I remember another vid talking about this: rule lawyers only rule lawyer when it's to their benefit. They can conveniently forget the rules if it means they can get an extra attack off, but when a monster does it to them, the wall of citations comes out.
I say are you sure the most, it was hilarious once when a player wanted to rip open a bag of holding in midair(they stole a buttload of them as saddlebags for their winged mount) she immediately said yes then her face immediately after like split second after the words left her mouth her entire face contorted and just screamed "oh f**k what have I done" . Truly beautiful, its great cuz I told her what happens when you do rip a bag of holding a couple of weeks beforehand when she stole the bags of holding
When players cheat, and cheese everything, and the dm doesnt lay down the law. Somehow im a rules lawyer for pointing out that a level 3 wizard cant cast level a 4 spell.
@@apj018 lol that reminds me of a campaign when me and my buddies were a party that scaled over a city wall to discover they weren't keeping us out, but had quarantined the whole city. Zombie outbreak! So in the end, or start... we split the party up. 2 people were debating on either crucifying or barring the windows and doors to then burn the house full of villagers/survivors. (1st idea was the blackguard, 2nd was the druids...) then compromised and did both. While I was looking around, I a 2-handed fighter whose looting a house like a brigand encountered a wave of zombies that heard my commotion. When I spotted the zombies I thought I'll jump out a window... too bad they were on the 2nd floor. So I used a swing of grestsword to bust a chunk of roof open. (Good Quick thinking Brain) and ended up on top of a house full to the brim with zombies until my party member a gnome wizard lit the house on fire thinking it'd work. Long story short. Zombie outbreak in a quarantined city that we forcefully entered. Split the party for me to ended up on a burning house full of zombies. Only...for m to jump off the two story building take 20 damage and *PUNT* the gnome 30ft or so away knocking him unconscious until I dragged his body back to the Chapel (safe point) Definitely a Wild World out there
@@Technotoadnotafrog same reason why my group, which consists mostly of people in STEM fields or still in college for STEM, minimizes the amount of math we have to do. We don't track carrying capacity, we just agree to keep the amount of stuff we carry within reason. We don't track arrows. And one advantage of having to use Roll20 because COVID won't let us meet in-person is that macros automate most of the bonuses, sums, etc. Only things we keep track of are hit points and spell slots. Because the last thing any of us want is for the game to feel like more work.
I've been in a party with 2 rules lawyers. Last session before I quit was 12.5 hours long. DM wanted to do one last fight before we quit. It lasted 4.5 hours. I moved once and did about 3 rounds of combat. I wanted to slit my writs.
@@Mr_Maiq_The_Liar Useful in some situations maybe. But its a concentration, and every turn the person it's applied to doesn't get damaged it gives no effect other than the immunity to fear which really isn't worth wasting a spell slot in the early game for and in the late game you'll have better stuff to cast.
Dude. A DM, want to makes us belive that "Inmune to charm" it is equal to "All the spells of The School enchantment doesnt work in him" and that is bullsheet
@@Mystibump Pretty much. I understand people getting annoyed at rules' lawyers for disrupting the flow of the game, but most of the time the whining comes from DM's who didn't read the PHB and have prepared their "owshom dunjeon of dyuummm" with puzzles and encounters that are easily bypassed by cantrips, or who expect their players to solve all the encounters with fights and they come up with extremelly creative ways to win.
@@TheBayzent Yeah I like that people are willing to call out rules lawyering, but at some point I think it got out of hand and now just knowing a rule or correcting something so it doesn't break the game is enough to have people pick up pitch forks and torches to run you out of town. It's why I hate people always talking about "Rule of Cool" while it's not inherently bad, I think people tend to use it way over zealously, when it comes down to it the rules are a way to facilitate a fun and fair game, not a hurdle to overcome. Knowing the rules and calmly and non-intrusively reminding people of them in times where its a big deal are not an issue. The "Rule of Cool" should really just be re-branded to "don't be a dick"
A librarian who knows the rules extensively can be a valuable asset if their expectations are set correctly by the DM A lawyer who tries to manipulate the rules to their advantage has been the downfall of many a game
In page 4 of the Dungeon Master’s guide, it says “...the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.” Yes, I just Rules Lawyered the Rules Lawyer
DM making up rules as they go instead of informing players at session zero about their ridiculous homebrew so the players can make an informed decision to play or not. I play 3 table games and none of them have what I call, "stupid, needlessly complicated BS homebrew". I can handle bonus action for potions or plus 2 attack flanking, but you go beyond that and I start to get twitchy.
3:55 I'm sure the guy with the high STR and DEX character with a bonus on acrobatics, unarmed combat and animal handling doesn't mind the scrawny scholar rule-of-cooling that move...
This. The fact is the rules are there to keep the game balanced. It's not the job of any player to make sure the rules are being followed. The GM should know that the chance of a skinny wizard pulling off that stunt is low, and he should make it appropriately challenging.
@@harmonlanager2670 My priorities are to have a satisfying game. That means, among other things, that characters are limited in what they are good at. Someone doing something they shouldn't really be able to is fine when they managed to roll good enough. But if they do it by removing one of the constrains that make tabletop RPGs so interesting, then I have less fun. In fact, not a single one of my many amazing memories has come from selectively ignoring or bending a rule that was in the way of somone doing something cool. But there are some that only exist because bending the rules was not an option.
Which is why what the DM allows varies from party to party. If there is someone with such a skill set you stick with the rules. If your running a group where nobody has anything near such an amazing skill set allow it.
"It's an elephant with a beholder's stats" LMAO Tbh that sounds fucking great actually, like a super powerful demon elephant with 10 trunks that shoot rays out at you. That would be terrifying!
A story told in three parts. Some background: DnD is a big special interest for me. I memorize about... let's say 85% of the rules? Yes, this does include a lot of class features and traits. It helps that I play a lot of different classes too. I basically play DnD with the same circle of 10 friends, and we just rotate out who DMs. This obviously isn't the perfect analogy, but it gets the point across that I play with my DMs, I DM my DMs, and I DM fellow players. The story: 1) The level 6 druid, played by my friend who DMs me in a game where I play a druid, attempts to Wild Shape into a flying creature. I point out to both the player and the DM that this druid isn't a high enough level to fly, but leave it up to the DM if she wants to rule of cool it. The player corrects their mistake (and teases me a bit for knowing the rules Really Fucking Good) and the end result is the same either way. Yay! 2) Later, that player DMs me! I play a druid! Oh irony! We're fighting a young blue dragon, and my druid is notorious for having No Fucking AC or HP. I am at seven hit points. The dragon hits me twice, and the DM obviously rolls enough damage to knock me down... buuut I point out that the damage of the first hit is important, because if that knocks me to zero, I automatically fail two death saves. They roll seven damage for the first hit. So I'm down two death saves. 3) I roll a three on my turn. And that is how I, with a bit of poetic irony, rules lawyered myself into my own grave. **and i'll do it again**
No, you were only down one save after the dragon's turn. When you're knocked to zero, you don't automatically fail a death save. It is when you take damage after being reduced to zero that you fail a death save. Unless you were 10ft or higher when you got dropped or you got critically hit on the second attack, that attack was your first failed death save and the one at the start of your turn was your second. The rules lawyering killed you because you got the rules _wrong._
I plead guilty - a friend of mine ‘accidentally’ chose 2 sorcerer archetypes claiming Draconic was their ‘origin’ and Shadow was their actual archetype. I tried to tell him he was wrong but he wasn’t having it
That sounds less like you are trying to rule lawyer and more like to are avoiding someone from cheating..Pretty big difference but I mean in the end it is up to the DM but truth is that having two archetypes is really freaking strong and most likely shouldn't be allowed in most games.
@@noshavenohaircuts Why do you think fun is the same for all? I have fun solving problems in limited by known laws environmets. I don't see major difference between stacking temporary hit points and rolling d5000 instead of d8 on your hit for damage "because it's much more fun", unless before the game it was explicitly told.
Fighter's Turn: "I don't know what to do, he's out of range of my rapier." Me: "You are an eldritch knight, you have magic missile, the fuck you mean he's out of range?" Fighter: "Oh yeah i have spells..."
I feel like they failed to mention that it depends on the playgroup. If someone who wanted to 'rule of cool' tried to take over the table that my mechanically inclined friends and I were playing at, I'd be pretty annoyed. There is absolutely a table for any kind of player, and i believe we as enthusiasts shouldn't imply that any particular style is 'unfun'. We should instead, find a way for them to be included in our hobby, even if that means finding them the right table.
Rule of Cool should TYPICALLY allow you to massage the rules, not ignore them. If someone gives a very convincing speech, alright fine no diplomacy roles... But if someone wants to jump off a roof, kick a guy off a horse, then use that horse to chase someone down, maybe just make it one roll at least.
I'm always having to remind my buds they have an extra attack. Even though they have like 3 attacks they can do a turn, they only use one. So frustrating
Majority of what I see called rules lawyering is when a spell or ability suddenly doesn't work when the DM wants things to go a certain way and gets called on it. Like for example Greater Restoration not curing petrification or regenerate not growing a limb back, all of which really sucks if nothing stopped the spell from working before and the players are high enough level to handle even divine intervention.
@@HK-fk6th I mean, the randomness and the rules define a story. Just imagine if suddenly the knight who got stuck on a well can suddenly jump higher and gets out of it. That would be abnormal, as this knight has far too heavy armor, and even naked he can't jump that high up.
I must admit that I am a Rules Lawyer. I follow the rule of cool (that is the most important rule) but I like to stay within the confinds of the rules. For example, concetration checks and dmg resistances are something that even as a player I will constantly remind everyone of, when it comes up. Also death saves.
Then there are the players who use their knowledge of the rules for good: "wait, [spellcasting player], [really useful spell that will help us survive the encounter] takes a bonus action to cast, so you can still cast it on this turn!" And that's how only two of our party's members died in that encounter
Yeah, no sweat, almost every example is either players cheating and being salty they were called out, or the DM changing the rules of the game without telling us.
If they let me get away with that even once I would abuse it for the rest of the game. Right before the boss I'd stack as many hit points as I can and go in like the Terminator.
He was indeed. Choosing to just flat-out not enforce that rule at that moment would either mean 1) throwing the rule out the window entirely and wrecking the game balance, or 2) setting the precedent for selectively enforcing the rule. The latter, unless done carefully and in the right circumstances, can have a variety of unpleasant consequences. If there's no apparent rhyme or reason to when it's enforced, then the rule becomes a wild card that can mess up the players' ability to gauge the difficulty of the game and situations. If it's ignored whenever it would make things go bad for the players, then it can remove the sense of danger from the game and make it feel like the players' choices don't matter as much (since they now have the makings of a "DM-enforced safety net" waiting to discard the rules for them when they get in a tight spot). A better option (in my opinion) would be to find a story-plausible reason to bend the rule. For example, someone might suggest: "Okay, what if you cast the spell as the elephant is in the process of dealing damage? Have the spell take effect JUST as the elephant breaks through the existing temporary hit points, but before it reduces your standard hit points to zero." This would result in the same in-game outcome, but it would be semi-plausible and allow the player that one last chance to make a stand. Or, better yet, just tell the caster, "Wait! Use a normal healing spell instead!" (Assuming he has such spells, of course.)
I think it could be selectively enforced, if the players aren't abusing it. I'm pretty sure there's some Eldritch Invocation that lets you cast False Life at will, so having that without Temp HP limits would be pretty broken.
@@stormyperson44 Selectively enforcing rules is generally not a great idea. no matter what happens, if a GM's ruling is changed more than once stuff like that begins to fall apart. Or worse, GMs could unconsciously be practicing favoritism.
Ah yes my favorite D&D person, rules lawyers. I have a very distinct memory of our rule lawyer who, after being strict about the rules the last 3 sessions, got upset at our DM because the DM explained how a spell worked. He said and I quote " stop trying to explain how it works to me, it's very condescending". The guy was a condescending hypocrite
Yeah, out of all the hypothetical examples he gave, that one actually bothered me. Like, nobody's paying attention so the action economy is swung in your favor.
Players do this all the time, knowing it's wrong, because the DM missed it. Face it, if players want to cheat, having one honorable player there, that person will be shamed as a rules lawyer until he shuts up or leaves.
Hot take: I think that series of rolls necessary for commandeering a horse being ridden by an opponent sounds pretty cool. It makes a lot of different skills/stats necessary, rewarding the player for finding a use in combat for skills like Acrobatics or Handle Animal, while still making the challenge appropriately difficult.
I would probably allow the player to choose between acrobatics or animal handling. You're either acrobatic enough to make the other rider take the blunt of your fall damage instead of the horse, or you're later able to manage the horse despite the damage it takes. Nothing can make you bypass needing to shove off the other rider with athletics but a good acrobatics roll on your landing might carry over here, giving you advantage on your shove check
It also gives multiple ways for the player to succeed or fail, and the encounter changes entirely based on what they failed in. Sure, maybe they got on the horse and threw off the rider... but now the horse is pissed, presenting a new challenge that the player needs to try and manage. If they play stupid games, they win stupid prizes... unless they do it really well, and then it's a super cool moment that is appreciated specifically because of how bad it could have gone. Having a player that constantly tries to do the coolest things they can think of regardless of what the rules and their character's limitations state is possible just isn't fun to play with, and if they aren't given limits, they'll keep escalating while the people trying to just enjoy the game as a group gets left behind.
I don't disagree with you, but I do think that there are situations where, if nobody knows the exact rules off-hand, then for the flow of the game, it's not always a bad idea to make something up on the fly, as long as you understand the core of the system and why the rules are the way they are. It's just like music; you have to know what the rules are to break them. Cause I can definitely see it going poorly by winging it, but at the same time, it can also make for the best adventures overall.
@@codyramsey7217 I appreciate your polite reply, and that's definitely a good point. The way the video framed that moment, it sounded like the point was that having to roll all those checks would be obnoxious, where I think it would be fun.
You're not wrong, but something to keep in mind is the more rolls you make a player make, the less they'll succeed. Don't Stop Thinking did a video simply looking at a fighter with a decent Strength having to succeed on three Athletics checks in a row. One they can succeed on just fine, but having to succeed on more and more just makes the result that much more difficult to hit, and if your player succeeds on every check except the last one and that last failure throws it out the window, your effort feels wasted. If I was running that exact situation, I'd say Athletics to make a combination jump and shove, and then Animal Handling to keep the mount steady. Succeed on both of those rolls and you get your cool moment. Make one but not the other and maybe you can salvage it, or hold the L. Fail both and things get rocky for your hero.
I find myself Lawyering because I crave consistency. If you said drinking a potion was an action last session, but a bonus action today, I'll point it out; to my own detriment. (Also see, "Guy who says we have homework to teacher who forgot.") But like the video shows, it's best to defer to the DM to make the decision and roll with it (ha).
I would fall in this category but I I have a good reason for it, we are playing D&D, not "some dude weird mix of rules RPG". The rule are there for a reason, because they bring balance. Every weird OP build I have seen as a PC or GM were only viable because they were forgetting half the rule to make those character work.
Agreed. I hate when people respond to rules statements with "the DM can do whatever he wants!" without telling me in advance of the change. DM Fiat is not a replacement for knowing the rules.
Table full of rules lawyers is glorious though. Especially when the rules are slightly ambiguous, and completely different rules are brought up as precedent It's fun, ok?
For the Player/cliff/horse rider scenario this is how I'd run it. Roll for acrobatics - if the player gets a decently high roll I'd mitigate an amount of fall damage and if it's a super high roll even consider giving advantage to the strength contest in dealing with the rider. If the player manages to knock the rider off the horse. The horse is going to panic and run in a random direction taking the player along. Allow the player to use a reaction to attempt animal handling to keep it from running wildly. If that check fails make the player do another animal handling check on their next turn if they wish to stay on it. If the horse is unable to dash I'd also allow animal handling checks from the player to make the horse dash anyways. That's how you use the rule of cool without throwing away half of the rules in an established game with consequences. Scenarios like this can be played out like a one player skill challenge. Each check adds another level of risk and excitement for EVERYONE at the table and even if they're unsuccessful in completing everything they wished it doesn't have to be a disaster or a slog.
My only changes would be its acrobatics or athletics (acrobatics for a nicer and well placed jump, athletics for just brute forcing it using the rider to stop you instead) and they're forced to instantly make an animal handling check like you would with a dex save vs most spells
@@InviWasTaken not only that but there would not be any requirement for another check to make the mount dash...ironically, in the RULES for Mounted Combat if you are in control of your mount it will move as you want it and can take 1 of 3 actions, Dash, Disengage and Dodge. even with a lot of looking into the rules for mounted combat due to a character i was playing and such, we still made a homebrew for it to allow some fun/'reality' where i could use my action whilst mounted to use my Warhorse's charge. very minor and usually less effective than simply getting in close and cleaving away beyond possible chance to prone the target on hit, but made sense, wasn't op and was more options ^^
I don't like the example you gave with Temp HP stacking, since changing or ignoring that rule would really be a houserule or DM grace, and not a rules lawyer's fault. In those circumstances it's up to the DM to say "Yes, that is how it usually works, but not right now/at my table". If you ignore or feign ignorance of rules to your advantage, that makes you a rules lawyer too.
You would have to answer the question of why the villain who is well aware of the heroes fighting their way to them through his own stronghold would not greet them in the boss room with temp hit points stacked sky high. Multiply that by every villain through the rest of the game.
randomvideocommenter exactly and not to mention letting temporary hit points stack is extremely dumb, all it takes is a warlock with at will false life and in 1 hour his temporary hit points will be more than a tarasque. Though I get it was just an example, it was a poor one.
Hey. Hey. Hey guys. MAKE A RULE WHERE TEMP CAPS INSTEAD OF CONTINUOUSLY STACKING. IT'S THAT EASY. NOT TO MENTION THEY'D GO AWAY AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AND IT'D BE A WASTE OF SPELL SLOTS/ABILITIES.
Mythicalthings warlocks get false life for free. If you just allow them to stack 5 times the warlock will at level one have two to three times the hp of the groups fighter lol. Also, stacking effects are generally not in the spirit of 5e. Nothing stacks, pretty much. That is deliberate.
What's so bad about the temporary HP example? It's an often forgotten rule so I wouldn't mind a player throwing in that specific reminder. It's short to describe and likely to come up again. As a DM I can always go "Does anybody care? No? Alright, neither do I! Temp HP stacks". At least I'm given the option to go "You're right" and possibly avoid future abuses of stacking temporary HP, because that's definitely something that can be abused. NO ONE is meant to remember all the rules of D&D. Not the DM. Not the Rules Lawyer. Still, players assisting the DM and respecting their authority can hardly be seen as an issue as long as they have a sense of timing. Rules provide a needed degree of consistency. The rule of cool is, well, cool, but it's best reserved for moments that are hard to repeat. Otherwise the cool just becomes the mundane.
I think you missed the point of that sketch. If he hadn't said anything they would have survived the encounter and not ended the encounter with a TPK. But due to mentioning the rule, he screwed the whole party over. Nobody was trying to deliberately cheat, it simply slipped their minds that temp hp doesn't stack. (Even the DM was like, really? You just had to mention that now?) It's best to wait until after the session/combat to mention that rule in this situation. Unless you honestly think the party would rather die due to 2 hp not existing, and it would be more fun. Yeah a little mention of the rules like that is fine usually, but consider the situation first.
It actually did not slip my mind :) Again, the DM is within his full right to grasp onto that misunderstanding of the rules and say "Does anybody care? Neither do I! The party lives. The rules we've used until now are are THE rules of our game and we'll continue with those". To pretend like the blame is on the player, who merely mentions the rule, is to pretend the dungeon master is a slave to the rules rather than to what makes his players have fun. It's like when a player goes "Sorry, guys. We all hate it, but it's what my character would do" Also, when a ruling is going to have severe consequences (a TPK certainly falls within this category.), then it doesn't really make sense to wait with bringing it up until after the fact where verisimilitude has already committed to. Imagine if the DM and the group cared about following this ruling about temporary HP stacking and then learned they had cheated death. What then? Retroactive heart attack? I get your point. Maybe the group thinks they would have had the most fun if they didn't know they had "cheated"? Still, I always favor informed decision making and that's all this was: the mentioning of information we can use when deciding on a ruling. Also, can you see the hypocrisy if the group thought this player needed to shut up about his knowledge and pretend as if the rule doesn't exist just because everybody else would be incapable of pretending like the rule didn't exist if they knew about it?
@@oOPPHOo There's a simpler way, he just needs to withhold until after the session/combat and then mention it and everyone goes "oh yeah, well now we know for next time".
@@futuza It's neither simpler nor better than going "here's the information relevant to the situation _now_. What do we want to do with it?". Imagine if the group cares about the rule and wouldn't have wanted to survive based on something that goes against what it says in the book. If you wait until after the fact, that's going to be an annoying situation. You want informed decision making and that means giving out the information relevant to a decision _before_ the decision is made.
@@oOPPHOo Generally I'd agree with you, but when you know that by mentioning the rule there and then, the entire party will be TPK'd I'd say its probably not worth mentioning. Is it cheating? Maybe, but you'd essentially be ruining the rest of the other player's fun. Its a hard decision to make and has to be done with care based on how well you know the other players. In this specific situation its done poorly because no one is happy with him afterwards. In other groups it might be the right decision to mention it, they might feel like they cheated if it wasn't mentioned and be upset with the rule lawyer player. It all depends on the dynamics and atmosphere of the group. This is usually supposed to be the DM's job yes, but you have to consider the kind of influence you have over the rest of the group as a mere player as well. I wouldn't fault the guy for mentioning it like happens in the video because its understandable (and it might even be me that mentions something like that!), but I think the point really being made in the video is how important it is to read the situation of the group and how the rules pale in comparison to when fun for everyone will be compromised.
9:36 i had a game where the dm'd heavily favored a girl who was playing with us so me and my friends were forced to browse the internet while they continued playing their own singleplayer campaign , pretty sure the dm was hardcore crushing on her.. it wasn't until like 30 minutes later than the girl became self aware and realized she had just taken over the whole game but it was too late as soon as they wrapped up we handed in a quest and stopped playing anyways, me and her have been dating for over 3 years now
I Have become a rule lawyer because my DM literally doesn’t know the rules. He has actually told me he doesn’t read them, he skims through the rules and spells. One time we fought wisps, they were healing 13 hp ever turn when we were at lvl 2, we were fighting 4 and we had to ohk them or they wouldn’t die. Turns out they only heal after they kill a unconscious creature. Anytime I cast a spell he just assumes what the spell does and doesn’t bother asking me what the spell does, when I have it right in front of me.
I'm a bit of a rules lawyer and the best way I can describe the reason for it is that I kinda feel cheated when I'm the only one seemingly following the rules and the DM is making it up as they go. I feel you can still do cool shit within the rules and to me you aren't thinking hard enough SOMETIMES when the only cool thing you can think of would require you to break said rules. If a character dies cos we followed the rules, that's the true story. If following the rules gets us a TPK AND my most favourite character I've ever made is brutally dismembered then so be it because thats the true story. I dunno if you understand me thus far but to simply it. I feel cheated when I'm doing cool stuff in the rules and everyone doing cool things outside the rules essentially makes something I've done pointless. And I feel that sticking to the rules regardless of what happens allows us to have a truer story. Which I'm all for. (DISCLAIMER: rule of cool is still used by me when I DM but provided it still fits within the basic frame of the game. I.E. you roll to determine uncertain actions and in combat you can't do more than an action and bonus action
I believe it also allows for interactions with one item as long as it is nonmagical like opening a door and moving through it or drawing a sword from a scabard.
Yep, pretty much this tho, to be fair beign romanian i have precious few opportunities to actually PLAY the damn game (like noon in the us on a saturday or like 7am-12pm on a week day) because time zones, on roll 20, "nobody" here plays physically i dont know if theres even a store that stocks the physigal books. So i spend 90% of my time "interacting" with the game reading the pdfs. Now out of the 3 times i HAVE played my gms wheeere playing on hard lets just put it that way. In one instance of Phandelver, you knew that pit trap in the bandit hideout? The one on the east of the map thats JUST a pittrap? HE PUT A TRANSPARENT OOZE IN IT. "Traps arnt deadly enough 90% of the time its just dex save or minor damage". An awsome move to be sure but such an easy tpk if we didnt have the means to deal with it. He also made us use carry weight and neutered racial darkvision. Dude made some awsome tweaks to phandelver tho and his storytelling was on point. My point is he made the game COOL, challenging and interesting via pretty strictly adheering to the rules, and expected the same from us. I still remember those like 6 sessions he DMed fondly after allmost 3 years.
I admittedly used to be the rules lawyer but eventually I realized I was sucking away my own fun too so I learned to just roll with it until the session is over. Now I’m a little closer to the storyteller kind of player :P
EmbreFrosste honestly my friend is like the easiest dm to do this to troll (I usually try and do these actions In jest unless I’m particularly pissed) he just leaves easy to exploit details on everything even in his custom story’s he designed to counter my habits
As a rule lawyer myself, I learned to only address the rules when asked. I had one group that referred to me at least once a session to what the rules are for a thing. That is the only time I would addressed it to others. For myself, I use my knowledge of the rules to prevent errors in my characters' actions from other rule lawyers. Just remember to keep it cool, and address rule concerns with the DM or other players before or after the session to not stop the flow.
I only turn into a rule lawyer when the rule of cool desnt apply and SOMEONE does a HUGE f*ckup. For example casting 3 concentration spells of level 4 while not having any level 4 spells slots and most likely putting the party at a higher risk. And in those cases just a quick nodge in the right direction, mostly in form of a question?
My rules lawyering is getting worked up by this video. I've stopped worrying about players who dont optimize (unless they ask), but not calling out illegal actions can very easily marginalize other players who are actually following the rules. (Obviously dont be an ass about it once you've brought it up though) It feels bad to spend a long time making a heavyweight tank, only to see the Rogue has an AC of 25 because they thought they could add their Dex and proficiency modifier to the plate & shield they're wearing.
To 95% of the comments section: There is a difference between reminders of the rules, and rules lawyering. And it's pointed out in the video. Watch the heckin' thing. Rules lawyering is when it goes too far. When prioritizing the rules gets annoying. Reminding people of the rules is perfectly fine, and often good. People are forgetful, myself included, and we should help each other when we can. And he says in the video that pointing out rules is often good, just don't be a fockin dich'ead. Yes, some of the example skits in this video weren't the greatest for illustrating the point, the ones I've seen pointed out most often are the "Didn't you use your bonus action?" and "Temp HP doesn't stack" skits. But if you listen to the actual words and examples in the video, the parts not played exclusively for comedy, then it becomes clear.
I used to be like this. I was mercifully cured early on by a smart DM who reminded me the game is meant to be fun and emphasized his point with the DM guide... by applying it directly to my forehead. The lesson took and fun was had by all.
I was a rules lawyer, but then I became a dungeon master, for fear someone might mess up everything I loved about the lore. I'm way more chill about it now, and I've learned that maybe not everyone has to do the game exactly how I want them to
I often find myself asking the DM "Do you want to know how this works, or do you have your own way of doing it? Either's fine by me." It's saved a lot of frustration. Just communicate and consider your fellow players before erupting into a know-it-all monologue.
7:45 is totally valid tho. If the DM wants to make sure the dude lives, he has the power to do that. If nobody at the table cares about consistency, then there's no point in having the rules in the first place. But the point of having these kinds of things in games is to add tension and a feeling of "fairness," if you just ignore everything because its convenient then its no different from cheating. "I mean, it sure would suck if we all died to this encounter, right? Well, because I think it'd be cool and it'd all be fun if I crit this big bad guy, I *totally* just rolled a 20! No, I didn't fudge the roll, don't worry about it you rules lawyer" I'm not going to hide and try to deny the fact that a lot of people would define me as a rules lawyer, or that I'm being defensive. I'll acknowledge and embrace that role. But the rules are there for a reason, and people forget things. All the time. When I bring something up, its either to keep my party from doing something we shouldn't be able to do so we have to think of an alternative, or as a *suggestion* to the dm in the event that they forgot something. I never, ever tell the DM that they have to run the game the way the rules say they should, but I try to make sure that they're at least aware of the "proper" way or even sometimes an easier way of doing things before doing an alternative. Because, maybe they just don't know. And with people that I've played with for a long time, (I've only been in 2 groups, and I've been with those 2 groups for years now) we're comfortable enough with eachother that I can bring these things up knowing when its needed or not.
also, as a sidenote, I'm kinda dissapointed in the general attitude being implied here. Character death is an inherint risk when you play, and an important part of the game. The possibility of it adds tension, and death brings a chance for the world around the character to react and grow. Sure, it sucks, but knowing the impact the character's death (or even the party's) has on everyone around them is its own sense of reward. Its not a permanent thing either, you can make a new character. And even in the event of a TPK, that doesn't mean the campaign has to be over. Keep the setting and the world, but have a new party take up the mantle of the fallen heroes, even if its for new reasons. If death is such a big deal that its okay to cheat in order to prevent it, I feel like that says a lot about the kind of game you're playing. You can play that game if you want, but it would feel shallow to me, and not something I'd want to invest hours and hours of organizing and time playing to get into.
@@ihave2cows But what if its like a legitimate fuck up. Character death or a TPK can be really cool and have an impact, but if the DM or the Party fucks up and an amazing character dies from an encounter that's not crazy important, do you just let them die anyways and throw the character away?
@@ageco.6896 so maybe you should be careful and choose your encounters properly? I struggle to believe that an "amazing character" had no option to run from his death.
If your system doesn't let you do the kind've thing you want to do, you picked the wrong system. Either explicitly houserule it or find another one. There are games where dropping 20 feet onto a moving mount , kicking the rider off and riding into the sunset is easy. In D&D, it is not, which is why it's impressive when somebody does it. If I were playing a game where badass feats of badassitude just happen because the GM says so, and because "the story" is okay with it, I'd seriously wonder why I'm bothering.
Or, hear me out. It's possible to just tweak things sometimes and allow people to HAVE FUN. Also, your version of shit isn't always what everyone thinks is fun. Dnd is meant to be tweaked and edited to tailor to as many people as possible
@@nocgenius5255 You can absolutely change the rules, but you should make it clear that changes have been made first. "Hey guys, this is a heroic pulp fantasy campaign and you're playing people like Conan and the Grey Mouser. You're badass enough that if you want to slit an average guard's throat, I'll just have you make a stealth check. " That's cool, and I'd play that game in a heartbeat. On the other hand, if the first sign that we're playing that kind've campaign comes in the middle of the game when the rogue easily pulls off something I thought should be suicidal, somebody hasn't set proper expectations.
@@PopeCocksmoker Yes setting expectations is very important, but saying DnD is the wrong system for that tone or almost any tone is to me inaccurate. DnD (or at least 5e like I play) is surprisingly versatile and can manage a whole host of different stories and tones.
@@eoincampbell1584 That'd be why I didn't say it was. I said that if the game doesn't let you do what you want to do, then you picked the wrong game. 5e can let you d o a lot of things. The GM sets the difficulty, so if you're playing a game where acrobatic stunts are easy for you because you're all wuxia hero types, then acrobatics checks should be DC 10 most of the time.
As long as your rules lawyer is there to, (a) point out inconsistencies in the rules themselves, and (b) provide in-universe examples of otherwise _questionable but not explicitly illegal_ synergies then I don't mind them arguing their case for a pretty busted interaction. One of my favourite moments as a DM was when our resident rules lawyer argued that a paladin-bard multiclass could actually prepare and cast Find Greater Steed as early as eighth character level. I allowed it because paladins do not inherently care where their spell slots come from and they know _all_ their spells all the time anyway (yay for divine casters having the favour of the heavens). But I only allowed it on the condition that he had to convince his patron god he had a dire need of such a boon. One natural 20 religion and dirty 24 persuasion roll later, he had himself that spell. It turns out that even treating a paladin's ability to prepare spells as if they were single-classed has no bearing on what spells they actually know or where their spell slots originate. So it's completely within the realms of _flavour_ that a paladin might be able to prepare spells he otherwise usually wouldn't have the spell slots to prepare as a single-classed character. If a player can argue their case with an in-universe example of the possibility for their proposed interaction, then I'm willing to let them have RAW over RAI. But it's worth bearing in mind that as DM, you're ultimately the judge and jury, and the players are only representing their clients. Now that gives me an idea on how to roll up my next Lore Bard... or should I say Law Bard?
As a DM I follow the most important rule called: “The Rule of Cool” aka. If my Goliath Barbarian wanna pick up ome of the goblins and yeet them at the rest I allow it Cuz that is funny af
I would subscribe to you again for the reference to calvinball. As a rules lawyer, this really cuts man. I try to hold back on using my powers frequently, like you suggested, but I feel that you've displayed rules lawyers without any suggestion for why they can be good. So let me try. Rules lawyers are the best when they help their party members do what they're trying to do, like reminding them of some special ability that they have that makes their current situation easier. It's also best to work with your DM on this, and be there for them when they ask you about a rule. Helping the DM remember small details keeps them out of their reference materials and doing what they do best: tell a story. For instance, text them when they need to be reminded that Ropers have 6 attacks. In fact, text messages help slow down the flow of word vomit to get right to the point.
I have been there with the messages duribg game, and it WILL be akward for the dm to find a place to read something that was sent to them. You simply can't read at the same time so you have to pause to read
@@yargolocus4853, I totally agree. I think this makes the rules lawyer learn to pick their battles, as then the DM isn't discouraged from reading it. Also, text can be read as fast or faster than it's spoken, so it gets their point across faster at a time the DM thinks is appropriate. I'm not saying that it's a viable continuous method, but it is a teaching tool to help them to not firehose people with information. It also makes them consider whether writing this is more important than paying attention, which really cuts the crap down to what's relevant.
Ok, heres my issue: where is the line separating douche interrupting rules lawyers and people who are tired of inconsistencies? For example, am I a bad guy if I point out that our wizard is out of spell slots and shouldn’t be able to cast fireball? Am I a bad guy if I point out when players or npcs actually can reach the target to attack (Ive helped both my friends and my enemies doing this because the people at my table have trouble factoring in creature size, movement, and attack range all in one). Are my friend and I bad guy for making sure things follow the rules the DM themself established? Are we bad guys for not liking when random rules the DM never established or even referenced suddenly benefit a creature, another player, or even ourselves in a way that seems unfair? Are we bad guys for wanting things to make sense and play out in a fair manor? I don’t think so. Its like in a video game when you are reporting a hacker or trying to stop glitches from happening intentionally or accidentally. The only rule lawyers I see as bad are people who are inconsistent or unfair on their own rulings, try to benefit themselves or a specific player, or target another player and try to be a hard-ass on them with rules. Otherwise, i dont feel like we should stop people from wanting a fair game.
Well, I'd say it depends. Rules are important, and if they're rules everyone agreed to follow, then, well, *it's important to follow them.* However, depending on tone, an otherwise helpful player can get really annoying and end up reducing the quality of the experience for everyone else. It's a very fine line, and it depends on the group.
"But Really one of the situations that we need a rules lawyer is when a DM doesn't know anything about the Game, but still wrote an Adventure. Somehow." Geez I never thought I Dmed For RuneSmith.
The best goddamn players are the ones who have done all the research of rules lawyers, but are still down to clown with house rules and the rule of cool
@@grantdalenberg1997 honestly, had a player today know exactly what their spells did. He's relatively new to dnd but he's getting the importance of knowing his character's actions
Sometimes rules can help set expectations for how things are going to work, and it can be jarring and confusing for players when they're outright ignored... or at least for me anyway. It's nice when they're acknowledged but the DM says "I think it'll be more fun this way" and the players agree and that's cool... but when they don't matter at all (and "homebrew" means "whatever I'm feeling in the moment") it can feel a bit like calvinball where the DM's the only one who gets to play. At the same time it's super important for a DM to be able to say "Let's figure out a cool resolution for this now to keep going, roll acrobatics (with a DC 20 or something) to land the horse, then next turn you'll do animal handling to catch up" and kinda improv your way through. If rules are the only way to not feel like it's the DM's game though then the table's kinda already screwed and mb needs to talk.
Oh yeah, no, you are right. I personally? I think that the rule about multiclassing isn't for me. So whenever i multiclass, i just get levels in all my classes at once - retrospectively as well. That way i can be all the classes. That's pretty cool and thus rule-of-cool takes preference.
@Jesse Mathis Thinking about it, it could make for an interesting high-octane campaign. At the start you pick 2 classes and just level them simultaneously. Ofc the characters would be super-powerful, but it would also be less dungeon crawling and more taking armies head-on. Some sort of chosen one / superhero setting maybe.
I would also personally try to think what and how my character would act and if the rules conflict with it (not because I made him broken, but just because I think he would have experience with certain areas) then I would have to ignore the character I made to play the game
I have to admit I rules lawyer in one of two situations: 1. When my friend who is relatively inexperienced is DMing as he doesn't know the rules in the first place, however I always say it's up to him in the end. 2. If it's something I've built a character around, but even then I'll say it's up to the GM, just say it as a reminder. My friend's house rule on the subject is that we can bring up a rule then he'll say his ruling and if we want to discuss it further, to wait until after the session to talk to him personally about it if it's that big of a deal to you.
I disagree. I think the story, and thus the experience everyone has is far more important than the mechanics of how the game is played. After all it's the story the players will be talking about ten years from now. Not the +4 enchantment to the insert weapon here that had x modifier to the creatures saving throw.
@@thewilliamdraven The rules exist to keep the story grounded and to stop players from making their characters into mary sues. It forces them to cooperate and to specialize at certain skills instead of being good at everything. Being able to do impossible acts because they "sound cool" does not make a good story.
@@TheShiz9797 If the rules lawyer is just being a prick about it(example being that 'you must follow the rules, no matter how rigid they are! I don't care if rolling four dice for one little action isn't fun!') Then I have a issue. However if it's just to point out inconsistencies on the DM's part, then i can see where they're coming from. Though they can still be one of the most obnoxious fucking player archetypes to deal with.
@@Kidomaru222 Maybe, but if the rules are broken, then why don't I break the rules too? I don't want to get my guy downed! I'm going to make this """cool""" move to save my ass!
Suggestion: The Comedian. The one who rolls and roleplays what would be funny. They tend to play silly/joke characters (which can still have depth, or end up developing uniquely because a funny story can also get really deep and interesting over time), and when asking the DM if they can do something not explicitly in the mechanics, they give the reason 'because I think it'd be funny'. I'm this and the Storyteller, because my characters have a lot of backstory and lore, even the silly ones, and no matter how tragic the backstory is I'm always making jokes.
I'm pretty lawyery. I also respect that the DM has the final say. As well as respecting that some rules can be changed for the better of the table. Fantastic video
listen buddy. some people like verisimilitude in their games. when something cool happens, it feels a lot cooler when the player/character actually earned it as opposed to just saying "I jump on the dragon and pin its wings, suplexing it out of the air" and the DM going "sure it just works" or "just flip a coin lol" for some people, its more satisfying to strategically put the dragon in a position where you're able to have a chance of suplexing it, and then taking a risk, as opposed to just naming random cool nonsense and getting away with everything because lol xd its awsum
They are probably a minority. The thing is you still make the players make a check or two, but the rules have a lot of limits onto them that makes it way to hard to do anything spectacular. If your forced to make 5 checks over one cool action then your just fucked.
Now if its something REALLY stupid like a weak character trying to suplex a dragon the trick is for your DM to say "you can try, but with disadvantage". Then, unless they double NAT 20's you can say they didn't make it and pretend you have some sort of solid DC written down.
@@ageco.6896 the grand majority of the time, you're never going to have to make 5 checks to do one thing. The example given in the video was an extreme exaggeration. There may be some systems that do, but I'm pretty sure the assumed system being used in most of this guys' videos is 5e, seeing as how he has a couple of series based on it. And on top of that, 5e's rules are pretty fluid and simple. If you'd still rather just cut the rules out, I suggest not using a d20 system at all and just finding an easy game that uses one dice roll for everything in it. If that's the way you want to have fun, its perfectly fine and valid. But D&D was made so people that want these things can have them.
@@ageco.6896 A weak character would already have a hard time just from the fact that they have a low strength score and thusly low athletics check to begin with, disadvantage would just be mean and make things more complicated. And Nat 20s dont guarantee success on skill checks anymore anyways. This is an example of what I mentioned in one of my other comments where alternatives to the rules are actually more complicated than what's already there in the first place.
@@ihave2cows Nat 20's don't guarantee a win yes but there is still a certain...aura to them I guess where the players get hyped up when it happens so usually when making checks my DC tends to be something most characters can reach with a Nat 20 so the moments are as hype as possible (provided its not a competition between two people making checks, then the Nat 20 does not matter). Also disadvantage doesn't seem very complicated, It seems like something many people tag on to checks if it seems really likely or unlikely story wise and its generally understood. As long as there is a general understanding between every person at a table that your going to sub in a rule there shouldn't really be an issue.
From my perspective 7:41 is ok, whereas 7:54 is not. I tend to do the rule-lawyering thing a lot, often considering that the DM might not know the actual rules from the game that he would want implemented but does not, but I still realize that his word is final regardless of what the PHB says. I like to think that rule of cool should apply to disregard the rules for coolness, but it is important to know your options and what you're disregarding first. Especially considering that from my experience, most of the time, the stuff does not even apply to the rule of cool but a normal, misunderstood moment instead, and it's just an ongoing mechanical mistake in the game that is being exploited because nobody dared think twice it works otherwise. Personally as a DM, being aware of the temporary hit points, I actually disregard their rules in my game and let those stack. But that doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the existence of the rules and I'm doing so by mistake, I am consciously making a choice to implement different rules. And if my players are going to call me out on different rules being implemented that are originally in the game, I might consider what they're saying, but I'm the last person to make the call in the end, so whether the rule applies depends entirely on me. And as a rule-lawyer player I give my DMs such respect in kind, but I'm still calling out if rules are applied differently in the game than they are by the handbook. Besides, rules lawyering might be commonly viewed as unwanted at the table, but I like to think of it as a way to balance the capabilities of the players so that no player feels left out, like they contribute less, because you only allow a quadruple action moment to your party's druid. People often don't want a rule lawyer, but nobody wants a D&D version of Kanye West vs disabled wheelchair basketball team either. That being said, if you are a rules lawyer: keep it short in the game, and remember that DM has the last call on it.
THANK YOU! The rules should be known regardless of whether they're followed, especially for the DM. DMs need to know that they're changing the rules and at least spend half a second of thought about the implications of changing a rule. As a DM I'm grateful for a player correcting me on a rule and as a player I'm making a DM aware that they're staying from RAW or RAI.
While I understand the sentiment, I honestly can't stand when people mention the Rule of Cool because it always gets taken to an extreme when presented in that way. I'd blame Matt Mercer, but the video that led to a wildfire of this trope actually DID warn about overuse. I think the best example for the faults in leaning towards the RULE OF COOL is the common RP issue on what to do about diplomacy checks. Let everything come down to a dice roll and a player's RPing doesn't matter, penalizing those who enjoy their RP being the main influence in a social setting. Ignore the dice roll, and suddenly the Barb is the face of the group because the player is skilled, and the guy who made a Charismatic character to do what he can't is punished. Because thier skills don't matter, and even if you let them roll it doesn't matter because the other guys gets the same benefit without having to sink any points. It's the same with the RULE OF COOL. Let everyone do what they want for little to no cost because it'd be cool, you penalize those who invested the skills to do it, because in the best case scenario they still had to sacrifice skill/stat points to do what the others could easily do while investing in other things. Stick too hard to the rules and some people (especially newer ones) will be penalized for not having the experience/time to know the system well. I personally believe you need a balance of the two, a balance which changes depending on the group.
I'm just fine with technical leveling/character rule lawyering (usually) , my biff is people who cheat on the roleplay side of things. If your character has an int of 8 you've got to roleplay it, and stop metagaming with your real life int of 18. If you took a vow of honesty you can't just break it willy nilly, just cause it would be convenient for the party. If your're a druid who abhors metal, why aren't you acting like it? Carrying around a bag full of metal is just wrong for your character regardless of how much that +3 platemail is worth etc.
Maromania my understanding of “Rule of Cool.” Is a one time boon granted by the DM. We had a Pathfinder game where our Volcano Oracle had a once-a-day ability to explode that he had used earlier. Later on we ran into a goblin camp and he used Disguise Self to turn himself into a goblin. He pretended to be wounded, got taken in by others and the DM allowed him to use his explosion again just because it would be cool. Nobody got cucked out of skill checks and it was fun for the table to see.
I'd like to hear why you almost blame Matt Mercer. He very much so does not just allow the "Rule of Cool." He sticks the the rules and non-metagaming pretty consistently.
@@Klespyrian "I'd blame Matt Mercer, but the video that led to a wildfire of this trope actually DID warn about overuse. " Matt's one of the primary factors in the D&D boom, and as stated, one of the videos he made in the opening rush of this was on the rule of cool. As I said, I DONT blame him because that video did specifically warn against overusing it. but I WANT to because, no matter what warning he inserts, he just introduced the concept to a lot of people who normally wouldn't have done it until they were more experienced and able to use restraint. so no matter what he meant by it, he was one of the reasons it became rampant. If a GM just makes a change to the story on his own, it's something they recognize as against the balance of the game and to be used sparingly. but if a GM or player HEARS someone else they trust or admire suggest something, they will usually start doing it, and give it more weight. Now it's not something they're doing themselves, it's something with a seal of approval from someone who knows what they're doing. They don't catch how little he means, or just get caught in the gratification trap that quickly rips the bottom out of the game and either leads them to more RP heavy systems or just kills interest. Matt doesn't use it much in his games, sure. Because he knows what he's doing. But he literally made a video that introduced the concept and recommended sparing use to people who DONT know what they're doing. And so the concept spread through the swarm of people who got into this because of him and revitalized the brand.
The rule of cool should MASSAGE the rules not ignore the rules. As for Matt not using the rule of cool, ohh he certainly does use it more than you might spot... the difference is he uses it correctly... to smooth out the rough edges of what would otherwise be too complicated or too harsh of a situation.
@@gxgycf8348, except every time someone asks what a rule or spell is and they rattle it off the top of their head, thus preventing everyone from having to look it up. No one remembers those moments of rules lawyering, because they happen several times a game.
@@carsonrush3352 That's why i said "Remembered". No ones going to remember the one or two times someone saved everyone 3 minutes by recalling the name of a spell or rule, everyones going to remember the time someone spent 30 minutes bickering over rules disputes so that they could get their way. Call it selective memory, but on average the total benefits to the group by rules lawyering are usually outweighed by the amount of fuss rules lawyering can cost everyone who's gathered there specifically to have a fun time.
@@gxgycf8348, 3 minutes saved 2-3 times per session pays for the the occasional 30 minute argument in 4-5 sessions. A good rules lawyer also remembers the most important rules: the DM decides the rules, fun comes first, and rule of cool. Finally, the game wouldn't function without rules, which someone must read and thus become "a rules lawyer". Every memory you have of D&D, for better or worse, exists because of someone that understood the rules.
I really like the Angry GMs approach to this. player declares action, GM thinks if this is a situation with a pass or fail, what rule is best if it is, then calls for a roll. the player rolls, the dice land, and the GM explains what happens based on the result. if the situation doesn't have a fail state, it just succeeds and nothing is rolled. if the GM doesn't want a rule, or simplifies it, it isn't used. the player doesn't use his dice unless its called. he isn't using "rolling for diplomancy", make him roleplay. He's moving his dude in the story according to the world logic, and the GM calls what is rolled or not, and how. important is also that it isn't the player that tells what happens, but the GM. this frees you up so much, because now you can try many different things that aren't defined in the rules but doable in the fictional reality, and the GM can make on the fly calls and CR for these things. like stabbing someones foot to hobble them, or swinging across a chandelier.
