You can call it creative thinking or even rules lawyering, but rarely is it actually cheating.
That in mind...
What are your thoughts on DMs who penalize players for using the rules to their advantages?
What are your thoughts on players who rules lawyer?
Do you think there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to penalize players?
If the players come up with creative uses of the rules I reward them by having monsters use those creative loopholes as well (as I'd expect them to mimic me if I did the same thing.)
If they manufacture an ambiguity to try to get over on the DM, the encounter, or the gaming session as a whole, it's not.
I'd be incredibly wary to call anything creative that I'd heard before. Truly creative things are the result of a very unique situation of the encounter. Trying to find a way to repeatedly exploit a supposed vagueness in the meaning of "can" is not creative.
If it's genuinely creative and limited to the situation, it's cool to go along with it. If it's an attempt to repeatedly exploit an unnaccounted for situation in the rules, usually the best penalty for that kind of thing is allowing the DM to use it, too. Suddenly, invisible crossbow Paladins EVERYWHERE. And swarms of Orcs making readied action attacks to get past opportunity attacks.
The Player readies an action to run away when a fighter attacks him. This makes it so the fighter can't take his OA when the PC moves away.
The DM decides the fighter is going to trip the player instead of the attack he was going to make because the character readied that action.
I would see this as 'screwing' the player and wouldn't expect it from a fair DM.
-edit-
I'm assuming in this situation that the DM could not reasonably think that the fighter would have taken that action normally.
Fairness isn't about just letting the players do whatever they can get away with. Fairness is about equity. The player wants to get a benefit he is not really due. The DM makes it equitable by introducing a risk (risk of being tripped) into the scenario.
It's more fair than if he had simply allowed it, as a matter of fact.
In 4.0, as in previous versions of DnD, there are a lot of rules. These rules are sometimes open to interpretation and can be abused.
You can call it creative thinking or even rules lawyering, but rarely is it actually cheating.
There are three kinds of rule lawyers. The first is the kind that knows the rules well and expects them to be applied consistently and correctly. They generally make for a better game, even if they occasionally annoy people.
The second knows the rules well and is quick to quote them when they work in the players favor. But they can be surprisingly absentminded when a rule works against them. This type is more of a problem, but as long as the DM knows the rules well they can be controlled.
The third type is the one that has memorized every version of the rules, FAQs and QA about the rules and selectively picks though them to find something that can be interpreted in a way that supports them. This kind will misinterpret the rules on a grand scale. Mix and match versions, selective quoting and intentional misunderstanding who the rules apply to are the bread and butter of this type. This kind of behavior reaches the level of cheating and they should be removed from the game.
Jay
I think Klaser is insinuating the DM is metagaming. No, that isn't fair (get to hear the PCs' plans, then have the baddies shift their's). As a 30 year DM, I have never done that ... much.
It's metagaming only in the same way as readying an action to avoid opportunity attacks is metagaming. It's a loophole in the rule that you can't take opportunity attacks on your own turn. How does the character know about "turns" to exploit them?
Here's a situation...
The Player readies an action to run away when a fighter attacks him. This makes it so the fighter can't take his OA when the PC moves away.
The DM decides the fighter is going to trip the player instead of the attack he was going to make because the character readied that action.
I would see this as 'screwing' the player and wouldn't expect it from a fair DM.
I'm not sure what I would do in a situation like that. On one hand, it is unfair for the DM to take advantage of inside knowledge that the monster doesn't have. However, an intelligent monster might realize that the PC has readied an action. The PC has gathered himself up and is readied to act as soon as the opportunity opens, something that somebody else might see. A smart monster may even figure out what action the character has ready, based on what he is looking at and what he is ready to do.
Jay
It's metagaming only in the same way as readying an action to avoid opportunity attacks is metagaming. It's a loophole in the rule that you can't take opportunity attacks on your own turn. How does the character know about "turns" to exploit them?
The player has to know what the rules are in order to play by them. By that definition, there isn't much a player can do that isn't metagaming. My problem with the scenario that I laid out was in the DMs reaction to the problem.
If the DM thought the PC was abusing the rule, he should have said so, explained that the rules didn't work that way, and had the PC make another choice.
In that scenario, the DM broke the rules of the game to get things back into balance, which doesn't work. While the PC had a reason to think that readying an action would work, the DM would have no reason to think the fighter could expect a readied action.
When an umpire at a baseball game sees a rules infraction, he says so and doesn't allow that infraction to count in the first place. He doesn't allow the other team a few extra bases to even things out.
I'm not sure what I would do in a situation like that. On one hand, it is unfair for the DM to take advantage of inside knowledge that the monster doesn't have. However, an intelligent monster might realize that the PC has readied an action. The PC has gathered himself up and is readied to act as soon as the opportunity opens, something that somebody else might see. A smart monster may even figure out what action the character has ready, based on what he is looking at and what he is ready to do.
Jay
Jay, for the purpose of my hypothetical situation, I just wanted to show that the DM was bending the rules. It is possible a monster could see a readied action, but I'm suggesting the DM took liberties he shouldn't have.
I am not a fan of penalizing players (or their PCs) for attempting to use the rules to their advantage.
What are your thoughts on players who rules lawyer?
I am not a fan of players who attempt to twist the rules to their advantage.
Do you think there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to penalize players?
There are no appropriate ways to penalize players (or their PCs).
If a player offers an interpretation of the rules that the DM believes is abusive, the DM has the responsibility to just say no. And leave it at that. A DM establishes the rules for/in his or her game. This may include consultation with the players. It may include fiat. The only requirement I place is that it is consistent. There is no punishment for the players. There is no punishment for the PCs.
And, as I said in another discussion on this subject, the player owes the DM a Coke for being a pain in the neck trying to twist the RAW to their own advantage. (House Rule.)
2- Se #1 in regards to lawyers and there place in regards to judges.
3- Yes. Depending on the offense to the game.
Actually, wouldn't work. If the trigger for the readied action is the fighter's attack, the attack resolves before the delayed action, so the player gets hit (or not, depending on the roll) BEFORE the PC moves away. That ends the fighter's turn. Player moves away, and fighter gets his AoO, and player gets creased twice.
And, as I said in another discussion on this subject, the player owes the DM a Coke for being a pain in the neck trying to twist the RAW to their own advantage. (House Rule.)
The fighter's turn doesn't actually end at that point because he has only resolved his attack. He hasn't reached "the end of the turn" which has mechanics applied to it.
While by the rules this is allowed, it is violating what a fighter is about. Besides which, doesn't a charge allow an AoO, so you're letting the fighter hit you twice (his standard action and the AoO) in order to charge after the cleric and get a basic attack on him (at which point the cleric backs up and does something nasty to you as well?) If you are silly enough to get in combat range of a fighter while you want to take care of his friends, you're pretty much stuck dealing with him. (though again, I would allow this interpretation of the rules, I would just shake my head at the folly of the player.)
*NM, he wouldn't get the AoO because its still happening on his turn, but again, I think its folly to charge away from him for the cleric in 99% of situations.
The player has to know what the rules are in order to play by them. By that definition, there isn't much a player can do that isn't metagaming.
By that definition, the same thing applies to the DM and there's nothing the DM can do that isn't metagaming. That's not the definition we're going by here.
My problem with the scenario that I laid out was in the DMs reaction to the problem.
And my problem is with the player's reaction to the problem.
If the DM thought the PC was abusing the rule, he should have said so, explained that the rules didn't work that way, and had the PC make another choice.
Why should he deny the PC the opportunity to take that risk? He explicitly allowed the player to take the action. He just made available a counter to it.
In that scenario, the DM broke the rules of the game to get things back into balance, which doesn't work.
The DM broke no rule.
While the PC had a reason to think that readying an action would work, the DM would have no reason to think the fighter could expect a readied action.
The player had a reason to think that readying an action would work. The DM did have a reason to think a trip would work. The player's character had no reason to think his character would think it would work. At least no more reason to think it than the DM had reason to think the fighter could know about it.
When an umpire at a baseball game sees a rules infraction, he says so and doesn't allow that infraction to count in the first place. He doesn't allow the other team a few extra bases to even things out.
Except that's not what happened. The DM didn't suddenly drop the PC by a significant number of hitpoints. The DM allowed one strategy and also allowed a counter-strategy.
Jay, for the purpose of my hypothetical situation, I just wanted to show that the DM was bending the rules. It is possible a monster could see a readied action, but I'm suggesting the DM took liberties he shouldn't have.
Except you're making up liberties. If the DM did an fair skill check for the trip attack, there was no liberty taken. If there was no fair skill check, then that's another matter.
There are three kinds of rule lawyers. The first is the kind that knows the rules well and expects them to be applied consistently and correctly. They generally make for a better game, even if they occasionally annoy people.
This is the type of rules lawyer I am. And its why I browse these forums. To find the discrepencies before other players do, or see where people are getting confused. That way our games go faster because I know whats going on. I help players and GM, as well as hinder them.
Last session our fighter got quite a few rules adjustments, that he or the GM had overlooked.
I don't stop people with Combat Challenge?
I get my Wisdom bonus on Opportunity Attacks?
Shield Push invalidates an attack?
Multiclassing Cleric doesn't allow me to pick up Channel Divine Feats?
You don't need the Ritual Feat to use a scroll?
Scrolls still require components?
I can mark anything I attack?
Cleave doesn't mark the secondary target?
Yeah thats one character, and a veteran roleplayer to boot. But when its a new rules system everyone's going to make mistakes. I try to catch them before they get out of control, and the GM usually expects it from me. It saves on book searching.
Really, it depends on a host of issues. If the rules lawyer makes the game where it's absolutely broken, no fun, unbalanced and is a pain then use the tools on him or houserule the stuff away.
Off topic, the actual example seems sub-optimal. What do you get out of it? You get moved in the initiative order. It costs you a standard action. And the fighter can still smack you in the tooth.
I suppose you can ready a charge on a distant enemy. But it's a trade-off. I don't see this as a broken combo.
What are your thoughts on DMs who penalize players for using the rules to their advantages?
I am not a fan of penalizing players (or their PCs) for attempting to use the rules to their advantage.
What are your thoughts on players who rules lawyer?
I am not a fan of players who attempt to twist the rules to their advantage.
Do you think there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to penalize players?There are no appropriate ways to penalize players (or their PCs).
This!
Playing well and fair should be a goal (which can be communicated directly).
Here's a situation...
The Player readies an action to run away when a fighter attacks him. This makes it so the fighter can't take his OA when the PC moves away.
The DM decides the fighter is going to trip the player instead of the attack he was going to make because the character readied that action.
I would see this as 'screwing' the player and wouldn't expect it from a fair DM.
That doesn't even work. A readied action is an immediate reaction, which means it occurs AFTER the event that triggered it. It says it in exactly those words on page 291 of the PhB.
Persecuting rules lawyers depends upon how much of a pain the lawyer is. First of all lawyers are evil and slaying evil is a good act.
Wrong. Way to think like a kid on that one. Killing evil just because it's evil is NOT a good act. That's murder. Which is an evil act. Simply having a evil alignment is not a cause to be killed. You cannot walk up to the mayor of a town and kill him because he is evil. If he were evil and doing evil things as well then you'd have a case. "Laywers are evil." Yeah and then I bet you'll come crying to one when you need one, "Oh wait but I'm evil. Too bad. Represent yourself." I'd love to see your face on that one.
That doesn't even work. A readied action is an immediate reaction, which means it occurs AFTER the event that triggered it. It says it in exactly those words on page 291 of the PhB.
This is being covered in another thread about this specific combo. The purpose of it is to deny the Fighter an extra attack for shifting away.
It works this way; on the Fighter's turn he attacks, the readied action to move away is an immediate reaction so it is resolved after the Fighter's attack but before the end of the Fighter's turn. This is important because you are not allowed to make immediate actions during your own turn, thus the attacks the Fighter gets for Combat Challenge (immediate interrupt) or AoO (immediate reaction) can't be made.
At least that is the idea.
In 4.0, as in previous versions of DnD, there are a lot of rules. These rules are sometimes open to interpretation and can be abused.
You can call it creative thinking or even rules lawyering, but rarely is it actually cheating.
This is untrue. A lot of "rules lawyering" IS cheating. Especially selective application of rules lawyering; if you let things pass which are against the rules because it would hurt you, then you're cheating.
What are your thoughts on DMs who penalize players for using the rules to their advantages?
What are your thoughts on players who rules lawyer?
Do you think there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to penalize players?
1) If what the rules lawyer is doing is detracting from the fun of the DM and the other players, absolutely. Especially if "using the rules to their advantage" means "ignoring rules which hurt them".
2) It depends on why they're doing it and whether they're doing it to the point of detracting from the game.
3) Take away their toys, refuse to play with them, make it clear what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, house rule on certain situations, and putting a time limit on rules discussion in game are all appropriate solutions.
The Player readies an action to run away when a fighter attacks him. This makes it so the fighter can't take his OA when the PC moves away.
The DM decides the fighter is going to trip the player instead of the attack he was going to make because the character readied that action.
I would see this as 'screwing' the player and wouldn't expect it from a fair DM.
This isn't unfair at all. The player had it coming. Any time you abuse readied actions, the DM should screw you as much as possible by doing things to mess it up.
More to the point, given that everything knows all conditions on them, this isn't even metagaming; this is entirely legal under the rules, and entirely valid.
There are three kinds of rule lawyers. The first is the kind that knows the rules well and expects them to be applied consistently and correctly. They generally make for a better game, even if they occasionally annoy people.
Indeed. These are fine, though sometimes you need to erect a table rule that basically "if we can't resolve it quickly, we move on and discuss it at the end of the session so we know what to do next time".
The second knows the rules well and is quick to quote them when they work in the players favor. But they can be surprisingly absentminded when a rule works against them. This type is more of a problem, but as long as the DM knows the rules well they can be controlled.
This is cheating, and yes, the better the DM knows the rules, the less these rules lawyers are.
The third type is the one that has memorized every version of the rules, FAQs and QA about the rules and selectively picks though them to find something that can be interpreted in a way that supports them. This kind will misinterpret the rules on a grand scale. Mix and match versions, selective quoting and intentional misunderstanding who the rules apply to are the bread and butter of this type. This kind of behavior reaches the level of cheating and they should be removed from the game.
Removed or at a minimum told not to do it again, and then removed if they keep doing it.
In that scenario, the DM broke the rules of the game to get things back into balance, which doesn't work. While the PC had a reason to think that readying an action would work, the DM would have no reason to think the fighter could expect a readied action.
He didn't, though, as I explained above. Everyone knows all conditions on them.
The fighter's turn doesn't actually end at that point because he has only resolved his attack. He hasn't reached "the end of the turn" which has mechanics applied to it.
Technically speaking, there are no timing rules for this. There is no need for the "stack to be empty" for you to say "my turn is over"; there is no such rule. Indeed, it is explicitly stated that ending your turn takes no time in the game world.
...Technically speaking, there are no timing rules for this. There is no need for the "stack to be empty" for you to say "my turn is over"; there is no such rule. Indeed, it is explicitly stated that ending your turn takes no time in the game world.
Actually there are rules for the timing and they aren't inconsequential since whether an action occurs before or after a person makes a saving throw can be important. Another example given is that if a monster can make two attacks in a round and the first attack triggers an action then the action is resolved before the second attack. While I don't see anything explicitly stating that the immediate action occurs before the end of the other turn it is certainly implicit.
But again this exact case is probably better covered in the other thread.
Here's a situation...
The Player readies an action to run away when a fighter attacks him. This makes it so the fighter can't take his OA when the PC moves away.
The DM decides the fighter is going to trip the player instead of the attack he was going to make because the character readied that action.
I would see this as 'screwing' the player and wouldn't expect it from a fair DM.
You can call it creative thinking or even rules lawyering, but rarely is it actually 'screwing' the player.
Not to throw your words up in your own face but really I think the long and the short of it is that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to use a mechanic in a way it probably wasn't intended to your benefit but you don't want the DM to respond in kind.
Should the DM persecute rules lawyers? Absolutely not. Everyone is there to have fun and if someone is being persecuted then they aren't having fun. What the DM should do is tell the rules lawyer, "You know, that's a very interesting loophole that you've noticed. Unfortunately I don't believe that it functions as intended and letting you do that would have an unbalancing effect since it lets you ignore a class's abilities with only mild penalties so I'm going to house rule that you can't do it."
If the DM allows it but figures out a way to counter it by likewise looking for loopholes the player should say, "Well, I guess he found the flaw in my tactic" rather than feeling persecuted.
Wrong. Way to think like a kid on that one. Killing evil just because it's evil is NOT a good act. That's murder. Which is an evil act. Simply having a evil alignment is not a cause to be killed. You cannot walk up to the mayor of a town and kill him because he is evil. If he were evil and doing evil things as well then you'd have a case. "Laywers are evil." Yeah and then I bet you'll come crying to one when you need one, "Oh wait but I'm evil. Too bad. Represent yourself." I'd love to see your face on that one.
You always read things so literal?
I think Klaser is insinuating the DM is metagaming. No, that isn't fair (get to hear the PCs' plans, then have the baddies shift their's). As a 30 year DM, I have never done that ... much.
I don't think it is necessarily metagaming. Can the monster reasonably discern what the PC is up to? If so, and the monster is intelligent, then it's not metagaming in my view.
I don't think it is necessarily metagaming. Can the monster reasonably discern what the PC is up to? If so, and the monster is intelligent, then it's not metagaming in my view.
I basically agree. I think a readied action can be seen ("your enemy is coiled like a spring, ready to leap...") by your foes. And yes, that includes beasts, not just intelligent foes! If you've ever wrestled with a dog, you know they can easily detect when you're ready to jump at them.
The enemy should know the general type of action you've readied ("he's ready to swing the sword" vs. "he's ready to flee") but would definitely not know the trigger, nor which specific power you intended to use.
- Alane -
I was referencing to what I thought the OP was describing in his off the cuff example; i.e. the DM has the players declare their actions (which include readied actions) and then intentionally changing what he was going to have the monsters do to proactively screw their plans. That IS metagaming and is poor DMing.
Example from 3.5:
Player: I ready an action to shoot him when he casts a spell
DM: Ok, he uses a supernatural ability instead. You've wasted your turn.
Round 2
Player: I ready an action to shoot him when he takes any standard action
DM: Ok, he charges your ally as a full-round action. You've wasted your turn.
Round 3
Player: I ready an action to shoot him when he takes any standard action or full round action.
DM: Ok, he moves around a corner before casting a spell. You've wasted your turn.
[examples]
Yes, those are bogus. The enemy would reasonably know that there was a readied action to shoot, because he can see the bow and arrow pointed at him. However in your examples the DM is allowing the foes to know the trigger, which is clearly unfair. The trigger occurs inside the character's mind, with no obvious outward sign of his decision-making process.
I think this would be fair, however...
[INDENT]Player: I ready an action to shoot him when he moves.
DM: Okay. He sees you pointing the bow, and looks scared. He uses All-Out Defense as he moves towards cover.[/INDENT]
- Alane -
The enemy should know the general type of action you've readied ("he's ready to swing the sword" vs. "he's ready to flee") but would definitely not know the trigger, nor which specific power you intended to use.
Similarly, we would also give this description to players if an enemy readies and action. Sometimes they see a ranger pointing his bow at them with an arrow knocked, sometimes they just see a wizard (that evidently didn't take a standard action when his init came up) eying them intently.
The players usually figured out what was going to happen, but not always. I still managed to disrupt many a PC's spell in 3.5.
Yes, those are bogus.
Absolutely! It is those types of examples EXACTLY which are metagaming by the DM and, quite rightly, tend to **** off players. IMC, it's not about being able to trump the players because I'm THE DM, it's about fair play. If the opponent (i.e. DM) couldn't know what the PC's were going to do without the DM hearing it first, it is CHEATING.
This is being covered in another thread about this specific combo. The purpose of it is to deny the Fighter an extra attack for shifting away.
It works this way; on the Fighter's turn he attacks, the readied action to move away is an immediate reaction so it is resolved after the Fighter's attack but before the end of the Fighter's turn. This is important because you are not allowed to make immediate actions during your own turn, thus the attacks the Fighter gets for Combat Challenge (immediate interrupt) or AoO (immediate reaction) can't be made.
At least that is the idea.
i still dont understand the point, because you are giving up your standard action to do that, while the fighter and all his friends can still attack you, at best like you said it stops the fighter from getting a CC attack, but ti doesnt stop him from useing his standard action to lay waste to you.
I think Klaser is insinuating the DM is metagaming. No, that isn't fair (get to hear the PCs' plans, then have the baddies shift their's). As a 30 year DM, I have never done that ... much.
I somewhat disagree. I have been DMing or quite a while as well (20 years), and as a DM, I will meta-game my arse off if I think a player is "exploiting" a loophole...however, that said, if it is truely creative rather then theft, I will reward instead.
What are your thoughts on DMs who penalize players for using the rules to their advantages?
The DM I play with knows a rules exploitation when he sees it. He generally asks the group if they think this is a reasonable use of the rules and if so, how much they'll mind seeing it used against them. I feel it's a fair way of adjudicating what the rules should be.
What are your thoughts on players who rules lawyer?
I do rules lawyer, but only to the point of understanding how they work so the game is played fairly. I don't agree with abusing the rules to fit a given situation.
Do you think there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to penalize players?
If a mistake is made by a DM that has made the game unbalanced, it's his job to fix it. However, I feel the PC should be informed of what is happening if he is being singled out and why. Otherwise, it makes the game less fun for that person. The DMs job is to fairly apply the rules. I think that should be his primary goal and if he unfairly applies the rules, he should own up to it and try to fix it.
Example from 3.5:
Player: I ready an action to shoot him when he casts a spell
DM: Ok, he uses a supernatural ability instead. You've wasted your turn.
Round 2
Player: I ready an action to shoot him when he takes any standard action
DM: Ok, he charges your ally as a full-round action. You've wasted your turn.
Round 3
Player: I ready an action to shoot him when he takes any standard action or full round action.
DM: Ok, he moves around a corner before casting a spell. You've wasted your turn.
There are no full round actions in 4e...
Charge is a Standard action.
I guess I'll actually participate in this thread
What are your thoughts on DMs who penalize players for using the rules to their advantages?
There are 2 types of advantageous rules usage in my games usually.
1: The kind that is RAW and RAI. This type is perfectly fine and 99% of the time I'll scorn the DM if they penalize a player for it(and myself as a DM don't penalize players for it)
2: The kind that is mostly RAW but ambiguous to RAI. This type usually has the best intentions of the party in mind and can sometimes create humorous circumstances but just as often creates a hole in the system that will suck the fun out of a session. These players should be watched and penalized when their ideas adversely affect the game session.
What are your thoughts on players who rules lawyer?
Perfectly acceptable, provided they're willing to listen to the DM when he makes his ruling and not delay the completion of the turn/encounter/session.
Do you think there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to penalize players?
Appropriate way to penalize the character usually involves, in my opinion, a reduced reward from the adventure. Inappropriate would obviously be something like the death of the character or some other hugely debilitating act. If a player is to be penalized it should be enough to dissuade them from doing it again, but not gimp the party as a whole nor make the player leave the group.
Ultimately if it continues to the point where everyone in the group is unhappy with that player, then it may be prudent to talk to them and eventually even ask them to leave the group.
In my experience, I've never met a player that disruptive and most of them understand what is required to make a session run smoothly.
Example from 3.5:
There are no full round actions in 4e...
Hence my labeling it as an
"Example from 3.5"
The guy who knows the rules well and is a good reference for RAW and RAI is a great resource. But at some tables, that guy gets labeled the "rules lawyer".
I suppose at those tables, one could say that what you really have is a bunch of "rule dunces" who don't know any better. ;) luckily though, I haven't played with people like that in a long time.
the only thing I don't like about the term "rules lawyer" is when people who don't understand the rules criticize you for pointing out how the rules actually work by calling you a "rules lawyer".
The guy who knows the rules well and is a good reference for RAW and RAI is a great resource. But at some tables, that guy gets labeled the "rules lawyer".
I suppose at those tables, one could say that what you really have is a bunch of "rule dunces" who don't know any better. ;) luckily though, I haven't played with people like that in a long time.
Rules expert? Rules Know it All? Rules Master? Rules Wizard?
the only thing I don't like about the term "rules lawyer" is when people who don't understand the rules criticize you for pointing out how the rules actually work by calling you a "rules lawyer".
Agreed. I actually view the term "rules lawyer" as a complimentary title here, as it implies a laudable investiture of knowledge.
Conversely, the act of "rule lawyering" implies bullying other players and/or the DM with said knowledge. As a rules lawyer, one should avoid 'rule lawyering'. I try to do this by saying things like "here is how the rules actually work, but here is how we can still achieve what you were intending". We should try to provide information that works to our detriment just as often as it works to our benefit.
Rules expert? Rules Know it All? Rules Master? Rules Wizard?
"Guru" is the title I've heard most often for such things.
i still dont understand the point, because you are giving up your standard action to do that, while the fighter and all his friends can still attack you, at best like you said it stops the fighter from getting a CC attack, but ti doesnt stop him from useing his standard action to lay waste to you.
You don't really give up your standard action (unless the fighter doesn't trigger you) you simply delay it.
Now I am not a proponent of allowing this. This is simply the mechanic being discussed on a parallel thread. Discussion as to whether RAW allows this really belongs over there. The only reason I brought up the mechanism is because of the assertion that if the DM does something that disrupts the mechanism (i.e. tripping the player, readying the Fighter's action rather than attacking) he is somehow 'cheating' while the player using such a mechanism is not.
Here's a situation...
The Player readies an action to run away when a fighter attacks him. This makes it so the fighter can't take his OA when the PC moves away.
The DM decides the fighter is going to trip the player instead of the attack he was going to make because the character readied that action.
I would see this as 'screwing' the player and wouldn't expect it from a fair DM.
-edit-
I'm assuming in this situation that the DM could not reasonably think that the fighter would have taken that action normally.
First, in order for a fighter to attack him, the fighter will be in an adjacent square (unless using reach or range). The fighter attacks; it triggers your run and it's your turn when you run you leave the fighter's adjacent square giving him an OA on you with combat advantage and the other negative effects of running as well, and the fighter has a chance to stop your movement if the OA hits. If it is range or reach attack, barring threating reach, the fighter attacks; it triggers your run move, and you run away incurring the negatives for running.
If you don't want this to happen ready your action as: when the fighter is 2 squares away from me, I will use my run action. Just remember the fighter will get to continue his actions. So it would be possible for the fighter to continue his move and then charge if you do not move into a good location, and you’d have all those icky things you get from running.
You don't really give up your standard action (unless the fighter doesn't trigger you) you simply delay it.
Now I am not a proponent of allowing this. This is simply the mechanic being discussed on a parallel thread. Discussion as to whether RAW allows this really belongs over there. The only reason I brought up the mechanism is because of the assertion that if the DM does something that disrupts the mechanism (i.e. tripping the player, readying the Fighter's action rather than attacking) he is somehow 'cheating' while the player using such a mechanism is not.
but you are not delaying anything readying anything takes a standdard action, so as such you waste a standard action to do a move to avoid an CC attack. I think it is fair.
but you are not delaying anything readying anything takes a standdard action, so as such you waste a standard action to do a move to avoid an CC attack. I think it is fair.
Yes, it is a standard action to ready an action. However the action that has been readied changes from a standard/move/minor action to an immediate reaction.
It does change things slightly in that the player cannot move away and attack, since attack would be a standard action, but they could still ready and move away, avoiding the Combat Challenge attack as opposed to moving, allowing a Combat Challenge attack, then being attacked again when the Fighter pursues, so it has a benefit of 'short circuiting' combat challenge, though the player has to sacrifice the ability to attack to do so.
Regardless, this is really more appropriate for the parallel thread which discusses this particular mechanism. The main subject was whether the DM was persecuting the 'rules lawyer' by having the Fighter not make a standard attack once the player readies his action.
First, in order for a fighter to attack him, the fighter will be in an adjacent square (unless using reach or range). The fighter attacks; it triggers your run and it's your turn when you run you leave the fighter's adjacent square giving him an OA on you with combat advantage and the other negative effects of running as well, and the fighter has a chance to stop your movement if the OA hits. If it is range or reach attack, barring threating reach, the fighter attacks; it triggers your run move, and you run away incurring the negatives for running.
If you don't want this to happen ready your action as: when the fighter is 2 squares away from me, I will use my run action. Just remember the fighter will get to continue his actions. So it would be possible for the fighter to continue his move and then charge if you do not move into a good location, and you’d have all those icky things you get from running.
That's the trick of the maneuver. According to the rules it is still the Fighter's turn. Immediate interrupts and immediate reactions do not end the Fighter's turn unless there is something specific to the action.
It could be argued that although the Fighter's turn hasn't ended it is temporarily suspended and it becomes the player's turn, allowing the CC attack, but that is really more a matter for discussion on the parallel thread.
I've been known to bring up rules to the DM while I'm playing. Did it last week, actually, the DM made a ruling that I disagreed with. I brought up what I though was the correct interpretation, he said I was wrong. I was fairly sure I was correct, however, the DM had ruled. I said that, after the session, I'd like to discuss it further, and was prepared to go on with the game. (At this point he thought about it a second, agreed with me, and reversed his decision.)
"Rules lawyering" isn't always a negative thing, even the best gamemasters misremember a rule from time to time, particularly if an event doesn't come up often. The trick to it is HOW it's done. You don't scour the rules looking for obscure loopholes, and you do NOT argue at the table about it. It's the ones who get obnoxious about insisting that their interpretations of the rules MUST be right, since that's the greatest benefit to their character, and insist on arguing the point to death at the table that give rules lawyers a bad name.
Rules expert? Rules Know it All? Rules Master? Rules Wizard?
RULES GOD!!!!
BOW BEFORE THE AWESOME POWER OF MY KNOWLEDGE BASE!!!
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
I'm all for player's using the rules to the best of their advantage but not twisting the rules to create an advantage if you catch my meaning. I find rules lawyers to be in general offensive and disrespectful. They rarely accept a DM decision and frequently get obnoxious about it.
The way I see it is a DM uses their free time not only to run the game but do the set-up, they are putting a whole lot more time and effort into the game than the players. Players should respect that someone basically agreed not to play the game so that they could have fun. Players should therefor respect a DM ruling during the game and if they talk to the DM after and can't change their mind then either leave the game or accept it even if they don't like it.
Also as a DM myself if one of my players starts the game with "because they used pronoun x and adjective q then I should have supreme ultimate power and completely unbalance the game and all the encounters you could possibly design" I get a little bit aggravated. I try to talk to the player about how they are making me feel but that kind of person rarely listens or reacts well to anything that doesn't directly benefit them. I see no real solution to that type of rules lawyer outside of kicking them from the game. Which if they are your friend it can get touchy.
Players who are rules lawyers are fine as long as they understand that the DM is the rules judge, and rulings are final.
I think this is the key to a good rules lawyer. If something doesn't seem to be entirely by the rules just let it go. Especially if its for cinematic appeal or because it ties to the story progression. Don't ruin your DM's moment, by pointing out that the rules don't work that way. :D
The rules lawyers that I have had experience with generally try and twist the rules to their advantage. When I as a DM tell them sorry but that doesn't fly, I am usually in for a 3-4 hour argument MINIMUM. *bandwidth snip*
Institute a house rule. Post it on the wall, if necessary.
*In case of a disagreement on the rules, the DM will make a judgment call ruling immediately, and the game will continue. Players disagreeing with the rule may, if they choose, request that the subject be revisited AFTER the session, or at some point before the next session.
Never let one of these guys spring an "interpretation" on you during a session, when you don't have time to consider the consequences. However, be fair, and if it turns out their idea was correct, then make adjustments as necessary regarding the ruling you made before. (My general thought is, though, that if their way of interpreting things makes a huge difference in a combat, they were likely twisting things to their advantage, anyway.)
DO NOT get into arguments with them during the session, you'll likely bore the rest of your players to tears. And if you've got the ones that'll argue for hours, limit your discussion session to ten minutes. If it's going to run longer, ask them to set their interpretation and the rationalization behind it down on paper so you can review it properly. Go over it in your own time, without the player badgering you, and make your decision. At that point, tell 'em it's final.
The GM has the final call, as long as it isn't plain wrong.
As far as rules lawyers and rules gurus go, I agree that my interpertation is that of sitting around waiting, while 2 people argue over something inane.
When I first started playing DnD (3rd ed) I was joining my brother in law. He and his friends would get together and play Friday night to Sunday afternoon, once every month, month and a half. They probably wasted about 1/3 of the playable time arguing over what rule is right or wrong.
Been playing 4th ed almost every weekend since it came out. There have been a number of corrections but, I have done my best to help learn the rules properly and keep the game flowing. I hope that my GM would agree but, not sure on how polite he is being as well. If I discover a mistake made on a previous ruling I will let him know for next time. I don't insist on fixing something that happened last round.
The game is about the Players NOT the DM.
That said, if a rule is obviously unfair, it is the groups responsibility to decide to make it a house rule.
An aficionado knows he is right, mentions the GM's mistake and then shuts his mouth regardless of what the GM decides. If the GM chooses the incorrect course, the aficionado talks to him again after the game.
The rules lawyer knows he is right and spends the next 30 minutes brow beating the GM proving it.
I will be looking for the best option. Period. Given that my knowledge of the game is based on the rules, sometimes that means that I'm going to be using the rules in a way that others deem "inappropriate."
I expect the same from my DM. While the monsters may not know about turns and cover penalties, they're going to be acting in their own best interest. If that interest is better served on occasion by making decisions that could be considered meta-gaming, that's fine. I'll write it off to some fluff aspect of the story ("the troll hooksteps left to avoid your blow"), and move on.
Both sides are using the same tools, they should both be prepared to use them to the fullest extent possible. I don't condone blatant twisting of the rules, but if you are acting in good faith I personally feel this makes for a very enjoyable experience.
This is the "perfect storm" kind of result, though. If I find myself in a group that doesn't think that way, I back it off. When in Rome and all that. I have a way that I prefer things to be done, but my desires must be secondary to those of the group at large. Especially given the fact that if they're not enjoying themselves I'm probably not enjoying myself either.
The rules lawyer knows he is right and spends the next 30 minutes brow beating the GM proving it.
I think that this is a bit of a difference in definition.
I definitely consider myself to be a rules lawyer, but in the games that I'm not actually DMing, I'm generally the DM/GM's best friend at the table. I know the modifiers, I know the skill applications, I know the movement rates/damages/etc.
It really comes down to whether you use your powers for good or for evil. ;)
If I honestly forget a rule? Fine. I'm human, I make mistakes, yadda yadda yadda. I will usually go, 'Gosh, you're right! Thank you!' because I'd rather know I'm wrong than not.
But I'm the DM. If I say, "No, I am playing that differently.", that's my right. If I go, "This is my final call on the subject.", the final call on the subject has been made. I don't have to get every house rule or call I make pre-approved by the group, and if it comes up, I'll make it clear. If you waste any more of our friends's time debating the minutiae of a rule in an obvious attempt to squeeze every last drop of advantage out of the thing, I'll say your character's spending the turn hesitating or thinking, and move on to the next person in the initiative. If you then go and keep interrupting the other players's turns, I will headbutt you. I'll do it, I'm kind of crazy.
Generally, I try and make sure there is a rules-intense challenge once in a while so the requisite group rules lawyer can feel awesome-that goes under the header of 'Making sure your players get to do things they like.'. Speaking as a DM, it's a lot easier to think, 'Oh, I should make time for ' if I do not have to spend twenty-five minutes a session convincing said player that, yes, it is okay that I decided this roll was athletics instead of endurance or acrobatics(bad example, sorry).
Gave up reading, but hopefully the conclusion reached is that you ready a Standard Action, not a Move Action, and that even if you allow readying a move action, you have to suffer the attack in order to trigger the action.
Charging is a standard action.