other GM I've had hasn't let me control it" Well sorry dude, I follow this rule.
Then when I made the ruling that celestial summons smite isn't paladin smite and doesn't auto-pass DR was the final straw for him. He got all loud and was like, "You aren't supposed to be an antagonistic GM, you aren't supposed to try extra hard to kill the players, I was a venture guy and you're not following the rules of PFS."
And I'm like, dude, know your rules, know rules that are in question and be okay if the GM rules against you. I'm not being overly lethal since I am specifically using my bow attacks against people that have enough HP to take the hit and switching targets to let them heal up and I've been trying to get you to look at the magic item that is controlling the bad guy you're fighting buy having the alter freaking talk to you each round about how it's minion/slave/puppet was going to win. Had the players said that they even touched the alter I was going to say that that was good enough to break the alter thus releasing the mind-control.
So some people can REALLY flip out because being impartial makes you against them because they've been used to bending or ignoring the rules.
We're not the ones you should be asking if your rules lawyering is disrupting the game, your group is.
If you're pissing off your group, it doesn't matter if some random people on the internet tell you: "you're in the right". You're pissing off your group; you're disrupting the game.
I could tell you how I feel about rules lawyers, but that doesn't really matter. Only how you group feels and your GM feels. You should talk to them about the problem and try to reach a solution.
Jay707, in many circles of gamers, a "rules lawyer" argues only when it serves their purposes. They never, or almost never, argue against themselves or other pcs unless the game has turned pvp. Rules lawyering has always been, in my humble opinion an anti-gm issue. It's also helpful, if you were the gm and if you have this at the table to do one of two things, address it and/or learn the rules better than the resident rules lawyer. That all being said, what Quantum Steve said above is the most important and useful advice. Our opinions are s$@* in comparison to the group you game with.
Should I just shut up and let people do whatever and let them bend the rules to their favor?
When I play, I generally just keep my mouth shut unless someone asks. I've got a really good handle on the rules so people will frequently ask about a rule and I'll always answer honestly but I'm not going to point things out without being prompted unless it's REALLY egregious.
I've something similar happen to me once. A player jumped up from the table and yelled "stop it with the rules already, you're going t get us all killed!" at me. This was during a public Pathfinder Society event while surrounded by a small crowd of onlookers.I try to restrain myself these days.
I still get urges.
Restrain yourself from rules lawyering, or yelling at rules lawyers?
Should I just shut up and let people do whatever and let them bend the rules to their favor?When I play, I generally just keep my mouth shut unless someone asks. I've got a really good handle on the rules so people will frequently ask about a rule and I'll always answer honestly but I'm not going to point things out without being prompted unless it's REALLY egregious.
These days, I only speak up when specifically asked, or when a rules mistake is directly detrimental to the party. People used to get pretty mad at me. They still do from time to time when I GM.
As long as you're not punishing everyone for carrying capacity it's fine!
I feel guilty every day my about my Goblin Cavalier Alias... Every day...
So a player in a game that I am also in took 1 swift action and 2 immediate actions in one turn for saving throws...etc, and I called him on it. He then said "You are purposefully trying to kill my character." and got angry at me for "rule lawyering him to kill him."
Note that I do the same thing to myself, having to look something up after my turn was done and wasn't sure, even if it was not beneficial to myself and speaking up about it. Including anyone else that isn't aware or playing the game correctly.
Should I just shut up and let people do whatever and let them bend the rules to their favor?
No, it's a violation of the rules and the rules on swift and immediate actions exist to keep power levels in a reasonable place.
However, in the future you may try approaching your statement in a different way. Something like:
"I'd like to remind the table that you can only take 1 swift action a round, as well as 1 immediate action a round, and that using an immediate action using up your swift action for the next round if done not on your turn, or uses up your swift action for the turn if performed during your turn."
So a player in a game that I am also in took 1 swift action and 2 immediate actions in one turn for saving throws...etc, and I called him on it. He then said "You are purposefully trying to kill my character." and got angry at me for "rule lawyering him to kill him."
Note that I do the same thing to myself, having to look something up after my turn was done and wasn't sure, even if it was not beneficial to myself and speaking up about it. Including anyone else that isn't aware or playing the game correctly.
Should I just shut up and let people do whatever and let them bend the rules to their favor?
No, it's a violation of the rules and the rules on swift and immediate actions exist to keep power levels in a reasonable place.
However, in the future you may try approaching your statement in a different way. Something like:
"I'd like to remind the table that you can only take 1 swift action a round, as well as 1 immediate action a round, and that using an immediate action using up your swift action for the next round if done not on your turn, or uses up your swift action for the turn if performed during your turn."
I agree with Claxon. Your point was correct, and does not strike me as overly strict. In fact, it helps the balance of the game overall to remember these kind of limitations.
With these sorts of points though, your delivery can matter just as much as accuracy. Always strive to treat the other players and the GM with respect, and expect the same of them.
I agree with Claxon. Your point was correct, and does not strike me as overly strict. In fact, it helps the balance of the game overall to remember these kind of limitations.
With these sorts of points though, your delivery can matter just as much as accuracy. Always strive to treat the other players and the GM with respect, and expect the same of them.
This is absolutely true. Delivering your message in a manner that doesn't come across as confrontational is probably the most important part. Otherwise other players are likely to resent you for it.
That said, I am not the sort of person to relent on basic and clear rules being followed. If my character or another should die, then so be it. There is always resurrection magic (unless you're extremely low level and without access to someone who can cast the spell for you).
The only time I'm willing to ignore some rules is if I think following the rules is going to result in a TPK.
That said, I am not the sort of person to relent on basic and clear rules being followed. If my character or another should die, then so be it. There is always resurrection magic (unless you're extremely low level and without access to someone who can cast the spell for you).
The only time I'm willing to ignore some rules is if I think following the rules is going to result in a TPK.
If I were a player at the table, I would make the rules known, and ultimately cede the decision to the GM. If basic rules are seldom followed, I'm not likely to stay in the campaign long-term, but it is ultimately the GM's call, especially in the middle of a gaming session. There's nothing quite as crappy as derailing a gaming session to argue about a rules point with the GM for 45 minutes (been there, trying not to do it ever again).
As a GM, I would follow the rules as much as possible. (Though I have cheated on damage numbers once or twice in low level games -- when a hit is going to deal exactly enough damage to kill someone, I've shaved 1-2 points off to give their party a chance to stabilize them).
When GMing (home games, not PFS), if there's a rules question I can't adjudicate, I'll make my best judgment, usually erring on the side of the players' success, and run with it so the game doesn't grind to a halt. Afterwards, I'll try to find the exact correct ruling, and will email my players explaining that my ruling was slightly wrong (or right, that's happened occasionally), and how it will be run in the future.
The OP's rules statement was crystal clear though, and correct. No ambiguity to worry about.
Jay707, in many circles of gamers, a "rules lawyer" argues only when it serves their purposes. They never, or almost never, argue against themselves or other pcs unless the game has turned pvp. Rules lawyering has always been, in my humble opinion an anti-gm issue. It's also helpful, if you were the gm and if you have this at the table to do one of two things, address it and/or learn the rules better than the resident rules lawyer. That all being said, what Quantum Steve said above is the most important and useful advice. Our opinions are s@%$ in comparison to the group you game with.anti-gm sounds like it would make a pretty bad ass class lol
It is a bad ass class. I'm playing one now. It's real name is white necromancer.
Even then, I'm more one to point it out and let the GM handle it.
I don't think it's unreasonable to prevent a fellow player from taking two extra actions a round. This isn't some minor thing that's easy to miss, like accidentally keeping +1 to your AC because you didn't know a buff had expired.
If it continues like that, maybe see how much you can get away with. Will the GM let you use the excuse that someone is "Trying to kill your character" if you want to take a Move action and then full attack?
I agree with Claxon. Your point was correct, and does not strike me as overly strict. In fact, it helps the balance of the game overall to remember these kind of limitations.
With these sorts of points though, your delivery can matter just as much as accuracy. Always strive to treat the other players and the GM with respect, and expect the same of them.
This is absolutely true. Delivering your message in a manner that doesn't come across as confrontational is probably the most important part. Otherwise other players are likely to resent you for it.
That said, I am not the sort of person to relent on basic and clear rules being followed. If my character or another should die, then so be it. There is always resurrection magic (unless you're extremely low level and without access to someone who can cast the spell for you).
The only time I'm willing to ignore some rules is if I think following the rules is going to result in a TPK.
Delivery is everything. My father once said you can tell a woman her face could stop a clock or her face could stop time. You get two different results. I listened to his advice and went into sales.
Delivery is everything. My father once said you can tell a woman her face could stop a clock or her face could stop time. You get two different results. I listened to his advice and went into sales.
Here here! in future campaigns, it might even be a good idea to ask the group at large if they'd like a dedicated Rules Lawyer. Obviously, the GM is the final arbiter, but this person would be in charge of pointing out rules contradictions on both the GM and PC sides, keeping the entire table in check. If everyone agrees to something like this up front, you're far less likely to run into a problem like this later on.