After plenty of drama in the discussion that followed it was agreed that we would be using combat advantage, that was the first such instance of the problem, later when i created a wizard because of an in-character problem between my good rogue and a chaotic-evil warlock, i used phamtom chasm in a group of hobgoblins and the master had them use a minor action to get up, naturally i protested and he got mad and left the table, upon his return he announced that from now everybody would be using the books rules, even after i apologized(we are friends after all) he still was mad and we had to end the session there.
I understand their point of view though i really tend to be a rules lawyer since nearly every session a discussion happens, but i really think the game would be better if we followed the rules since the game was balanced with such rules in mind, i would like to ask the opnion of the community on what should be my course of action, should i back down or not? (i kind of did already since i apologized but i just want to know if i'm the one who is wrong)
Ultimately, what house rules are decided on is really up to the group; the DM can propose, but if everybody just says 'no, we don't want to play with that rule', it won't get very far because a DM without players is not a DM. If you find his house rules utterly repulsive, but the other players don't mind them, you may simply have to choose to not play.
However, I would recommend not busting the DM on a ruling in the middle of a game; bring it up during the post-game winding-down so as not to disrupt the flow of the game.
You have hit upon the magic statement here though. You like to play rules lawyer. It is a valid personality type, but not a personality type which gets on well with every kind of group. This group obviously from your remarks does not care for mid game rules lawyering. Your options are to "make notes" of your issue while the game continues, and discuss it out of the game, or to find a different group. It seems one of their "informal" meta-game ground rules is no in-game rules debates, plain and simple. Arguing the rules in-game is breaking the informal rule, which should be treated as a real rule by you in the future and followed if you want to stay in that group.
I hope this helps.
I don't think many groups have a problem with "Oh if we are playing with that house rule I am find with it, but let me rebuild my character without powers that knock people prone, or not as a rogue who needs CA".
This is why these house rules need to be presented up front. If they aren't just politely explain you didn't know the house rule and would like to rebuild/retrain some things with it in mind.
I understand their point of view though i really tend to be a rules lawyer since nearly every session a discussion happens, but i really think the game would be better if we followed the rules since the game was balanced with such rules in mind, i would like to ask the opnion of the community on what should be my course of action, should i back down or not? (i kind of did already since i apologized but i just want to know if i'm the one who is wrong)
Nobody could say if you are the one who's wrong. If they want to use a lot of house-rules, who has a right to say they shouldn't, even if the houserules break the system?
I have to admit the houserules sound bad. Since 4e doesn't use facing back-stabbing someone from behind doesn't make sense. Neither does standing up from prone with a minor action, for reasons that have already been mentioned.
When I DM i allow players to bring up rules issues in mid session, even in mid combat (
) but this very rarely is anything other than players pointing out that I/the rest of the group have misinterpreteded a rule. I listen to them and if they are right (they usually are) I just say "he's right" and adjust. The only time this didn't happen was when a player wanted to use the "Lightning Form" (or something) power that the Sorcerer has to automatically break free from a grab.I'd just like to plant the idea in your mind that you may be better as DM than player. There are thirteen to the dozen when it comes to players, but not DMs.
…the thing is they usualy tend to bend the rules to better reflect reality…
Run away while you still have a chance.
As a DM, I don't consider the manuals written in stone, but at the same time, I have no problem with my players requesting and GETTING a damned good answer for why anything in the books is not valid.
I reserve the right to change, they reserve the right to an explanation that counts.
After all, if the game is not being played, then you can't claim to be playing it.
Houserules, I hate houserules for the most part.
As a DM, I don't consider the manuals written in stone, but at the same time, I have no problem with my players requesting and GETTING a damned good answer for why anything in the books is not valid.
I reserve the right to change, they reserve the right to an explanation that counts.
After all, if the game is not being played, then you can't claim to be playing it.
That is the way feel about most houserules. Most houserules are made just for the sake of having houserules or...house rules are there to make the game feel more real.
Houserules, I hate houserules for the most part.
As a DM, I don't consider the manuals written in stone, but at the same time, I have no problem with my players requesting and GETTING a damned good answer for why anything in the books is not valid.
I reserve the right to change, they reserve the right to an explanation that counts.
After all, if the game is not being played, then you can't claim to be playing it.
That is the way feel about most houserules. Most houserules are made just for the sake of having houserules or...house rules are there to make the game feel more real.
I am also leary about house-rules... so I have only a very precious few of them for most games (the most extensive being house-ruling AD&D so that AC and initiative are "higher=better,").
My only current house-rule for 4e: a hexblade does not have to have their implement in hand to create their blade... it's unfair to prevent a hexblade from using 90% of their powers at all when normal weapon using classes can use weapon attacks with their fists and normal impliment users can use implement attacks without an implement; the lack of an enhancement bonuses is enough of a penalty.
I have several houserules, but I don't think a single one of them is in any way restrictive ...
Indeed. If anything, they tend to open up options, not shut them down.
Houserules in general are, in my opinion, neither good nor bad. There are simply far too many variables to make a blanket statement along those lines. In my opinion a houserule is as good or bad as the DM who introduced it. Good DMs who create houserules tend to create "good" house rules, or rather, their rules enhance play. Bad DM's who create houserules tend to created "bad" house rules.
i really think the game would be better if we followed the rules since the game was balanced with such rules in mind
Highly debatable argument, given the constant stream of erratas and changes between book series (DMG1 vs DMG2, MM1 vs MV, etc).
On the rest, i agree with what was said before already.
I agree that those houserules were all terrible, though taking a minor instead of a move to stand up isn't really all that bad, if applied unilaterally, though it does take a lot of the wind out of prone. But I digress.
Given that any player who gives a **** about being able to stand up invests in acrobat boots or takes agile recovery at 2nd level anyway, the house rule really kind of exclusively ****s the players, even if it's applied to everything.
Thanks zmortis i will keep that in mind, the root of the problem is the unfairness that happens because of these houserules, i think they dont realize they keep gimping my characters while trying to use "real world common sense" to justify their rule bending and making their characters more effective.
Actually, I think you need to look more carefully at what zmortis wrote. The root of the problem isn't the houserules at all, it's that your desired playstyle and their desired playstyle differ to such a degree that's causing friction.
Unfortunately, it seems from your responses that the discussion about houseruling has more or less steeled your resolve that you need to convince them of the "right" way to play the game, which is something you need to back away from, and quickly, if you intend to continue playing with these people.