|
Not sure I'd want to play with you either. Ive played with people like that and they turn a potentially fun environment into a contentious one. All is not lost, just ask yourself the question: will this hurt the communal fun?
Also, if you care so much, bring a notepad and write everything that went wrong down on it very clearly. Just pass it to the DM after the session no extensive explanation, just "here, some minor rule things I noticed."
I appreciate that as a DM, especially when my role is given due respect and regard. It's not easy creating a fun environment, especially when those around you wanna b!*@% at every turn you take.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, as a GM, I hate rules lawyers. They are up there with power gamers/over-optimizers. i have had to deal with too many who feel the rules are set in stone and immutable.
But saying that, I have learnt to utilise them. When something comes up that I can't remember (usually something involving grapples) I turn to the RL and ask him/her. It helps me and the group out, and allows to feel useful with their knowledge.
But RLs do need to learn that the rules are just guidelines and if the GM feels the need to alter something it is their perview to do so.
A sensible rules laywer is alright with the GM not following a rule if the GM is doing it intentionally. The issue is he'll often mistake not following a rule as not being aware of the correct wording of the rule or not understanding it, and will want to 'help'.
Of course he should be holding back and avoiding irritating the GM in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I love rules lawyers.
I'm still learning the game (between the CRB, APG, UM, UC, ARG, UE, etc. there's a lot to know), so when I make a mistake, it helps me learn instead of making the same mistake over and over and over again.
The GameMastery Guide covers this.
All players like to know that there are universal rules to level the playing field, but the rules lawyer takes it a step farther. He knows every obscure rule, and insists that each one work exactly as written—especially if it’s in his favor.
While of course the rules should work the same for villains as they do the heroes, the GM’s challenge is ensuring that the game runs smoothly and everyone has fun. Sometimes it’s acceptable for the letter of the law to fade a bit, especially if such sacrifices keep an adventure moving smoothly or to make the game more enjoyable. The following techniques can keep the game on track when confronted with a rules lawyer. If you’re constantly being contradicted about rules, consider the following steps.
Establish House Rules: If your house rules differ from the main rules, make sure everyone knows about it. Also, be sure to let your players know that this isn’t a sport, and that you reserve the right to bend or break the rules for the sake of the game from time to time, with the understanding that your intention isn’t to be unfair, but rather to make things more fun for the group as a whole.
When to Question: As in the case of the continuity expert, let the rules lawyer know when and how it’s appropriate to cite the rules. Openly contradicting is counterproductive unless it’s a matter of life and death for a character, in which case you should spend a moment to quickly verify key points, but that’s it. After the game or between sessions, you can discuss the rules in depth.
Alternatively, if you’re shaky on a particular rule and it’s important to get it right, don’t be afraid to ask the rules lawyer for help to keep the game moving. Making an ally of the rules lawyer validates him and likely makes it easier for him to accept when you’re forced to overrule him.
Use Maps and Minis: Groups that generalize the locations of their individual characters tend to have more problems with rules lawyers. It’s difficult for players to understand the tactical layout of an area without actually seeing the area, and can lead to comments like, “I didn’t walk up to that chest; I skirted the edge of the wall.” An established grid and physical markers prevent a lot of arguments.
Even if you follow these rules, you may still have trouble with rules lawyers. Not everyone views rules the same way. The important thing is to stand behind your rulings, and when certain things break the rules—for good reason—don’t feel like you have to reveal world secrets just because the rules lawer demands answers. GMs work in mysterious ways, and with any luck history will vindicate your choice.
A great many problems we see on these boards simply wouldn't exist if players and GMs alike would just read the GameMastery Guide and take some of its advice to hear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've taken steps to minimize my litigious nature.
1. Keep my books out of arms reach. I'm less tempted to look something up if it's mildly inconvenient to get to my stuff.
2. If someone asks me a question, point him to the GM. The GM should always get first crack at adjudicating. It's the GM's game and it's just good manners.
3. If the GM asks me a question, I'll answer it, or help look up the answer if he wants a book reference. Otherwise, I just go with what he says. I've been the source of enough strife that I've driven a player away; I definitely don't want that to happen again.
I agree with Marius' advice. I've had similar problems as the OP, started doing exactly what Marius did, and things got better.
Actually just to point it out, I'm not sure even with buffs you could reach +18 at 5.
Take 20 STR + 4 (Bull Strength)
Gloves of Dueling
Magic Weapon (Greater) must be an 8th level caster +2BAB 5 + STR 7 + 1 WF + 3 WT +2 =18
So he needs Weap Focus, Weapon Training, A base 20 STR, bull Strength, and Greater Magic Weapon cast by a cleric of at least 8th level in order to get it. By the by, Gloves of dueling alone cost more than the total Wealth for a level 5 character.
Why do so many people forget about heroism and greater heroism?
+2/+4 morale bonus to hit and all saves for 10 minutes per level? Yes, please.
Any separatist cleric who picks the heroism domain will get it.
So if a level 5 fighter was being buffed by a level 12 heroism cleric(I said BBEG, I meant BBEG)
+5 BAB
+4 Base Str(15 to start, +1 level, +2 racial)
+1 weapon focus
+1 weapon training
+3 greater magic weapon
+4 greater heroism
+18 to hit easy
shield of faith for a +4 deflection bonus
+4 to all saves from greater heroism as well as +20 temporary hit points
Thanks for demostrating my point about rule lawyer players who just have to know how the numbers add up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
cause generally if you're throwing a level 5 out there you don't have a level 12 backing him up. Even with the leadership feat thats asinine. He'd be 9th or 10th level then if he's a cohort. Given an 8th level cleric using a 5th level fighter is still slightly substandard (could be something much higher given charisma), but the idea that a 12th level is running around in the same dungeon as a 5th level is beyond weird.That would be why I didn't consider greater heroism...
Ah, so you are assuming that the BBEG is in a dungeon....
That's good, because there is no way he would actually be posing as an aristocrat in the thick of city politics. And he because of his careful cover, he really down't want to get caught assaulting a group of pesky adventurers that are nosing around where they shouldn't be. oh, and he definately isn't the guy who sent the players to this particular dungeon in the first place.
But....
That is why you buff a minion and send him to do your dirty work. If you find one stupid enough, you pay him with a nifty +3 magic sword(that was stolen from a rival politician's house guards, and the "magic" will expire in 12 hours).
Again, a rules lawyer player will ask too many questions that don't have answers unless you give them metagame information. Just knowing that the fighter has greater heroism on him tells the players way too much information.
I don’t understand why people ‘make up’ s$~# on the fly instead of using a clearly stated rule. Why would someone pay money for an expensive rule book if they aren’t going to use half of it?
I think if you understand why people do this, then maybe your rules-laywer twitch will dissipate.
1) My GM will often stop to look something up in the rules. If someone else knows the rule off-hand, then he'll listen to the player, and maybe wait until later to look things up.
2) But my GM will *also* make stuff up on the fly. He clearly doesn't have to, right? But in this second context, it's often in order to impart his vision on the world, or maybe to maintain a good flow at the table. It basically helps him tell the stories he wants to, and weave the world he wants to weave.
So I have a GM who does both, and I think who wants the freedom to do both.
I guess from a player's perspective, the game's about mastering the system in order to overcome challenges. But a GM also wants the freedom to create the world they want to create -- That's where the fun is for them. As long as you let them do that, I don't think anyone would actually have a problem with you making their lives easier.
I don’t understand why people ‘make up’ s$~# on the fly instead of using a clearly stated rule. Why would someone pay money for an expensive rule book if they aren’t going to use half of it?
I think if you understand why people do this, then maybe your rules-laywer twitch will dissipate.
1) My GM will often stop to look something up in the rules. If someone else knows the rule off-hand, then he'll listen to the player, and maybe wait until later to look things up.
2) But my GM will *also* make stuff up on the fly. He clearly doesn't have to, right? But in this second context, it's often in order to impart his vision on the world, or maybe to maintain a good flow at the table. It basically helps him tell the stories he wants to, and weave the world he wants to weave.
So I have a GM who does both, and I think who wants the freedom to do both.
I guess from a player's perspective, the game's about mastering the system in order to overcome challenges. But a GM also wants the freedom to create the world they want to create -- That's where the fun is for them. As long as you let them do that, I don't think anyone would actually have a problem with you making their lives easier.
Or as in my example, I know what is possible within the rules, but I don't always have the time to sit down are flesh out every single detail before I throw it at the players. This is especially true when you are adapting to the player's actions on the fly.
Ah, so you are assuming that the BBEG is in a dungeon....
That's good, because there is no way he would actually be posing as an aristocrat in the thick of city politics. And he because of his careful cover, he really down't want to get caught assaulting a group of pesky adventurers that are nosing around where they shouldn't be. oh, and he definately isn't the guy who sent the players to this particular dungeon in the first place.
But....
That is why you buff a minion and send him to do your dirty work. If you find one stupid enough, you pay him with a nifty +3 magic sword(that was stolen from a rival politician's house guards, and the "magic" will expire in 12 hours).
Again, a rules lawyer player will ask too many questions that don't have answers unless you give them metagame information. Just knowing that the fighter has greater heroism on him tells the players way too much information.
No one of them is not CR appropriate with such a level difference. Level 5 fighter before buffs = CR 4 fight so lets assume your APL is 4. This means the cleric is APL +7 YOUR PARTY HAS NEXT TO NO CHANCE OF EVER BEATING HIM.
On the other hand. APL=7 Cleric now equal APL+4 (CR = level -1). Your CR 4 prebuffs fighter is now worthless. It doesn't matter how many buffs you tack on, he's going to go down and hard. Your party of level 7 characters will easily crush a single level 5 fighter., buffs or no.
You're putting up a ridiculous notion to try and back up a point that reaching a +18 at level 5 is easy. Its not. Not unless you're doing something both crazy and stupid behind the scenes (aka level 12 in the same group with a level 5. Not gonna happen)
Why are you assuming that this Big Bad Evil Guy is someone you will be facing in the next level or two?
How do you know he isn't the final boss that you will face somewhere around level 10?Why are you assuming that you know the situation better than the guy who is creating the situation?
PS, I never said it was easy to buff a level 5 fighter that high. In fact, it is difficulty of buffing a fighter by that much without actually having the buffer in the room that makes the situation full of metagame implications.
To be honest, it's not easy to look up rules in Pathfinder. I love the game, but many rules are scattered in different sections whereas others are repeated. For example, it doesn't say in the wizard class description that a wizard must select a school specialty spell upon level up. The Spell chapter says that.
One vivid example, I had to look up how many hitpoints my character gets at level up, I went to Character Advancement. It tells me to refer to Character Creation. I go to Character Creation, and it tells me how much I get at first level and vaguely says further levels are influenced by Con and HD. It refers me elsewhere, where it says "Con + HD." I then had to look up what HD is and how much a level 2 character has. This was a convoluted process of research just to answer a simple, common question.
So the reason people make stuff up on the fly is because it's much faster than wasting up to half an hour of gameplay to look up the answer.
Why are you assuming that this Big Bad Evil Guy is someone you will be facing in the next level or two?
How do you know he isn't the final boss that you will face somewhere around level 10?
Why are you assuming that you know the situation better than the guy who is creating...Because you shouldn't be tossing level 6 spells onto a level 5 person. Call me crazy, but you'd have to be an imbecile to think that spell is appropriate for that level.
I take offense at the fact that you suggest I don't know my stuff because you're throwing a wildly inappropriate spell for their level into the fray and saying I don't know what I'm talking about.
A LEVEL 6 SPELL IS INAPPROPRIATE AGAINST LEVEL 5 CHARACTERS. Dear God.
First, a level 5 fighter with that level of buffing is more like a CR6-CR8 challenge depending on the exact details of the encounter(surprise, resources, etc). That is APL+1 to APL+3 for a level 5 party. It would be a difficult encounter, but a level 5 party should be able beat it. So, exactly how is that an inappropiate encounter for a level 5 party? Is there some rule somewhere stating that a DM cannot use high level spells on low level NPCs that I am unaware of?
Second, why are you assuming that the players are level 5?
A LEVEL 6 SPELL IS INAPPROPRIATE AGAINST LEVEL 5 CHARACTERS. Dear God.
A +4 typed bonus to attack and damage is inappropriate against level 5 characters? Seriously?
If a level 5 Fighter doesn't have at least +4 something is seriously wrong.
The simple advanced template basically gives an untyped +2 bonus to attack and damage along with a ton of other benefits for only +1 to CR.
Are you trying to tell me that a CR 4 with an extra +4 to attack and damage is more than +1 CR? Actually, more than +4 CR, since that's how much it would have to add to be inappropriate for level 5 characters.
Get some perspective. Jeez.
A LEVEL 6 SPELL IS INAPPROPRIATE AGAINST LEVEL 5 CHARACTERS. Dear God.
A +4 typed bonus to attack and damage is inappropriate against level 5 characters? Seriously?
If a level 5 Fighter doesn't have at least +4 something is seriously wrong.
The simple advanced template basically gives an untyped +2 bonus to attack and damage along with a ton of other benefits for only +1 to CR.
Are you trying to tell me that a CR 4 with an extra +4 to attack and damage is more than +1 CR? Actually, more than +4 CR, since that's how much it would have to add to be inappropriate for level 5 characters.
Get some perspective. Jeez.
Its a +4 that stacks with anything else a fighter can already do. Dear lord. *headdesk* Theres a reason that they blocked stacking of bonuses when they made pathfinder. BECAUSE IT WAS BROKEN IN 3.5.
Get some perspective.
And all of that is irrelevant if the DM is accounting for it in the CR adjustments.
I can take a level 2 warrior, give him +20 in untyped bonuses to everything, and throw him at the party, and that is fine as long as I don't still consider it a CR 1 encounter.
First, a level 5 fighter with that level of buffing is more like a CR6-CR8 challenge depending on the exact details of the encounter(surprise, resources, etc). That is APL+1 to APL+3 for a level 5 party. It would be a difficult encounter, but a level 5 party should be able beat it. So, exactly how is that an inappropiate encounter for a level 5 party? Is there some rule somewhere stating that a DM cannot use high level spells on low level NPCs that I am unaware of?Second, why are you assuming that the players are level 5?
A 5th level fighter is base CR of 4. You're actually suggesting that buffing, while powerful, has actually double his effective CR. Are you crazy? CR 8 isn't even remotely possible even with solid buffs for a CR 4 creature. In the end he will go squish squish squish.
2nd of all I assumed 5th level party because it seems idiotic to send 1 person, even with buffs against 4 people of the same level, but I was actually trying to minimize the difference in levels between your BBEG and party here to give your argument as much credence as I could. If I put them above the fighters level then the encounter would be stupid on so many levels I couldn't even go into. 1 person vs 4, with the 4 all of higher level? yeah thats not CR appropriate.
Meanwhile if I put the party lower so that one person is actually still moderately a challenge, your BBEG and thus your spells being used, become even more inappropriate for their levels.
As I said before, "depending on the exact details of the encounter".
Ambushing the party on unfavorable terrain at the end of an adventuring day when they are low on spells can add a lot to the difficulty of an encounter. That would put the encounter at a CR7 for sure, very likely a CR8.
Lawyers can be rather aggravating, such as bringing to light a system that was being done incorrectly by all parties, that seemingly makes the game more enjoyable all around.
I've seen this done in one party involving AoOs, when we errata'd the rules the entire group began to disregard the attacks, and combat began to drag on unbarably.
Sometimes people forget that house rules are often for the fun of all of the party..
A 5th level fighter is base CR of 4. You're actually suggesting that buffing, while powerful, has actually double his effective CR. Are you crazy? CR 8 isn't even remotely possible even with solid buffs for a CR 4 creature. In the end he will go squish squish squish.2nd of all I assumed 5th level party because it seems idiotic to send 1 person, even with buffs against 4 people of the same level, but I was actually trying to minimize the difference in levels between your BBEG and party here to give your argument as much credence as I could. If I put them above the fighters level then the encounter would be stupid on so many levels I couldn't even go into. 1 person vs 4, with the 4 all of higher level? yeah thats not CR appropriate.
Meanwhile if I put the party lower so that one person is actually still moderately a challenge, your BBEG and thus your spells being used, become even more inappropriate for their levels.
Wait...
You're saying that a buffed up level 5 Fighter isn't a serious threat to a level 5 party, yet is somehow an inappropriate encounter?
Is your only problem the level 12 Cleric somewhere in the background that the party will not fight for several levels? Do you have similar problems with all potential foes that a party isn't fighting? Must the entire world be devoid of challenges above CR4 for a 1st level party to safely adventure?
What in the world could it matter where the Fighter got his buffs if the buffs aren't overpowered?
Headdesk, indeed!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thread ruined by rules lawyering.
Ruined? I thought it was a great illustrative example of the problem.
I was accused of being a rules lawyer a couple of times when I was a teenager, but 15-20 years later I play with people who know the rules as well as me and its not an issue. DM has final say anyway. The other thing is that I don't need to prove to people that I'm right. Being threatened by disagreement in no way a benefit, especially as it pertains to friends and hobbies.
I also have some rule-lawyer tendencies. However, I believe in flexibility, especially when I believe a particular rule does not make sense. I believe it is preferable to change a written rule, if all involved are in agreement, than to go by what is written, when all believe it is a bad rule.
that single buff is worth tens of thousands of gold pieces, multiple times what he receives TOTAL at his level.
Actually, a single use Greater Heroism item is 3600gp, hardly tens of thousands, and the additional resources would be reflected in his CR.
A rules lawyer like you would.Another thread ruined by rules lawyering.Ruined? I thought it was a great illustrative example of the problem.
When that discussion broke out my initial reaction was "what brilliant irony!" But as it went on and on and it began to dawn on me that they were actually serious, my next thought was "what sublime irony indeed." This thread should be nominated for the Irony Hall of Fame.
Not sure whether this thread is just trolling.
PS: Make that cleric evangelist.
This thread should be nominated for the Irony Hall of Fame.Ironically?
The best sort of unironically ironically... It's almost meta-ironic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t understand why people ‘make up’ s+!# on the fly instead of using a clearly stated rule.
It's quicker.
Why would someone pay money for an expensive rule book if they aren’t going to use half of it?
I buy the rulebooks for some guidelines I can use if I think they'll help, not with any plan to play the entire game system as written.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Take a break from rules and memorize lore. People hate rules lawyers but love those who can add to the environment. If you run into a cleric of Shelyn and people ask "who is Shelyn?" being able to to tell them that she is the goddess of beauty and love who wars with none and believes in the the truly beautiful self who is beautiful outside and in and that she is slowly purifying the most evil weapon to exist makes them feel like they are more a part of the environment.
This can be dangerous...alot of rules lawyers are obbsessive...so if the GM goes against lore it is 1000 times worst.
I am a rules expert....not a rules lawyer. I make that disctinction because a rules lawyer argues...I don't. I ask if there is a change to the rules. Unless other wise stated my actions are planned in regards to the rules. This not saying the GM can't change it but it is nice to know. I also help support the GM when other players start argueing. Knowing the rules is not a bad thing....being obessive about them is a bad thing.
My suggestions is Shut Up and play.
'Rules Lawyer' is kind of an objective term. I've seen it where someone who knows a lot about the game delegates confusion and disputes. Then there's a jerk who shouts about how he's right and doesn't look stuff up. It's not that he knows the rules, it's that he's being a jerk about a game and is trying to win what is essentially an objective story telling device.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For many of us Rules-Lawyers, knowing the inside and outside of how the game works is a huge part of the fun. If I can't know how the game works, I'm going to be spending all my time trying to figure it out rather than having fun playing the game.
Yeah, I'm a pretty rules-focused guy. I've been called the "rules lawyer" in our group before, although I was much more knowledgeable about D&D than I've managed to become about Pathfinder. I used to read the books for fun, but I only have the .pdf files for Pathfinder and I find it hard to read on a computer screen.
But when I WAS the "rules lawyer" I also knew better than to roll out my rules knowledge at every opportunity. I let the GM run his game. If he had a question I'd answer it. If something came up and it was clear there was confusion I might OFFER to give my interpretation of the rules, but I would not just launch into the rules without there being a general agreement that a rules interpretation was necessary. The only time I might, and I stress MIGHT offer an unasked rules opinion would be when a PC was about to die.
Knowing the rules is a desirable trait to have in as many people around the table as possible. But knowing the social conventions of gaming is more desirable. When the two are in conflict, the gaming should trump the rules lawyering.
There have been many, many, many times I simply sat quietly while a rule was being "broken" just because it had no impact on the game, or, in some cases, it was leading to all kinds of awesomeness and breaking the spell was worse than breaking the rule.
I was one sentence away from getting kicked out of a game. Why? Because the GM spontaneously decided the NPCs could ready an action to do a partial charge and I said something to the effect of "If that's the way you are going to play it then I'll be sure to remember that for when I need to do a readied partial charge."
He looked at me like that wasn't going to happen and I responded with "What, you do intend to be consistent in your rulings, don't you?"
He said he was seriously considering kicking me from the campaign and I shut the hell up.
It's one thing to be argumentative, it's quite another to have a GM who will break the rules than bully his players into submission under threat of eviction.