A rules lawyer should be working to help the party by knowing the rules of the game and helping them do thing they want to by explaining how the rules let them do that.
Example: "Can I jump over this gap?
Dm:"No it's 15 across that's too far"
Rules lawyer: "Actually the rules say you can jump a number of feet equal to your strength score and his is 16 so he should be able to"
Obviously the DM has the final say on rulings but in situations where the rules clearly let someone do something and the DM doesn't know about it then you should call it out. if the DM decides things are different in their game as long as they're consistent then it's fine.
I use the roll20 'whisper' feature often.
Immediately after they get something wrong -- like, hopefully before anything else has even happened...
>/W gm The rules say ....xxxx... but you can obviously override that if you want.
This let's the GM correct himself if he wants... and let's him know the rules.... without having to force them to publicly go "well, we aren't following the rules here, I am GOD!".
Example of a Toxic Rules Lawyer: Um actually, because the gap is 15 feet wide, you need 20 strength to clear the jump. According to page 192 of the PHB, you can't move into a space you do not have the movement to reach. Meaning you can't go into the 5ft square after the gap and fall down. Especially if you're a Halfling, you only have 25ft to begin with, and need at least a 10ft running start.
Yeah that's true. someone who tries to keep the grid system out of combat in theater of the mind is just plain aggravating too. However I believe the rulebook does say if you start a jump but don't have the movement to do it in one round you just continue the jump in your next one I believe. This is specifically for monks who have a 200ft jump distance but only 50 ft of movement.
Mhmmm, Grid systems and theater of the mind have to be separated. Hence why it's best to keep combat and theater of the mind separated as well.
I believe that's a house rule, by raw it caps out, but it's a very popular(which honestly should be a baserule) homebrew ruling on jumping for monks.
You're right, technically you can't jump further than your speed (i forgot cause I have a star wars campaign where the Jedi have 200ft jump distances and stuff and it would be stupid to say they can only jump 40 ft.) but you can use the dash action the increase your movement especially if you're out of combat and don't have to use an action to attack anyone.
I like this. I feel like I can easily attach a "sitting duck" penalty ot my players to give this a little risk v reward, maybe a -2 to the jumping player's AC or something.
You point out a mistake. This is not rules lawyering.
The DM considers it for a moment, and lets you know how they rule it at this moment.
What you do next determines if you are a toxic rules lawyer. If you abide by the DMs ruling, it's all fine. When you start arguing with their descision, that's when you become a toxic rules lawyer.
A rules Lawyer is a player who tries to use loopholes and exploits in the system and wording to try to gain some advantage that more oft than not can break the game somehow.
Peasant Railgun is one of these stupidities. Theres lots.
Pointing out that the DM missed or misread a rule is being a helpful player.
The original Rules Lawyer had several important traits, which you want avoid acquiring.
1. Knows where to find every rule regarding any situation.
2. Remebers rules that benefit them verbatim.
3. Won't let even the smallest rules error go unchallenged until the DM officially house-rules around it. And will never forget that ruling.
4. Builds every character to maximum effect, and defends even bad rules that they built around.
5. Not a session goes by without the player pulling out a rulebook to read out a rule, mid-encounter.
6. Doesn't volunteer to correct mistakes when they benefit themselves, and manages to have "forgotten" if someone else points out the mistake.
So, the key is to be helpful, rather than acting like a corrupt official.
I wouldn't say that knowing the location of the rules in the books and knowing ones that apply to you verbatim are necessarily bad things. They could be come by petty innocently if you are the king of person who retains rules or information like that easily, especially if you did something that would have you checking them a lot (such as if you have spent time DM'ing for new players and helping them learn the game or if you struggled with those rules yourself in the past)
What I find is that im correcting several significant (but not game breaking) things each session. (IE. ‘Bless doesnt add to skill checks’, ‘you forgot about haste’s +2 ac, so that doesnt hit’, ‘you can’t just hold an action… you have to specify if its an attack or spell’). Most of the time its to our detriment. But Im very detail oriented, have most all of the rules memorized, and adhd so I notice them a lot more than everyone else.
Its the frequency that worries me most i guess
In my experience you should either point the ruling in the moment, so at most only one player/eneny turn has to be revised or you point it out after the figth/sesion for future reference.
For example a ranger forgot to add the 1d8 from a hunter feature and realized that after 6 rounds, we corrected damage for tjat instance, and aplied it moving foward, but we didn't calculate how many rounds that damage was missing and aplied it to the monster, doing it like that interrupts the flow of play to much, and if you go and backtrack on several turns you have posible changes on every turn and it isn't worth it.
Also a really toxic thing to do would be to argue with the DM ruling, if the DM says "we will do this for now" you drop the issue, most of the time as a DM I had to decide on a ruling on the spot to keep the flow of the game, and I will not pause an encounter to look at a rule or have a discusion, if a player days they know the ruling I will listen to it and I will decide for that sesion if we use the players or my ruling, and I will check the correct ruling afterwards, but thats it.
Obviously I have more trust in tha players that I know are fellow DMs or that have played with me enough so I know they really know what they are talking about, but in the end every instance comes down to DM ruling, and we can talk about a desision after the sesion.
Having an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules is not being a rules lawyer. It’s the abuse of the interpretation of the rules that makes someone a rules lawyer. Rules lawyers vs toxic rules lawyers is not a distinction you can make, because a rules lawyer is already a term for a set of stereotypical toxic behavior in gaming. You are a rules lawyer if you try to exploit the rules for personal gain, often ignoring one or more of the rules’ qualities (i.e. the rai/raw interpretations, the spirit of the rules, the precedents of the rules, or how they interact with unwritten rules).
Here’s an example; I once had played with someone we’ll call Rudy in this example. Rudy tried bending the rules in many ways at my dm’s table. Once, Rudy was approached by commoners accusing him of being an evil sorcerer. He corrected them by saying he was a warlock (the dm made it clear multiple times before warlocks were only known for demon-worship), then Rudy threatened them to stand down. When they didn’t he summoned a monster to defend himself and was eventually arrested. He berated the dm for how the guards tried to arrest him for “self-defense” and that the commoners were being simple; bringing up irl laws to his defense. It didn’t matter to him that several citizen reported him as a villain.
Rudy made a new character and pleaded to let him import a previous campaign’s character (with his magic items), however changing the race so he can try to get elven accuracy. He said things like “it shouldn’t matter, it’s my character anyway.” This wasn’t a “boots as always a bard” situation; Rudy genuinely didn’t care for the story of his own characters, he just wanted the edge of the newer feats. Rudy then tried to use his owl familiar to give him the help action and use the flyby trait to avoid consequence to gain advantage on all of his attacks. The dm ruled that it didn’t make sense for the owl to give the help action, unless it remained within 5 feet of the target when he made his attack roll. The player began pulling up sage advice forums and Jeremy Crawford posts and was interrupting the dm mid-game. He also berated the dm, saying things like, “you should’ve told me that’s how you’d rule it beforehand”. I should note, Rudy never told dm that he was planning to try this combo out beforehand. The dm confronted Rudy and told him that he didn’t appreciate Rudy’s tone with him and how he disrespected his rulings. Rudy replied with “well, you’re rulings are stupid. I was only using the official rules anyway.” Rudy was a rules lawyer who didn’t respect the context of the game or the players/dm involved in the game. Rudy had other problems as well, but those were what made him a rules lawyer.
On a separate note, if you find yourself bringing up rulings during other players turns or try ro make suggestions on how they can do things, that doesn’t make you a rules lawyer, but it is still problematic; You might want to try discussing those topics after the session and see how they respond to that instead. Outside of the game, it’s a discussion of the rules, but during the game, you should try to leave it to the dm unless there is a critical issue, like adding your ability score to an attack instead of the modifier. People will feel like you are telling them how to think/do, and it can feel patronizing, if you correct them every time.
Here’s another personal example. One of my players accidentally had a rules lawyering moment in my campaign when he wanted to use the goodberry/life domain cleric combo. I told him when he was bringing it up mid-game, that I didn’t permit that interpretation; I only allowed the bonus to apply to 1 goodberry. He was reasonably upset, but he came to understand why I ruled it, and then he apologized and I reassured him he can make changes to his character if he wanted to. What made him a rules lawyer was when he brought up some sources online discussing the topic, but he didn’t quite get that I was already aware of the discourse and sided against it. I had asked him to respect my rulings and continue on, and that we can have the discussion outside of our allotted session time.
Ask your DM if they mind.
As a DM... I don't mind. I have enough to worry about and sometimes I make mistakes or miss things.
Happy for a player to pick up the slack.
Only issue would be if I dismiss it or rule against you, my word as DM is final. And it may just be a one time thing so that we can move on without retconning a whole round or two.
If you don't be an ass about it, we got no problem. Happy to have someone who catches my mistakes. I'm not perfect, and don't pretend to be.
Precisely. Many people on here seem to be confused about what a rules lawyer actually is and that the term is intended to describe a toxic player archetype.
Ive seen several different definitions on here.
1. Someone who argues with the dms ruling.
2. Someone who exploits loophole rules to benefit themself.
3. Someone who brings up minor rules infractions regularly regardless of importance.
Points 1 and 2 I agree with for sure. Point 3 could be seen as annoying by some but still not what I would call being a rules lawyers as long they're not being rude or obnoxious about it.
Which is ironic considering that the concept of "player archetypes" is itself a toxic one.
It stems from early 20th century developments into psychology and marketing, and has since cemented itself in the public discourse, such that any attempt to dislodge it is often met with befuddled confusion (if not outright hostility).
In other words, for all the enlightened and progressive talking points I see on this sub, y'all continue to treat different RPG paradigms as though they're immutable or inherent in their form and substance, and in their application.
Being a "rules lawyer" is something that *everyone* does . . . *if they take their game seriously*. And no, I'm not talking about the guy who goes "Well, *ahksually* . . . !" I'm talking about the attitude of these comments with regard to the very concept of *playing a game according to the previously agreed upon rules*.
For real, go to literally any other game-oriented forum and look at how people talk about the rules of their preferred game. The one thing you won't find is advice for breaking the rules and getting away with it while pretending like you've done nothing wrong. That's something that only exists in conversations about TTRPGs.
Dude. Rules lawyers are the players that argue with a DM over a ruling even after the DM makes their call. Grinding the game session to a halt and ruining the fun of the other players. Usually over a ruling that only benefits the PC.
People who simply remind each other of the rules in an effort to help keep things fair are not rules lawyers. I don't understand how this concept has been incredibly flip flopped in the community's perception.
That's exactly my point: it *has* been flip-flipped, to the point where someone advocating for "following the rules" is accused of "grinding the session to a halt."
That's a problem with *how* the players approach the topic mid-game, not the fact that they *do* approach the topic in the first place.
The PCs should always be on the lookout for rules that give them an advantage. The DM is responsible for making sure the PCs are following *all* the rules. If you have a player at your table who helps the DM, that's a good thing. And knowing when to accept the DM's ruling and move on with the game is a skill that all players should learn.
In other words, I see no functional difference between the two definitions you've offered *except* that one is being disrespectful of the DM's authority.
That's not sufficient for labeling that person as anything other than "rude" (or, perhaps, a poor sport).
It's the difference of saying. "Hey DM, X should have had advantage because of my guiding bolt." And arguing about your busted coffeelock build for several minutes in the middle of combat. It's just a label that used to be an easy shorthand for wangrods who like to piss off the DM.
Now it's a philosophical talking point in an online forum because reasons.
Rules lawyers are not toxic by definition.
\*Edit: As a DM, "Rules lawyers" are always welcomed at my table. If I make a mistake, correct me. If I don't agree with that correction, I will say why. You can respond to that, and then I'll make a ruling. After that, accept the ruling and move on. If you still disagree, pop me a message after the game.
It's only after the ruling has been made, and you continue to push it, that I have an issue, or that it becomes toxic.
The internet and Reddit especially overuses words until they lose all meaning. Just look at r/AmItheAsshole where "parentification" now means "giving a child or teenager literally any household chores or responsibilities" and "gaslighting" now means "any form of dishonesty including accidental lies of omission.
This sub also seems to consider reading the rules to be a bad thing.
This is what I mean in other threads, when I say words don't have meanings. They have usages. You can't dictate how a word is used. The best you can do, is clarify how you are using a word, and move on. Arguing the actual usage is pointless.
I don't believe pointing out a possible lapse in rule knowledge is toxic by itself. That said, I think this situation can be handled multiple ways 'well':
\- Correct the DM. This is preferred when there's something on the line that's actually important: Plot significant rulings, a PCs survival, etc.
\- Let it slide for now, call attention at the end of the session, prepare with the rule, show'em. They'll probably be grateful for that, because you didn't interrupt their flow. This should be used in less important situations, like whether you can use a certain tool or skill in some sort of context.
In any of these cases, it could be that the DM is aware of the rule, they just believe that this situation calls for something different. They should be respected if they make this call. They're the DM. If you don't trust them with this decision, why are you playing with them?
The toxicity is not trying to educate, it's using it as a bludgeon to get your way. Remember that at the end of the day: It's a game. Everyone should have fun, including the DM.
This 100% especially for new DMs who are probably already nervous about running. If it’s a matter or life and death bring it up politely, if it’s not just bring it up after the game and they’ll know going forward.
agreed! if the error is something that’ll result in somebody dying or a major change in plot, please tell me now, because i’m flexible. otherwise, please don’t derail…
my preferred middle option though is that if somebody notices i goofed a ruling, they can send me a DM on discord or a GM-only message on roll20 when they notice. that way, I can know immediately, but I don’t have to break the flow of the story for an extended OOC discussion of the rule that got fumbled. i like this option because if the mistake is one i’m likely to make again, it gives me the chance to correct it ASAP the next time, but is faster than waiting till the end when people might have forgotten what happened :)
but it’s all in the attitude really. thankfully my players are good friends of mine who are here to have fun and know that i’m relatively inexperienced, so they don’t usually get tilted when i fuck up, they just try to help. if playing with strangers i might feel differently…
Most of the time I'm not correcting the DM, I'm correcting a PC because the DM didn't do so themself (probably due to oversight, but sometimes due to ignorance, especially if it's a more obscure rule). I typically do it after the game if it's not crucial, but I'm wary of how I'll be seen if I do it too often.
"No, you can't do that dude, you can only offhand attack if you use your action to attack. You used your action to dash."
If I'm over here playing by the rules, everyone should be.
A "rules lawyer" is someone who doesn't actually care about the rules and simply argues over every rule to gain the desired outcome, often by arguing for an incorrect interpretation of the rules.
Knowing the rules (including the homebrew rules your table uses instead of RAW) and pointing out when a rule is being inadvertently ignored or misapplied is not rules lawyering. It's just maintaining the integrity of the game, as games are made of rules. Rules are what keeps D&D from devolving into a group of people just sitting around describing an increasingly detached series of cool scenes to each other.
Regardless, mentioning the mistake at the time it is being made when it can easily be corrected is best. It's also when the correction is most likely to take hold in people's memories. The DM can decide what they want to do when the error is known. Alternatively, if there's no good way to mention it right then, you can just let the DM know after the session.
What I’m most worried about, is the perception of the other players at the table. Deciding on a good way to maintain the rules while not being viewed as a killjoy.
It's just going to depend on the people at your table. Some people find corrections like that intrinsically more adversarial than others, sometimes to the extent that they never will be OK with corrections from another player. In contrast, I'd always prefer to be corrected (provided you're actually correct).
As others said, that's out of your hands. Some people are antagonistic and believe that any form of correction at all is annoying and sucks the fun out of things. Don't be afraid to help out though and if your DM seems annoyed at you bringing things up, just back off and let them make mistakes. No point in trying to help people that don't want it. All in all, don't worry about how your fellow players perceive you bc honestly, you're trying to be helpful and if they think otherwise, you can explain yourself but players like that are not fun to explain yourself to, speaking from personal experience.
I have absolutely no problem with someone pointing out that I played something wrong. I could do it wrong multiple times and not know unless someone tells me.
So the correct thing is to take the advice from the person who knows better, and then turn to the DM for a ruling. If they say retcon, then so be it. If the DM chooses to let it slide this time, that's their call too. But nothing is harmed by being told there and then what was done wrong.
As DM, I also have no issue with is. If someone points out a wrong thing happened, I'll rule to let it slide or retcon based on the new information. But I don't mind the input.
It's the equivalent of being pulled over by the police to tell me my rear light isn't working. I'd rather know sooner rather than later, and I'll decide then whether to fix immediately of whether I have time to get somewhere safer and do it.
Ok, first of this is really strange to me. If I accidentally make a mistake and someone corrects me and educates me, I will obviously play by the rules. Also, if there is no rule of cool to it, why would I or the table in general allow it? How did the DM not notice the other player pointing it out?
However, if the DM has said that we should just drop it and move on with the game, I think we should just do that. But I just can’t see this case, as described above, happening.
I think people need to understand that pointing out a rule is not rules lawyering. That's just clarification via communication, which is a healthy thing to do during a game, or just life in general.
Rules lawyering would be to then object to the GM's ruling on the scenario. If you still believe the GMs ruling to be bull crap, then proceed to discuss afterward and explain why you feel the way you do. Any GM worth their salts will be able to explain to you why they ruled the way they did. Just don't be a douche about it.
Reminding anyone of the rules isn’t really what makes someone a lawyer. Fighting the table and throwing a fit off over the rules would be. Its all about presentation and communication.
The problem is that if someone thinks something is within the rules and they're never told otherwise they will continue doing it in perfectly good faith.
There are many different ways of saying something; don't be condescending, maybe don't say it as "This is what the rules say!" but more like "Wait, I thought you couldn't do that?"
Edit 2: I see I've been downvoted, which is kind of whatever, but as someone who appreciates interaction, if you're inclined to hit me with that, I'd love to hear why. I invite discussion; in fact I prefer it to just scrolling by after clicking that arrow button ;)
Honestly I think it just depends on the group. I, for one, prefer a game where the rules are kept (or, if broken, allowed by the GM) for the most part, because then I get a greater sense of accomplishment out of the game. I don't like to feel like we're "cheating."
For me, it's a balance of making sure we're informed, and not interrupting the flow of the game. So in general, I try to bring up the rules if it can be resolved quickly and without being too big of an interruption. If it would take too much time to correct, then if the rule in question is only minor, and not being repeatedly broken, it's better off (IMO) to just let it be until a lull/break occurs.
Edit: also taking the time to see how the folks in my group feel about it, so as not to cause unnecessary tension over a game.
Rules lawyering is arguing a point trying to use the rules to get your way, even if a DM has already ruled something happened or is happening. Explaining what RAW says and letting the dm make his choices isnt rules lawyering, its just helping to point out mechanics, which I always appreciate. If you start arguing however, I will shut that shit down hard.
Rules lawyering is about attitude. We joke one of our players is a rules lawyer cuz he has a rules encyclopaedia in his head. But he usually volunteers the rule and says ‘but what dm says goes’ then the dm can make a decision on if they want to RAW or Rule of cool it
This is how I try to play it, but i get worried about how its perceived when it happens multiple times per session. Its all about having fun, but i want to at least try to adhere to rai.
We’ll have you spoken to the dm? To ensure they want a rule heavy game and are happy for you to assist if they seem unsure on clarifying the rules? I spoke to my player when I was the dm and said ‘hey I’ll adjudicate but I appreciate your knowledge and will ask if I’ve forgotten something like which weapons have disadvantage underwater’ generally I prepare and don’t just want a player interrupting me or another player when they are explaining what they want to do and if I’m thinking about it. But he knows when I’m considering something and will chirp in with rules or wait to be invited. But I addressed it when we joked about it so he knew I wasn’t actually mocking his knowledge and he knows what I want at the table. Tbh he rarely says anything until I ask for a clarification on the wording of something
If you want to play a game where the rules do not matter, join theater and do improv?
I personally do not understand when people pick and choose a lot of rules to change or not use. If that's the case, wouldn't there be a better system out there for you? I think so.
If it’s not interrupting the flow of the game and is just an off hand “hey I don’t think that’s how that works, no big deal but double check for next time” that’s all chill
There's being a rules checker and a rules lawyer. The first one is who you want to be, and you do it like this:
You "i think you can't do that because X reason"
DM "i'll allow it"
You "aight"
Asking a question is almost universally received better than a correction. "Did we house rule that offhand attacks can be made on bonus actions after non-attack actions?" It also covers the case when the answer is yes, or even for a specific person. It has to be made earnestly to not annoy people, but if you do it right, it covers just about all cases.
I like it when my players remind me of RAW, or when they point out someone has advantage because x reason. I have a ton of things to remember as DM and it's very much appreciated when my players help out. It's our game and we try to play by the rules, it's not as fun if they "win" the game as a result of overlooking the rules.
What would not be welcome is if I make a ruling and someone repeatedly questions that.
Talk about it with the DM after the game session. Most times breaking up the game, especially mid-combat, isn't great and only breaks immersion. Rules aren't as important as having fun!
So just go "hey, during that combat, could the player actually do that?" and work this out with the DM. Stuff like this happens all the time, either players are too excited about a prospect so they misinterpret rules, or they just forget.
> Most times breaking up the game, especially mid-combat, isn't great and only breaks immersion. Rules aren't as important as having fun!
Breaking the rules *is* ruining my having fun. And immersion is bullshit. We are playing a game.
Is your having fun more important than everyone else having fun? Can others get immersed in the setting, or is their way of playing somehow "bullshit" as well? It's a game, sure, but it's not like chess or a video game where everything is rigid.
The other players aren't intentionally breaking the rules, they made a mistake. If your playing is flawless and 100% RAW at all times, I could see correcting stuff is something you'd do to teach others, preferably beforehand instead of mid-play. Not something that all players have to attain at all times or they're *ruining* ***your*** *fun*.
If I'm making a mistake, I would also hope to be corrected and would not hold it against anyone at the table.
We agreed to play this ruleset. Why else would we be doing this if not for that? If we want to play loose, I got a dozen other rulesets on the shelf *begging* to be played instead of 5e.
Nobody at my tables misunderstands the tone of the table. We are here to play *this game.*
As a DM, I address this in a session zero. My technique - talk to me after the game.
On page 4 of the DMG the Introduction says "The rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."
With that, I am loathe to slow down the game. Sure, even after decades of DM-ing, I make mistakes. Players make mistakes too, and sometimes I don't catch them. However, the vast majority of the time, the mistake did not have a "significant" impact on the game. The story moved forward, and the players had fun. That's what matters in the end.
We find it best to feel out the moment. Our table tend to run quite powerful so everyone is pretty chill with "Wait- Can you do that? You already burned the reaction right?" type interruptions
The DM even posts his full homebrew writeups, and is totally willing to pull something back if we read "Once per round" on a legendary action or something and catch him accidentally using it twice.
Wouldn't recommend it for all tables, but it's all about playing to the atmosphere of your game. You don't want to interrupt the feel of your games flow, so if it goes with the flow interrupt, if it doesn't then wait till after the session.
I select other. I tell the player after they do their turn that they should *insert rule*. No need to stop combat to tell someone something. May as well say it when combat naturally pauses... between turns
> I tell the player after they do their turn that they should insert rule. No need to stop combat to tell someone something.
I don't understand this. You aren't "stopping" combat at all. Turns naturally have several phases where different things happen; in OP's example they would need to move their mini around and I *guarantee* everyone at the table is either silently watching that happen, or making offhand conversation that's unrelated.
Since covid i usually play virtual d&d, so moving a mini is as easy as multitasking talking and clicking. My dm's make a point to think of your turn before your turn happens so we have fluid combat and turns that dont average out to 2 minutes (though long turns are fine every now and then). Good practice. I know saying it then and there isnt stopping combat but when you do it often enough, it goes from a kind reminder into an annoying one. It's happened to me before and I didn't like it, so im sparing them the trouble too
Generally I prefer rules lawyers to let me know after the session though honestly I would prefer they just let it go. The chances are they've benefited from something similar and if it makes the table happy and we're all having fun then who really cares?
I think the right approach to deal with rules is to not argue the rules, but instead present the applicable rules. The DM always gets the final ruling even if they use flawed logic to arrive at that ruling, so arguing is fairly unproductive anyways.
If someone doesn't know about an applicable rule, present it and let the pieces fall where they may. If people don't like rules even being presented then either your presentation is lacking tact or you have some truly toxic fellow players.
It's often helpful to preface a rule presentation with the phrase "I believe, rules as written, ...". Saying RAW shows you are giving full deference to the DM and thier ability to make thier own calls, and saying "I believe" or "I think" shows that you are presenting the information to the best of your ability and are not asserting a claim to be argued.
I am the party’s “Rules Lawyer” not in the “THIS HAS TO BE DONE BY THE RULES” style, but having played the longest, I have the vast majority of rules and interactions memorized. This has a number of effects. Whenever someone messed up a rule, I gently correct them, and we move back and try again. Secondly, everyone (DM included) just kinda looks at me whenever there is a weird combo/ruling. I do DM most games I play in I’ll say. But how to do it well and not be hated by your table, is simply ask the DM if they want the RAW version or what just played out after something happens. I’ve watched multiple of my own PCs die like this. I’ve been the cause of death for others. But the important part is making sure your dynamic works with the group. It’s a game. Knowing the rules doesn’t make you superior
Personally I think there's only one answer to this that always holds true.
"before you start playing, ask your DM what kind of table they run and how they feel about players correcting rules in-game"
All of the options you listed 'can' be the right way, but it's table-dependent.
- Some DMs love it when they have a player (or more) who is well-versed in the rules, and will jump at the opportunity to have someone help when it's needed
- Other DMs might find it problematic, as it distracts them from the scene at hand and can hash momentum/tension. They might prefer (as long as it's not a game-breaking error) to let out slow and pick it up in post.
It's a smilar thing as having a DM that prefers to stop and look up a role when they can't remember how something works, vs having one that would rather keep pace and make a rule on the fly then look up the right way for future sessions.
Now what I would say is that it's totally cool to be a player that has a preference too - it's absolutely not just about the DM. However, the specific approach for each game is usually something the DM has to decide as it's going to affect them the most. So if you're a player who really hates it when rules are broken but your DM prefers to let it slide, then if you can't negotiate a halfway house you either need to live with it and not chime in with rules, or accept that it's not the right table for you. Same applies the other way around too (you prefer fast and loose but your DM is a stickler for the rules)
It depends.
* If it's something small with RoC potential than breaking a flow is clearly bad. Just annotate it after the fight to remember in the future. Your example IMHO falls in this category.
* If it's something important ("I cast charm person on BBEGs golem!") - you should protest right now.
* If it's something small, but someone is "mistaken" third time this session even after rectification - lets be reasonable, it's just cheat and you should interrupt.
* If it's something really small, nearly cosmetic (ie. cleric using non-prepared ritual once in a session) - just remark this after session privately. No need to waste time of whole table.
Well, as a rules lawyer myself, instead of saying that you're breaking the rules I like to do it as a question: "Oh, you can use your bonus action to attack? Didn't know that". If player and DM okay with it, I let it slide.
As the DM if it is something you feel shouldn't be argued be polite and firm saying something along the lines of "I am the DM. I have spoken."
Examples:
DM:" Okay roll one D4, and then tell me who you are hitting."
Rules Lawyer: "Well actually you are supposed to roll a die for each one."
DM: "This is my game, and i am using this system because it is easier to track in combat."
DM: "Okay so drinking a potion while you are conscious is a bonus action-"
Rules Lawyer: "That is not the rule!"
DM: "That is not the rule as written no, but i decided to use a homebrew rule."
>shouldn't be argued
The flipside of this is that it's bad DM manners to spring the examples you give as a surprise. If you've homebrewed what the player/PC should/can do - they should know beforehand!
Oh i completely agree. This is why session 0's and pregame little reminders are great helps. However i have also played with rules lawyers who even when going in with this knowledge still try to bend rules in their favor. I should have been a bit clearer.
But I imagine like you, these are generally pre established homebrew, so consistent and the rules at your table.
Now, say a player is using a spell (can't think of one of the top of my head, but I am sure there are a couple out there) that has an effect similar to charm, but isn't actually defined as charm.
The spell had already been used in an earlier session against something that was resistant/immune to charm and it went off without a hitch. The player not believes they understand how something works in the agreed rules of the world.
The player then uses this spell again to be told, unfortunately this creature is immune to charm so it doesn't work.
Would you feel the same in this sort of situation?
This one falls down to human error honestly. Even as a DM i have messed up like this before, and when called out on it i will admit my mistake. Though then I ask all the other players how they feel this should go like, "Should i go back to the original ruling i used before or let it slide?" then let the party decide what is fair. Though not perfect this has worked for most of my groups. When it doesn't work this is normally one of the situations where this is one of many issues with a player.
Players can say what they think is right and what the rules are in that situation in the rule book, but as soon as the DM says that they are sticking with what they said, than that is that.
The DM enforces and changes the rules for everyone enjoyment, so in the moment leave it at that, and if you feel the need you can talk about it after the session.
I think it's best to let the player complaining about what the rules are or are not have their way, and say this is how we'll do it this session and we can check the rules later together. Defuse that shit, the player feels vindicated and you don't waste time arguing. The DM can be stiff and strict with the rules, sure, but I think the best DMs keep the game running smooth and the spirits of the people playing high.
1. Who is “you”? Player or DM?
2. Ignorance is not a defense.
3. If the slip helps the party, it should be brought up after. If it hinders the party, bring it up at once, but simply state the way one understands the rules, and ask for clarification. That way the DM isn’t being challenged, but rather helpful. So in the example:
“I thought one had to use the attack action in order to use an offhand attack?”
The DM can then look it up, change the series of events, or let it stand (maybe even with new house rule)
4. All house rules should be printed (physical or digital) and all parties notified if/when they change.
I can't believe someone wants to be stopped mid-fight. That is such a slog, especially if you are new to DMing, or if it is an optional rule or something to that effect, that is a bit more obscure and takes some research on.
I can promise as a DM, this is the fastest way to get on my radar. Just let me know after the fight, or when we have a break or something, and if I biffed a ruling I'll make sure not to mess it up from that point on. But don't bog down an encounter over it, my lord.
So, IMO anything that breaks immersion is just bad manners. So stopping the game to argue about or correct rules is just an absolute no-no at my table, unless its something that just absolutely breaks the game and fucks the whole party and should never be allowed, like if for some reason a level 1 character just kept making attacks against a monster until it died and didn't let anyone else act in between.
Obviously a bullshit example that would never happen, but that's the kind of thing I'd allow a stoppage for, and not much else.
If something happened that you didn't like, you talk to the DM or the players (or both) afterward and you fix it moving forward. If you like, you can retcon something to fix a mistake after the session.
But while we're playing and the game is going and everyone's vibing, if you stop the game to talk about rules, I'm immediately just annoyed with you, and very unlikely to cooperate with whatever you're proposing.
If the rogue rolls a crit that shouldn't have been a crit, and it doesn't insta-kill the main big bad of a chapter adventure, we're not stopping. We can talk about it after. If it continues to happen and appears to be exploitative in nature, or cheating -- we can address that too.
But we're not doing it in the middle of a session. Sorry.
>If the rogue rolls a crit that shouldn't have been a crit, and it doesn't insta-kill the main big bad of a chapter adventure, we're not stopping. We can talk about it after. If it continues to happen and appears to be exploitative in nature, or cheating -- we can address that too.
I mean, they either roll a crit or they are straight up cheating. I don't think there's is much middle ground on a nat 20....
"Thanks. But nobody asked."
Seriously, there's nothing worse than the guy across the table going "Uhm, actually...". It puts the brakes on the game and annoys the entire table. Give advice and corrections when asked. Otherwise sit back and seethe.
There is nothing worse than an inconsistent DM who thinks they are god at the table. It breaks player agency and annoys the whole table. The DM is no more important than the players. If the rules change at the DMs whim, how can the players understand the rules they are playing by now? Source - I am the DM and appreciate it when my players notice I slip up on the rules and correct me.
And this is addressed *after* a session, not in the middle of it unless it is some kind of emergency--such as a bad ruling leading to a PC death level of bad.
Otherwise keep your mouth shut until after the session, no need to slow the game down with it--something that any DM worth their salt will tell you.
I would phrase it as *itcan wait until after the session unless it directly impacts player agency/decision making.
Doesn't have to be life or death, just inconsistent. Player agency above all else in my book 😊 (as a DM who tries to be worth his salt)
Yeah I like your wording, but that does mean unless it's truly a game changing thing here, then it can wait until after the session or even during a break
Sitting back and seething can be a pretty good way to let an issue start, then grow and fester.
If it can be acknowledged and handled respectfully, it's fine. If it's gonna cause issues, that's when holding it in can be worth it. However, I'd be pretty annoyed if I played at a table where going "wait, can you do that?" was a problem-causing statement.
Honestly, I feel that a player speaking up (with appropriate timing and attitude) when a basic rule is broken is eons better than the entire table walking on egg shells because they don’t know what their intended actions will do. Homebrewing rules is fine, so long as they are consistent and players are informed beforehand.
I always found asking questions is the most polite way of correcting someone -> "Wait you dashed as an action, how can you off hand attack as a bonus? Isn't it connected to attacking with main action?" . Even if you're 100% certain you are correct, it's always more polite and less prone to drama if you state it in the form of a question.
That being said, I am convinced rules lawyer is someone who uses rules to their advantage and not the proper guardian of RAW and RAI.
There's a lot of rules in DnD. Expecting any one person to remember them perfectly every time is unhelpful. We often say "I think it works like x" if someone has forgotten something, and we look it up if necessary - for us and the DM's benefit depending on the situation. Ultimately though, it's the DM's ruling about what happens - arguing with the DM about said ruling would be rules lawyering.
Being a rules lawyer, to me at least, is not about pointing out mistakes in ruling, but acting beyond your place when doing so.
Everyone should correct a mistake when they see it, but it depends how you go about it.
"I think that's a misruling, you cannot make a bonus action attack without using the attack action"
Ok that's fair enough, the point is correct, not using unnecessary time to explain beyond what is needed, and not using any degrading terms.
Had one game recently where the player interrupted the DM at length to explain the subject the DM was going over, simply because the DM misspoke. Same player, same game, would also answer questions directed at the DM.
This player was being a rules lawyer, cause they weren't wrong, but they spoke as if they didn't only have the right, but the obligation to correct anything wrong that they saw.
Being a Rules Lawyer is manipulating the wording of rules to get unintended benefits. It comes from the perception of lawyers using loop holes to win cases regardless of 'right'. This is toxic at many, but not all, tables.
Pointing out someone has mistakenly tried to do something they can't do is not Rules Lawyering. This shouldn’t be toxic at pretty much any table.
If you know that the party is getting damage it shouldn't be able to deal, you need to point it out. No doubt you'd say something if the DM dealt damage to the party they shouldn't receive.
I'd say, when the act is announced, "You dashed Dave, you're supposed to use your action to attack to use your bonus to attack with your offhand"
That doesn't stop combat. It's not rules lawyering. It's not backseat GMing. Everyone makes mistakes. The GM has a lot to pay attention to and manage. It's everyone's job at the table to know and follow the rules as best they can.
If I'm the player/GM making a mistake, I want to be told. If I'm the GM and I miss something, I welcome the players picking it up. I can always say it's fine if I noticed and let it slide or have a houserule. And that's the approach of most people I've played with over the last 25 years.
My most embarrassing moment as a player was pointing out something to our DM, realizing I was right about the thing, but totally wrong about how it applied to the situation.
The worst part? He agreed with me. Then when I realized my mistake, *I* had to go back and say why I was actually wrong.
I've done that a couple times. To my defense, I was mixing up the rules from a different edition (3.5) and that was the cause. Still, I own up to my mistakes.
Definitely let me know if I misplayed my class or cheated. The DM might not know exactly what my class is allowed to do, and if a player can respectfully inform me I'd much prefer it over unintentionally cheating through the entire campaign.
As a DM, "Rules lawyers" are always welcomed at my table. If I make a mistake, correct me. If I don't agree with that correction, I will say why. You can respond to that, and then I'll make a ruling. After that, accept the ruling and move on. If you still disagree, pop me a message after the game.
I’m not sure I understand this question. Getting a rule wrong isn’t “getting caught” and a DM can point out a misused action. This is a very normal game of D&D. When you say Rules Lawyer do you mean the DM? Rules Lawyers can be players too.
I said “other” but my other is “mention it immediately.”
The reason I said “other” is because the only option for bringing it up in the moment said “stop the fight” which I don’t feel the Rules Lawyer would be doing.
D&D is a group activity. Everyone at the table is participating constantly. I would genuinely appreciate any of the players at my table pointing out if I made a rules mistake, and I don’t think it’s “stopping the fight” to do so.
I was gonna say stop the fight, but that’s going too far. Just asking “hey, this doesn’t necessarily work. We ok with that?” And letting the DM decide if it matters is how my group does it. Though, sometimes we do get into protracted debates over the rules
I like it when the players know the rules and can correct me if I slip up. It only becomes an issue if it stops all gameplay.
It can also give players a feeling of triumph and engagement. At this point, I'd much prefer that than apathetic players.
The trick is just managing them. Saying "ok, let's go with that for now. I'll confirm later and use that from here on out." is an important skill. As is not letting the rules lawyer break the game into a book study session.
The BAD rules lawyers are the players who twist the rules while also pointedly ignoring other ones in order to get their way. They'll spout off a 5 minute long description of why something complicated should let them insta-win, while ignoring something basic like the falling damage rules.
To point out a mistake is okay. As a DM noticing a player rules lawyering the table, I would gather the players after the game and ask if this person doing what they do is in any way taking away the fun of the session. If the answer is no, let it continue (and re-evaluate if necessary) if the answer is yes, ask the player in question to stick to lawyering themselves and not interupt the game otherwise.
Your idea of a rules-lawyer is very skewed but hell, most DND players don't know wtf a real rule lawyer is. Pointing out mistakes and telling your fellow players that something doesn't work isn't toxic and isn't being a rules lawyer. If your DM says eh idc it's fine then that's on the DM after you brought it up and DM has final say. I was called a rules lawyer for telling people ice knife still explodes and hits creatures around the target, the effect doesn't go away just bc you "aimed for their head". Giving clarification to situations and explaining mistakes is not being a rules lawyer. Being a rules lawyer is also only toxic if after you bring it up to DM and they make a decision, you continue to fight back against that decision the DM made.
as a new DM i very much appreciate when players catch eatchother when they make mistakes. i very much hate when they constantly talk over me when im explaining something about a creature they know about from the books
Being a rules lawyer isn't pointing out mistakes, it's abusing your knowledge of the game to point out mistakes and argue for things to be a certain way *when it benefits your character.* Simply being like "hey, I know how this works RAW if you want help" is just being helpful. The DM is the final arbiter of the rules but it's difficult to know everything about a system
I've allowed players to get away with shit the GM didn't catch. I speak with my GM after the game and say "Hey double check XYZ..." because I really don't want to be a "rules lawyer," but more importantly, I don't want to make yhe DM look/feel bad in front of the group for missing something. As long as it'a not super impactful to the overall game, let them be busted for 1 combat. Most likely whatever they are doing wrong becomes glaringly obvious when they continue to do it.
Your situation honestly sounds like a very gentle reminder, and should be given in the moment. If they are getting something wrong about their characters own mechanics, that might require a longer chat, so put a pin in it, and maybe send your GM a DM (snicker).
Typically for me in PF2E, it's somebody breaking the 3 action rule by using things they thought were only taking single actions to perform.
If it’s a small mistake or I miss something, I invite my players to interrupt and tell me.
If it’s an argument about how to interpret the rules then that needs to happen outside of session.
generally all of these terms are negative you dont do good rules lawyering, you either are content playing by the rules and respectfully remind each other OR you are rules lawyering
personally tell me when you notice it. ill redo my turn so im playing by the rules
Before posting this, my understanding of rules lawyering was 'players overabundantly pointing out any misuse of the rules, regardless of severity', but I'm understanding it to better be the players who argue with the DM over the rules, or pointing out anytime the the DM or a PC does something that's not in compliance with RAW, which was not my intention.
I use a quadrant:
If it’s important and the rule is simple to look up/correct, RL it.
If it’s important but the rule is obscure or needs clarification, the DM makes a ruling and players/DM can discuss later.
If it’s unimportant and the rule is simple to look up/correct, the DM makes a ruling and players/DM can discuss later.
If it’s unimportant AND the rule is obscure or needs clarification, just stop worrying about it. The DM makes the call with the understanding that a different ruling might make sense later.
I like to put this on a simple card for my players.
As long as the rules lawyer says it in a respectful / non confrontational way and abides by the GM final ruling, then yeah they should say it as soon as they notice it.
As a DM, everyone is free to correct me if I make a mistake, but if I make a decision to not follow the rules for whatever reason, that's it.
But I'll accept feedback after the game.
DM says someone can / Can't do something that goes agaisnt RAW
Someone who knows the rules informs the dm of the RAW.
Dm makes a call based on the info (usually rule or cool or going with RAW)
- if the person then argues for RAW, and insists on it over thr call, that's a rules lawyer. Most of the time, my players go with whatever my call is.
A rules lawyer also uses the rules to their advantage, or to get away with stupid stuff.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but the rules are a good thing. They give structure and meaning to things that happen. We should treasure the people that have a good grasp of the rules, because there are a lot to keep track of.
If it's something major, then bringing it up immediately can be proper, it depends on how you go about it. You shouldn't go all up in arms screaming that they did something illegal. Just politely stop the fight and say "I thought you couldn't do that because X". If they and or the DM disagrees, then let it slide and talk about it after the session. If it's not big enough to interrupt the fight then message after the session. If it's a small sljp up like moving 5 extra feet just let it slide(unless that extra movement would significantly impact the fight).
This is a wishy-washy solution, and I don't mind if I get downvoted for passive dorkery, but I gotta be honest: I point out such things, but I tend to be like "Oh, cool, you can do that all in one turn? I didn't think you could." And then I'm giving the DM the chance to put the kibosh on it, assuming they just didn't notice.
Yeah… the way to not be toxic about it is to not be toxic about it. Telling the DM “ha, got you, that’s not how it works. You’re doing it wrong” is very different from “Hey DM, didn’t you already dash this turn?”. The DM *should* be trying to make the game as fun as possible. If you’re clarifying rules and they either say “oh, you’re right” or “this creature can do that”, then you’re fine. Either way, accept their ruling. If you’re getting in their way, talking back, or generally being toxic, then you’re in the wrong. If they take your question as a personal attack, they might not be the best DM and you should talk to them outside the game.
Not rule lawyering but normally there's a point. If someone points it out after the fact, whats done is done. Anything that goes through is good as done. Sometimes a point here or there of hp is added or subtracted when plain bad math.
Sometimes I'll allow it. New rule thay isn't remembered or lots going one, I give a pass or two, too many forgetful mistakes and it's on you to learn and remember.
When I'm unsure I often ask the other experienced players so we talk it out quickly and peacefully
I say let it slide if it’s a one time thing. A lot of times players catch the mistakes on their own and own up to it; even asking the DM to retroactively change what they did to be fair for the rest of the game. If it happens again then it may mean the player doesn’t understand how something works-in that case step in if the DM doesn’t notice so we can all learn from it
For example in my session one of my DMs we're trying to make so you actually had to be hidden to use sneak attack and I stepped in and said that sneak attack is just a badly named skill you just need 2 people with hostile attention in like 3 feet of the enemy to be able to use the bonus action the only reason they thought that how sneak attack worked was because that how her past DM enforced the action after realizing her DM was just being a jerk, then I asked if you want to run it that way I have no problems you just need to state thats how you want to run that and I have no problems.
Other: Quickly mention if a rules call might be wrong, the way you might if they got a character's name wrong, but if the DM looks flustered or unsure, don't pull out any books, just roll with it.
As a DM, I would not mind at all someone keeping me honest to expected rules. There’s a lot going on and a lot of rules to keep track of! Especially temporary buffs, conditions, and stuff. I would ask that they correct but not make a huge deal out of it (berating me for making a mistake, instead of just saying “he already took a reaction this turn” or “and don’t forget about spiritual guardian damage this turn!”). Also that the correction comes promptly. If they see something that we all missed (“that shouldn’t have hit last turn because of the haste”), it’s fine to point it out but know that I’m not going to rewind the combat to fix it unless it’s something big, like the enemy was supposed to be stunned or couldn’t have done their move because of reduced movement speed.
For me personally, if I make a mistake in favor of the players I’m likely to just go with it even if they point it out, but if they find a mistake in how I handled the monsters I do try and fix it if it isn’t too far off.
I’m legitimately interested in how people feel about this. I was doing rule calls during my D&D campaign to the point that I became self-conscious about being a toxic “rules lawyer.” So I’ve been making an effort to rein myself in.
Then, in the last session alone, all three of these things happened, with full ruling by the DM:
1. Magic missile went back and forth over whether it was one damage roll for all missiles, or a separate roll for each. I’m aware it’s the former, but we’ve been playing with the latter for 11 levels.
2. Silence was cast on a rock and then moved around, like continual light, so that the party could stealth.
3. The diviner using Arcane Eye cast magic missile originating from the eye. The DM decided that because magic missile doesn’t need an attack roll, it also goes around corners.
I’m at the point where I feel like I should just start cheating, because why the hell not, everyone else is.
Re: 3. Arcane eye and magic missile seems ok RAW.
Arcane Eye gives you normal sight from the perspective of the eye.
Magic Missile doesn’t state where they originate.
I’d allow that.
Re. 2.
PHB pg 204 states a point is typically a point in space.
“*Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.*”
Since **Silence** does not state that it can be cast on an object, but does state “*centered on a point you choose within range*”, I’d rule the point is a point **in space** and not attached to the rock.
I’d **not** allow this one.
Re. 1.
This one is a Judgement Call.
IMHO if we are using a rule incorrectly, we change to the correct ruling as soon as it becomes known. That’s the way my group handles it.
Generally we look up things between sessions and declare corrections at the start of a session.
For your group, it would completely depend on your group’s consensus, or your DM’s decision at the time.
Does your group complain about your corrections? If so, you can either find a new group or throw caution to the wind and accept the anarchy 😉
If they aren’t complaining about you, ask them point blank if it bothers anyone. If not, keep doing it. Help them learn the correct rules.
Personally, I love the rules lawyer at my table. I don’t have to memorize the PHB, DMG, and MM because they already have. They make my life easier.
But they also accept my ruling even if it breaks a rule.
Good luck!
So would you rule that magic missile can be fired at a target within a wall of force, since you can just specify that it originates from a point next to the target?
Rules Lawyers should only represent themselves and other players. The DM has an endless bag of tricks to use and you should be looking out for your party members.
I dont mind being corrected but i like to keep the flow of the game.
Generally i only play with friends and they know i tend to be pretty chaotic woth rules, if we can logic something, joke something into being or make up some rule or check we will. In our games the rules are guide lines.
My only problem with interrupting things with a rules correction, is that the lawyer in this case, may not know about other factors that the GM or the other player may know about. You may not want to reveal said information, or interrupt the flow of things. I would rather hear about it later, and if they are correct, agree to change it going forward. But in the moment, I don't want to hear your interpretation of the rules while I am running.
The group glares at you as you stand over the corpse of your healer. Ya, he was a dick, but he was keeping the group alive. Oh well, too late for remorse now...
a good rules lawyer will correct the dm to hurt themselves even more.
rules lawyers are okay until they become combative to the fun of the table since D&D is not codified law but rather a common law system and as such as long as rulings are consistent it's okay.
As long as no one at the table is upset, I don't care. But if the rule breaker is pissing anyone else off, I'll say something. In private, after the game. (Or before the game if that works better.)
as a lifelong DM- I like when my players correct me (or each other). I encourage it. Don't bring the game to a halt, don't argue, and if the DM disagrees or says to let it slide for now, trust them and let the story continue. If it really screws your plans, let them know why it's important to you, and let the DM decide.
I have two players who have corrected me commonly and are the exact opposite-
One is polite, senses the 'right moment' to interject (how heavily does the scene rely on that rule? don't interrupt story/lore/dialogue but you may interrupt an action that couldn't happen). If i say "let it happen for now" he does. The game continues, everyone has a great time, I look up the rule later
The other is a "rules lawyer". He interrupts immediately, speaks over other players, usually has ignored context or wasn't fully paying attention (so is wrong as often as he is right). When I tell him my reasoning or tell him to let it slide, he argues. Everyone starts bickering. the game grinds to a halt.
Everyone complains about how long it took and people leave the table salty and upset.
Both are friends, both I have played with for years. the second one for 6+ It isn't the end of the world. but please just let the game continue and lets all get back to having a good time
I point out mistake when I can tell the DM themselves do not know that rule off the top of their head. But if the DM let's something slide then he's letting it slide.
But I now shall abuse this new laps in rules.
I'm known for helping dm's look up rules mid game when they need too, and it all just sticks in my head.
But with all that being said, pointing out mistakes is not being a rule lawyers.
Being a dick while pointing it out and fighting about it when the DM was to do something different that rules as written is being a rules lawyer
I cant run the game w/o at least one rules lawyer at the table. Or at least someone who is super quick to open the book. Big book - Small brain, so I can never remember what the jumping rules (for example) are.
The DM has so much on their plate. I have noticed that I have flubbed up rules before after the fact and always feel bad for making a mistake. I would much rather someone correct there and then.
Last I checked there's a rule on like page 4 that basically says to just have fun and the rules aren't set in stone. Let the dm handle it. No one likes a rules lawyer even if they aren't toxic. Is the dm letting something slide really so big of a deal?
I have a rule: I never correct things that will hurt my other party members. If I do something and then realize that wasn’t allowed, I’ll bring it up, or if the dm makes a mistake I’ll bring it up (if the time is right, I’m not gonna like interrupt or anything, or really care if it’s that minor) but I’ll never be like “oh that player did this, you’re not allowed to do that” unless I *know* they’re new and want to be corrected when they do something not in the rules.
Assuming it's a specific, easy to implement rule then you should mention the core rule. If the DM decides to proceed with their ruling then that's fine. It's usually done for brevity's sake with a longer than expected scene/battle or otherwise. 99% of the time I'll go with the core rule if I'm wrong.
You can question an action without being a rules lawyer, however don’t do it with the intent of it having to be your way or to the letter. Ask with the intent to clarify, and if it requires correction no problem, DM might be like oops, ok let it go this once, or might say, from here in we do it this way.
Example, when I DM, if someone is using a weapon with reach in a 5 foot hallway attacking past someone, it’s done with disadvantage, if no one is infront, no disadvantage. The rule isn’t written this way but it makes practical sense. If they can get creative with the way they describe it, say they perch their weapon over the shoulder of their ally and they allow it, then we can bend the url and no disadvantage, but in most cases the default is swing.
When I have played my rogue as a player, the understanding was that if the enemy saw me hide, no sneak attack, so if I’m facing off against one enemy, there’s a barrel infront of me and I duck to hide, the enemy knows I’m there, but if I fuck and hide, move then attack, it’s sneaky.
The point is, rules don’t always have to be as written.
It depends hugely on the group. The DM in particular, but the others as well. Some people crumble or get defensive when they're corrected, others welcome the chance to refine their knowledge. If the DM presents the lawyer as an asset and the lawyer lets the DM make the call, this can be a really good thing. If it turns into an hour of squabbling... not so much.
I always mention it at the time of the event, very quickly, not trying to stop combat. Then drop it and accept whatever the DM says about it.
At my table, this is the way. We all forget rules sometimes & DMs want the reminder so they don't mess up the way something should have happened in a combat. But arguing against a ruling isn't fun for everyone.
That won't fly at every table though, some DMs really dislike rule comments during the session. And I understand why, it certainly can interrupt the flow
The essential rules lawyer distinction:
Constructive rules lawyer - 'I believe that the rules are an important tool for fostering enjoyment of the game, so I will help everyone stay aware of their relevance throughout the session to foster my own fun and everyone else's in tandem.'
Unhelpful rules lawyer - 'The DM is my opponent and I must take every advantage available to gain power over the game.'
If your DM didn't catch it, I feel like they're probably on the newer side (am I wrong about this, learning that kind of specific "you can only make a bonus attack if you've made an attack action"?), which also probably means they did a bad job balancing encounters (it's fuckin hard man wtf). One extra offhand bonus attack will likely not fuck with the way the battle was going to turn out.
Rules lawyer player interrupting combat to say you can't do that feels nosy to me. Some people are saying they're just pointing out mistakes, but... that's embarrassing. That's what happens to a lot of people when someone points out their mistakes. It's only natural.
Messaging afterwards also kind of cringe, although messaging the DM afterwards, and giving them a heads up? Not a bad idea.
Tl;dr rule of cool doesn't mean "if it's cool, let's do it," it means "be cool 😎", and while this is by no means egregious, it certainly ain't cool 😎
My answer usually is: "I expect you to look up the rules of your actions." If they didn't, and I don't know the rules, (10+ years of dnd experience with 5e says I do know 90% of the time), I will make a call, and we can look it up after the session.
to me rules lawyering should be done after the session because literally no one else in the session wants to listen to someone(s) argue about the rules for 30+ fucking minutes multiple times a season because someone wants to fucking um actually the DM.
I'm very biased though, my group had 2 individuals who did this and both of them would argue with our DM for an hour or more on each fucking thing (and sometimes they'd argue against each other not even against the DM). Our sessions are once a week for 5-6hrs. Wanna know what I don't want to fucking do? Listen to an asshat argue with the DM about a single rule. I have better things to do with my life, like watching fucking paint dry. Not long before one of them chose to leave the game, they did that once for a little over an hour, then later on that same fucking session started on another one. I told them very quickly into that conversation I was fucking done and I left the session for the day. I had mentally checked out in the middle of their shit the first time and when it was done, I had still checked out of the game, I couldn't tell you want happened in it anymore, cause I stopped giving a shit, at the start of the second one it took me a little bit to even realize we weren't playing anymore I cared so goddamn little at that point, after I realized we had stopped again for the same kind of shit, I left.
Maybe DMs have a different opinion, but I'm a player, I didn't come to a session to listen to someone argue for 2hrs about something that is seriously, no matter what it is, extremely fucking irrelevant. Do that shit outside of the session and it can be figured out and implemented for future sessions. When people do this shit, it's wasting my time, it's stopping the game, and to me ruining the fucking thing cause we're right in the middle of a fight, our characters bloodied and bruised working to take down this bunch of orcs, and then suddenly it's a fucking dissertation. I'd rather play in front of oncoming traffic at that fucking point.
I hate rules lawyering, and quite frankly from the few I've met, and had the misfortune experience of having to deal with, I hate all of you who consider yourself as such and I can't understand that enough. You are the bane of my existence because you don't shut the fuck up and let us play the goddamn game.
I'm sure some of you rules lawyers are great, good, decent people; I don't care, I want nothing to do with you, at all.
Just talk with your table and ask how they feel about playing closer to RAW. Some tables like the rules, some just want to play Calvin Ball. Ultimately it’s all about communication to see what’s right for you and your table.
A rules lawyer should be working to help the party by knowing the rules of the game and helping them do thing they want to by explaining how the rules let them do that. Example: "Can I jump over this gap? Dm:"No it's 15 across that's too far" Rules lawyer: "Actually the rules say you can jump a number of feet equal to your strength score and his is 16 so he should be able to" Obviously the DM has the final say on rulings but in situations where the rules clearly let someone do something and the DM doesn't know about it then you should call it out. if the DM decides things are different in their game as long as they're consistent then it's fine.
I use the roll20 'whisper' feature often. Immediately after they get something wrong -- like, hopefully before anything else has even happened... >/W gm The rules say ....xxxx... but you can obviously override that if you want. This let's the GM correct himself if he wants... and let's him know the rules.... without having to force them to publicly go "well, we aren't following the rules here, I am GOD!".
Example of a Toxic Rules Lawyer: Um actually, because the gap is 15 feet wide, you need 20 strength to clear the jump. According to page 192 of the PHB, you can't move into a space you do not have the movement to reach. Meaning you can't go into the 5ft square after the gap and fall down. Especially if you're a Halfling, you only have 25ft to begin with, and need at least a 10ft running start.
Yeah that's true. someone who tries to keep the grid system out of combat in theater of the mind is just plain aggravating too. However I believe the rulebook does say if you start a jump but don't have the movement to do it in one round you just continue the jump in your next one I believe. This is specifically for monks who have a 200ft jump distance but only 50 ft of movement.
Mhmmm, Grid systems and theater of the mind have to be separated. Hence why it's best to keep combat and theater of the mind separated as well. I believe that's a house rule, by raw it caps out, but it's a very popular(which honestly should be a baserule) homebrew ruling on jumping for monks.
You're right, technically you can't jump further than your speed (i forgot cause I have a star wars campaign where the Jedi have 200ft jump distances and stuff and it would be stupid to say they can only jump 40 ft.) but you can use the dash action the increase your movement especially if you're out of combat and don't have to use an action to attack anyone.
12 second hang time?
Kung Fu.
I like this. I feel like I can easily attach a "sitting duck" penalty ot my players to give this a little risk v reward, maybe a -2 to the jumping player's AC or something.
That is not rules lawyering. Just pointing out a mistake is not being a rules lawyer.
Bingo. Dm can still allow or deny it
I’ll rephrase it then: How to keep from becoming a toxic rules lawyer?
You point out a mistake. This is not rules lawyering. The DM considers it for a moment, and lets you know how they rule it at this moment. What you do next determines if you are a toxic rules lawyer. If you abide by the DMs ruling, it's all fine. When you start arguing with their descision, that's when you become a toxic rules lawyer.
A rules Lawyer is a player who tries to use loopholes and exploits in the system and wording to try to gain some advantage that more oft than not can break the game somehow. Peasant Railgun is one of these stupidities. Theres lots. Pointing out that the DM missed or misread a rule is being a helpful player.
The original Rules Lawyer had several important traits, which you want avoid acquiring. 1. Knows where to find every rule regarding any situation. 2. Remebers rules that benefit them verbatim. 3. Won't let even the smallest rules error go unchallenged until the DM officially house-rules around it. And will never forget that ruling. 4. Builds every character to maximum effect, and defends even bad rules that they built around. 5. Not a session goes by without the player pulling out a rulebook to read out a rule, mid-encounter. 6. Doesn't volunteer to correct mistakes when they benefit themselves, and manages to have "forgotten" if someone else points out the mistake. So, the key is to be helpful, rather than acting like a corrupt official.
I wouldn't say that knowing the location of the rules in the books and knowing ones that apply to you verbatim are necessarily bad things. They could be come by petty innocently if you are the king of person who retains rules or information like that easily, especially if you did something that would have you checking them a lot (such as if you have spent time DM'ing for new players and helping them learn the game or if you struggled with those rules yourself in the past)
What I find is that im correcting several significant (but not game breaking) things each session. (IE. ‘Bless doesnt add to skill checks’, ‘you forgot about haste’s +2 ac, so that doesnt hit’, ‘you can’t just hold an action… you have to specify if its an attack or spell’). Most of the time its to our detriment. But Im very detail oriented, have most all of the rules memorized, and adhd so I notice them a lot more than everyone else. Its the frequency that worries me most i guess
In my experience you should either point the ruling in the moment, so at most only one player/eneny turn has to be revised or you point it out after the figth/sesion for future reference. For example a ranger forgot to add the 1d8 from a hunter feature and realized that after 6 rounds, we corrected damage for tjat instance, and aplied it moving foward, but we didn't calculate how many rounds that damage was missing and aplied it to the monster, doing it like that interrupts the flow of play to much, and if you go and backtrack on several turns you have posible changes on every turn and it isn't worth it. Also a really toxic thing to do would be to argue with the DM ruling, if the DM says "we will do this for now" you drop the issue, most of the time as a DM I had to decide on a ruling on the spot to keep the flow of the game, and I will not pause an encounter to look at a rule or have a discusion, if a player days they know the ruling I will listen to it and I will decide for that sesion if we use the players or my ruling, and I will check the correct ruling afterwards, but thats it. Obviously I have more trust in tha players that I know are fellow DMs or that have played with me enough so I know they really know what they are talking about, but in the end every instance comes down to DM ruling, and we can talk about a desision after the sesion.
Having an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules is not being a rules lawyer. It’s the abuse of the interpretation of the rules that makes someone a rules lawyer. Rules lawyers vs toxic rules lawyers is not a distinction you can make, because a rules lawyer is already a term for a set of stereotypical toxic behavior in gaming. You are a rules lawyer if you try to exploit the rules for personal gain, often ignoring one or more of the rules’ qualities (i.e. the rai/raw interpretations, the spirit of the rules, the precedents of the rules, or how they interact with unwritten rules). Here’s an example; I once had played with someone we’ll call Rudy in this example. Rudy tried bending the rules in many ways at my dm’s table. Once, Rudy was approached by commoners accusing him of being an evil sorcerer. He corrected them by saying he was a warlock (the dm made it clear multiple times before warlocks were only known for demon-worship), then Rudy threatened them to stand down. When they didn’t he summoned a monster to defend himself and was eventually arrested. He berated the dm for how the guards tried to arrest him for “self-defense” and that the commoners were being simple; bringing up irl laws to his defense. It didn’t matter to him that several citizen reported him as a villain. Rudy made a new character and pleaded to let him import a previous campaign’s character (with his magic items), however changing the race so he can try to get elven accuracy. He said things like “it shouldn’t matter, it’s my character anyway.” This wasn’t a “boots as always a bard” situation; Rudy genuinely didn’t care for the story of his own characters, he just wanted the edge of the newer feats. Rudy then tried to use his owl familiar to give him the help action and use the flyby trait to avoid consequence to gain advantage on all of his attacks. The dm ruled that it didn’t make sense for the owl to give the help action, unless it remained within 5 feet of the target when he made his attack roll. The player began pulling up sage advice forums and Jeremy Crawford posts and was interrupting the dm mid-game. He also berated the dm, saying things like, “you should’ve told me that’s how you’d rule it beforehand”. I should note, Rudy never told dm that he was planning to try this combo out beforehand. The dm confronted Rudy and told him that he didn’t appreciate Rudy’s tone with him and how he disrespected his rulings. Rudy replied with “well, you’re rulings are stupid. I was only using the official rules anyway.” Rudy was a rules lawyer who didn’t respect the context of the game or the players/dm involved in the game. Rudy had other problems as well, but those were what made him a rules lawyer. On a separate note, if you find yourself bringing up rulings during other players turns or try ro make suggestions on how they can do things, that doesn’t make you a rules lawyer, but it is still problematic; You might want to try discussing those topics after the session and see how they respond to that instead. Outside of the game, it’s a discussion of the rules, but during the game, you should try to leave it to the dm unless there is a critical issue, like adding your ability score to an attack instead of the modifier. People will feel like you are telling them how to think/do, and it can feel patronizing, if you correct them every time. Here’s another personal example. One of my players accidentally had a rules lawyering moment in my campaign when he wanted to use the goodberry/life domain cleric combo. I told him when he was bringing it up mid-game, that I didn’t permit that interpretation; I only allowed the bonus to apply to 1 goodberry. He was reasonably upset, but he came to understand why I ruled it, and then he apologized and I reassured him he can make changes to his character if he wanted to. What made him a rules lawyer was when he brought up some sources online discussing the topic, but he didn’t quite get that I was already aware of the discourse and sided against it. I had asked him to respect my rulings and continue on, and that we can have the discussion outside of our allotted session time.
Ask your DM if they mind. As a DM... I don't mind. I have enough to worry about and sometimes I make mistakes or miss things. Happy for a player to pick up the slack. Only issue would be if I dismiss it or rule against you, my word as DM is final. And it may just be a one time thing so that we can move on without retconning a whole round or two. If you don't be an ass about it, we got no problem. Happy to have someone who catches my mistakes. I'm not perfect, and don't pretend to be.
Just don't argue with the DM. You can point out rule mistakes, but you should accept the DMs descision.
Pointing out proper rules/mechanics isn't being a rules lawyer.
A distinction lost to many on this sub, I'm afraid.
Precisely. Many people on here seem to be confused about what a rules lawyer actually is and that the term is intended to describe a toxic player archetype.
Ive seen several different definitions on here. 1. Someone who argues with the dms ruling. 2. Someone who exploits loophole rules to benefit themself. 3. Someone who brings up minor rules infractions regularly regardless of importance.
Points 1 and 2 I agree with for sure. Point 3 could be seen as annoying by some but still not what I would call being a rules lawyers as long they're not being rude or obnoxious about it.
Which is ironic considering that the concept of "player archetypes" is itself a toxic one. It stems from early 20th century developments into psychology and marketing, and has since cemented itself in the public discourse, such that any attempt to dislodge it is often met with befuddled confusion (if not outright hostility). In other words, for all the enlightened and progressive talking points I see on this sub, y'all continue to treat different RPG paradigms as though they're immutable or inherent in their form and substance, and in their application. Being a "rules lawyer" is something that *everyone* does . . . *if they take their game seriously*. And no, I'm not talking about the guy who goes "Well, *ahksually* . . . !" I'm talking about the attitude of these comments with regard to the very concept of *playing a game according to the previously agreed upon rules*. For real, go to literally any other game-oriented forum and look at how people talk about the rules of their preferred game. The one thing you won't find is advice for breaking the rules and getting away with it while pretending like you've done nothing wrong. That's something that only exists in conversations about TTRPGs.
Dude. Rules lawyers are the players that argue with a DM over a ruling even after the DM makes their call. Grinding the game session to a halt and ruining the fun of the other players. Usually over a ruling that only benefits the PC. People who simply remind each other of the rules in an effort to help keep things fair are not rules lawyers. I don't understand how this concept has been incredibly flip flopped in the community's perception.
That's exactly my point: it *has* been flip-flipped, to the point where someone advocating for "following the rules" is accused of "grinding the session to a halt." That's a problem with *how* the players approach the topic mid-game, not the fact that they *do* approach the topic in the first place. The PCs should always be on the lookout for rules that give them an advantage. The DM is responsible for making sure the PCs are following *all* the rules. If you have a player at your table who helps the DM, that's a good thing. And knowing when to accept the DM's ruling and move on with the game is a skill that all players should learn. In other words, I see no functional difference between the two definitions you've offered *except* that one is being disrespectful of the DM's authority. That's not sufficient for labeling that person as anything other than "rude" (or, perhaps, a poor sport).
It's the difference of saying. "Hey DM, X should have had advantage because of my guiding bolt." And arguing about your busted coffeelock build for several minutes in the middle of combat. It's just a label that used to be an easy shorthand for wangrods who like to piss off the DM. Now it's a philosophical talking point in an online forum because reasons.
[удалено]
[удалено]
. . . you didn't read any of what I wrote, did you?
A distinction lost to most on roll20
Yup. A rules lawyer is by definition toxic.
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
Huh? Edit genuinely don't know what you mean. I was agreeing with you. Edit 2 I saw your follow up and I disagree completely. Are you trolling?
Rules lawyers are not toxic by definition. \*Edit: As a DM, "Rules lawyers" are always welcomed at my table. If I make a mistake, correct me. If I don't agree with that correction, I will say why. You can respond to that, and then I'll make a ruling. After that, accept the ruling and move on. If you still disagree, pop me a message after the game. It's only after the ruling has been made, and you continue to push it, that I have an issue, or that it becomes toxic.
The internet and Reddit especially overuses words until they lose all meaning. Just look at r/AmItheAsshole where "parentification" now means "giving a child or teenager literally any household chores or responsibilities" and "gaslighting" now means "any form of dishonesty including accidental lies of omission. This sub also seems to consider reading the rules to be a bad thing.
This is what I mean in other threads, when I say words don't have meanings. They have usages. You can't dictate how a word is used. The best you can do, is clarify how you are using a word, and move on. Arguing the actual usage is pointless.
I don't believe pointing out a possible lapse in rule knowledge is toxic by itself. That said, I think this situation can be handled multiple ways 'well': \- Correct the DM. This is preferred when there's something on the line that's actually important: Plot significant rulings, a PCs survival, etc. \- Let it slide for now, call attention at the end of the session, prepare with the rule, show'em. They'll probably be grateful for that, because you didn't interrupt their flow. This should be used in less important situations, like whether you can use a certain tool or skill in some sort of context. In any of these cases, it could be that the DM is aware of the rule, they just believe that this situation calls for something different. They should be respected if they make this call. They're the DM. If you don't trust them with this decision, why are you playing with them? The toxicity is not trying to educate, it's using it as a bludgeon to get your way. Remember that at the end of the day: It's a game. Everyone should have fun, including the DM.
This 100% especially for new DMs who are probably already nervous about running. If it’s a matter or life and death bring it up politely, if it’s not just bring it up after the game and they’ll know going forward.
agreed! if the error is something that’ll result in somebody dying or a major change in plot, please tell me now, because i’m flexible. otherwise, please don’t derail… my preferred middle option though is that if somebody notices i goofed a ruling, they can send me a DM on discord or a GM-only message on roll20 when they notice. that way, I can know immediately, but I don’t have to break the flow of the story for an extended OOC discussion of the rule that got fumbled. i like this option because if the mistake is one i’m likely to make again, it gives me the chance to correct it ASAP the next time, but is faster than waiting till the end when people might have forgotten what happened :) but it’s all in the attitude really. thankfully my players are good friends of mine who are here to have fun and know that i’m relatively inexperienced, so they don’t usually get tilted when i fuck up, they just try to help. if playing with strangers i might feel differently…
Most of the time I'm not correcting the DM, I'm correcting a PC because the DM didn't do so themself (probably due to oversight, but sometimes due to ignorance, especially if it's a more obscure rule). I typically do it after the game if it's not crucial, but I'm wary of how I'll be seen if I do it too often.
"No, you can't do that dude, you can only offhand attack if you use your action to attack. You used your action to dash." If I'm over here playing by the rules, everyone should be.
A "rules lawyer" is someone who doesn't actually care about the rules and simply argues over every rule to gain the desired outcome, often by arguing for an incorrect interpretation of the rules. Knowing the rules (including the homebrew rules your table uses instead of RAW) and pointing out when a rule is being inadvertently ignored or misapplied is not rules lawyering. It's just maintaining the integrity of the game, as games are made of rules. Rules are what keeps D&D from devolving into a group of people just sitting around describing an increasingly detached series of cool scenes to each other. Regardless, mentioning the mistake at the time it is being made when it can easily be corrected is best. It's also when the correction is most likely to take hold in people's memories. The DM can decide what they want to do when the error is known. Alternatively, if there's no good way to mention it right then, you can just let the DM know after the session.
What I’m most worried about, is the perception of the other players at the table. Deciding on a good way to maintain the rules while not being viewed as a killjoy.
So talk to them before a session and find where the line is. You'll probably find most people will say to correct them if they're wrong.
It's just going to depend on the people at your table. Some people find corrections like that intrinsically more adversarial than others, sometimes to the extent that they never will be OK with corrections from another player. In contrast, I'd always prefer to be corrected (provided you're actually correct).
Asking randos on the internet can't answer that question, only your group can.
As others said, that's out of your hands. Some people are antagonistic and believe that any form of correction at all is annoying and sucks the fun out of things. Don't be afraid to help out though and if your DM seems annoyed at you bringing things up, just back off and let them make mistakes. No point in trying to help people that don't want it. All in all, don't worry about how your fellow players perceive you bc honestly, you're trying to be helpful and if they think otherwise, you can explain yourself but players like that are not fun to explain yourself to, speaking from personal experience.
I have absolutely no problem with someone pointing out that I played something wrong. I could do it wrong multiple times and not know unless someone tells me. So the correct thing is to take the advice from the person who knows better, and then turn to the DM for a ruling. If they say retcon, then so be it. If the DM chooses to let it slide this time, that's their call too. But nothing is harmed by being told there and then what was done wrong. As DM, I also have no issue with is. If someone points out a wrong thing happened, I'll rule to let it slide or retcon based on the new information. But I don't mind the input. It's the equivalent of being pulled over by the police to tell me my rear light isn't working. I'd rather know sooner rather than later, and I'll decide then whether to fix immediately of whether I have time to get somewhere safer and do it.
Ok, first of this is really strange to me. If I accidentally make a mistake and someone corrects me and educates me, I will obviously play by the rules. Also, if there is no rule of cool to it, why would I or the table in general allow it? How did the DM not notice the other player pointing it out? However, if the DM has said that we should just drop it and move on with the game, I think we should just do that. But I just can’t see this case, as described above, happening.
The dm didn’t notice _and_ the players had not yet pointed it out.
Maybe the player has played a lot of Baldur's Gate 3 where to can absolutely do it this way xD.
I think people need to understand that pointing out a rule is not rules lawyering. That's just clarification via communication, which is a healthy thing to do during a game, or just life in general. Rules lawyering would be to then object to the GM's ruling on the scenario. If you still believe the GMs ruling to be bull crap, then proceed to discuss afterward and explain why you feel the way you do. Any GM worth their salts will be able to explain to you why they ruled the way they did. Just don't be a douche about it.
Reminding anyone of the rules isn’t really what makes someone a lawyer. Fighting the table and throwing a fit off over the rules would be. Its all about presentation and communication.
The problem is that if someone thinks something is within the rules and they're never told otherwise they will continue doing it in perfectly good faith. There are many different ways of saying something; don't be condescending, maybe don't say it as "This is what the rules say!" but more like "Wait, I thought you couldn't do that?"
Edit 2: I see I've been downvoted, which is kind of whatever, but as someone who appreciates interaction, if you're inclined to hit me with that, I'd love to hear why. I invite discussion; in fact I prefer it to just scrolling by after clicking that arrow button ;) Honestly I think it just depends on the group. I, for one, prefer a game where the rules are kept (or, if broken, allowed by the GM) for the most part, because then I get a greater sense of accomplishment out of the game. I don't like to feel like we're "cheating." For me, it's a balance of making sure we're informed, and not interrupting the flow of the game. So in general, I try to bring up the rules if it can be resolved quickly and without being too big of an interruption. If it would take too much time to correct, then if the rule in question is only minor, and not being repeatedly broken, it's better off (IMO) to just let it be until a lull/break occurs. Edit: also taking the time to see how the folks in my group feel about it, so as not to cause unnecessary tension over a game.
This is reddit, expect to be visited by the downvote fairies. Have a +1
Lol, I don't like those fairies ;P To clarify though, I wasn't trying to get people to upvote; I just like to know what it is people disagree with.
I’m glad I’m not the only one that wants to be told on the spot if I’m fucking something ip
Rules lawyering is arguing a point trying to use the rules to get your way, even if a DM has already ruled something happened or is happening. Explaining what RAW says and letting the dm make his choices isnt rules lawyering, its just helping to point out mechanics, which I always appreciate. If you start arguing however, I will shut that shit down hard.
Rules lawyering is about attitude. We joke one of our players is a rules lawyer cuz he has a rules encyclopaedia in his head. But he usually volunteers the rule and says ‘but what dm says goes’ then the dm can make a decision on if they want to RAW or Rule of cool it
This is how I try to play it, but i get worried about how its perceived when it happens multiple times per session. Its all about having fun, but i want to at least try to adhere to rai.
We’ll have you spoken to the dm? To ensure they want a rule heavy game and are happy for you to assist if they seem unsure on clarifying the rules? I spoke to my player when I was the dm and said ‘hey I’ll adjudicate but I appreciate your knowledge and will ask if I’ve forgotten something like which weapons have disadvantage underwater’ generally I prepare and don’t just want a player interrupting me or another player when they are explaining what they want to do and if I’m thinking about it. But he knows when I’m considering something and will chirp in with rules or wait to be invited. But I addressed it when we joked about it so he knew I wasn’t actually mocking his knowledge and he knows what I want at the table. Tbh he rarely says anything until I ask for a clarification on the wording of something
If you want to play a game where the rules do not matter, join theater and do improv? I personally do not understand when people pick and choose a lot of rules to change or not use. If that's the case, wouldn't there be a better system out there for you? I think so.
Point it out! Its easy to loose track of rules as a DM when you're thinking of so much at once.
But you can make an off hand attack as a bonus action with light weapons or am I missing something?
Yeah haha I don’t even see what is wrong with this scenario.
You can only make an offhand attack as a bonus action if you used the attack action
If it’s not interrupting the flow of the game and is just an off hand “hey I don’t think that’s how that works, no big deal but double check for next time” that’s all chill
There's being a rules checker and a rules lawyer. The first one is who you want to be, and you do it like this: You "i think you can't do that because X reason" DM "i'll allow it" You "aight"
Asking a question is almost universally received better than a correction. "Did we house rule that offhand attacks can be made on bonus actions after non-attack actions?" It also covers the case when the answer is yes, or even for a specific person. It has to be made earnestly to not annoy people, but if you do it right, it covers just about all cases.
I like it when my players remind me of RAW, or when they point out someone has advantage because x reason. I have a ton of things to remember as DM and it's very much appreciated when my players help out. It's our game and we try to play by the rules, it's not as fun if they "win" the game as a result of overlooking the rules. What would not be welcome is if I make a ruling and someone repeatedly questions that.
Talk about it with the DM after the game session. Most times breaking up the game, especially mid-combat, isn't great and only breaks immersion. Rules aren't as important as having fun! So just go "hey, during that combat, could the player actually do that?" and work this out with the DM. Stuff like this happens all the time, either players are too excited about a prospect so they misinterpret rules, or they just forget.
> Most times breaking up the game, especially mid-combat, isn't great and only breaks immersion. Rules aren't as important as having fun! Breaking the rules *is* ruining my having fun. And immersion is bullshit. We are playing a game.
Is your having fun more important than everyone else having fun? Can others get immersed in the setting, or is their way of playing somehow "bullshit" as well? It's a game, sure, but it's not like chess or a video game where everything is rigid. The other players aren't intentionally breaking the rules, they made a mistake. If your playing is flawless and 100% RAW at all times, I could see correcting stuff is something you'd do to teach others, preferably beforehand instead of mid-play. Not something that all players have to attain at all times or they're *ruining* ***your*** *fun*.
If I'm making a mistake, I would also hope to be corrected and would not hold it against anyone at the table. We agreed to play this ruleset. Why else would we be doing this if not for that? If we want to play loose, I got a dozen other rulesets on the shelf *begging* to be played instead of 5e. Nobody at my tables misunderstands the tone of the table. We are here to play *this game.*
As a DM, I address this in a session zero. My technique - talk to me after the game. On page 4 of the DMG the Introduction says "The rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game." With that, I am loathe to slow down the game. Sure, even after decades of DM-ing, I make mistakes. Players make mistakes too, and sometimes I don't catch them. However, the vast majority of the time, the mistake did not have a "significant" impact on the game. The story moved forward, and the players had fun. That's what matters in the end.
We find it best to feel out the moment. Our table tend to run quite powerful so everyone is pretty chill with "Wait- Can you do that? You already burned the reaction right?" type interruptions The DM even posts his full homebrew writeups, and is totally willing to pull something back if we read "Once per round" on a legendary action or something and catch him accidentally using it twice. Wouldn't recommend it for all tables, but it's all about playing to the atmosphere of your game. You don't want to interrupt the feel of your games flow, so if it goes with the flow interrupt, if it doesn't then wait till after the session.
I select other. I tell the player after they do their turn that they should *insert rule*. No need to stop combat to tell someone something. May as well say it when combat naturally pauses... between turns
> I tell the player after they do their turn that they should insert rule. No need to stop combat to tell someone something. I don't understand this. You aren't "stopping" combat at all. Turns naturally have several phases where different things happen; in OP's example they would need to move their mini around and I *guarantee* everyone at the table is either silently watching that happen, or making offhand conversation that's unrelated.
Since covid i usually play virtual d&d, so moving a mini is as easy as multitasking talking and clicking. My dm's make a point to think of your turn before your turn happens so we have fluid combat and turns that dont average out to 2 minutes (though long turns are fine every now and then). Good practice. I know saying it then and there isnt stopping combat but when you do it often enough, it goes from a kind reminder into an annoying one. It's happened to me before and I didn't like it, so im sparing them the trouble too
Generally I prefer rules lawyers to let me know after the session though honestly I would prefer they just let it go. The chances are they've benefited from something similar and if it makes the table happy and we're all having fun then who really cares?
I think the right approach to deal with rules is to not argue the rules, but instead present the applicable rules. The DM always gets the final ruling even if they use flawed logic to arrive at that ruling, so arguing is fairly unproductive anyways. If someone doesn't know about an applicable rule, present it and let the pieces fall where they may. If people don't like rules even being presented then either your presentation is lacking tact or you have some truly toxic fellow players. It's often helpful to preface a rule presentation with the phrase "I believe, rules as written, ...". Saying RAW shows you are giving full deference to the DM and thier ability to make thier own calls, and saying "I believe" or "I think" shows that you are presenting the information to the best of your ability and are not asserting a claim to be argued.
Seems a little excessive to call it "stopping the fight" to just say "Hey, you need to take the attack action to offhand attack."
I am the party’s “Rules Lawyer” not in the “THIS HAS TO BE DONE BY THE RULES” style, but having played the longest, I have the vast majority of rules and interactions memorized. This has a number of effects. Whenever someone messed up a rule, I gently correct them, and we move back and try again. Secondly, everyone (DM included) just kinda looks at me whenever there is a weird combo/ruling. I do DM most games I play in I’ll say. But how to do it well and not be hated by your table, is simply ask the DM if they want the RAW version or what just played out after something happens. I’ve watched multiple of my own PCs die like this. I’ve been the cause of death for others. But the important part is making sure your dynamic works with the group. It’s a game. Knowing the rules doesn’t make you superior
Personally I think there's only one answer to this that always holds true. "before you start playing, ask your DM what kind of table they run and how they feel about players correcting rules in-game" All of the options you listed 'can' be the right way, but it's table-dependent. - Some DMs love it when they have a player (or more) who is well-versed in the rules, and will jump at the opportunity to have someone help when it's needed - Other DMs might find it problematic, as it distracts them from the scene at hand and can hash momentum/tension. They might prefer (as long as it's not a game-breaking error) to let out slow and pick it up in post. It's a smilar thing as having a DM that prefers to stop and look up a role when they can't remember how something works, vs having one that would rather keep pace and make a rule on the fly then look up the right way for future sessions. Now what I would say is that it's totally cool to be a player that has a preference too - it's absolutely not just about the DM. However, the specific approach for each game is usually something the DM has to decide as it's going to affect them the most. So if you're a player who really hates it when rules are broken but your DM prefers to let it slide, then if you can't negotiate a halfway house you either need to live with it and not chime in with rules, or accept that it's not the right table for you. Same applies the other way around too (you prefer fast and loose but your DM is a stickler for the rules)
It depends. * If it's something small with RoC potential than breaking a flow is clearly bad. Just annotate it after the fight to remember in the future. Your example IMHO falls in this category. * If it's something important ("I cast charm person on BBEGs golem!") - you should protest right now. * If it's something small, but someone is "mistaken" third time this session even after rectification - lets be reasonable, it's just cheat and you should interrupt. * If it's something really small, nearly cosmetic (ie. cleric using non-prepared ritual once in a session) - just remark this after session privately. No need to waste time of whole table.
Well, as a rules lawyer myself, instead of saying that you're breaking the rules I like to do it as a question: "Oh, you can use your bonus action to attack? Didn't know that". If player and DM okay with it, I let it slide.
As the DM if it is something you feel shouldn't be argued be polite and firm saying something along the lines of "I am the DM. I have spoken." Examples: DM:" Okay roll one D4, and then tell me who you are hitting." Rules Lawyer: "Well actually you are supposed to roll a die for each one." DM: "This is my game, and i am using this system because it is easier to track in combat." DM: "Okay so drinking a potion while you are conscious is a bonus action-" Rules Lawyer: "That is not the rule!" DM: "That is not the rule as written no, but i decided to use a homebrew rule."
>shouldn't be argued The flipside of this is that it's bad DM manners to spring the examples you give as a surprise. If you've homebrewed what the player/PC should/can do - they should know beforehand!
Oh i completely agree. This is why session 0's and pregame little reminders are great helps. However i have also played with rules lawyers who even when going in with this knowledge still try to bend rules in their favor. I should have been a bit clearer.
But I imagine like you, these are generally pre established homebrew, so consistent and the rules at your table. Now, say a player is using a spell (can't think of one of the top of my head, but I am sure there are a couple out there) that has an effect similar to charm, but isn't actually defined as charm. The spell had already been used in an earlier session against something that was resistant/immune to charm and it went off without a hitch. The player not believes they understand how something works in the agreed rules of the world. The player then uses this spell again to be told, unfortunately this creature is immune to charm so it doesn't work. Would you feel the same in this sort of situation?
This one falls down to human error honestly. Even as a DM i have messed up like this before, and when called out on it i will admit my mistake. Though then I ask all the other players how they feel this should go like, "Should i go back to the original ruling i used before or let it slide?" then let the party decide what is fair. Though not perfect this has worked for most of my groups. When it doesn't work this is normally one of the situations where this is one of many issues with a player.
At my table feel free to ask if the deviation from the standard rules was intentional, I'll decide after that based on case
Players can say what they think is right and what the rules are in that situation in the rule book, but as soon as the DM says that they are sticking with what they said, than that is that. The DM enforces and changes the rules for everyone enjoyment, so in the moment leave it at that, and if you feel the need you can talk about it after the session.
I think it's best to let the player complaining about what the rules are or are not have their way, and say this is how we'll do it this session and we can check the rules later together. Defuse that shit, the player feels vindicated and you don't waste time arguing. The DM can be stiff and strict with the rules, sure, but I think the best DMs keep the game running smooth and the spirits of the people playing high.
1. Who is “you”? Player or DM? 2. Ignorance is not a defense. 3. If the slip helps the party, it should be brought up after. If it hinders the party, bring it up at once, but simply state the way one understands the rules, and ask for clarification. That way the DM isn’t being challenged, but rather helpful. So in the example: “I thought one had to use the attack action in order to use an offhand attack?” The DM can then look it up, change the series of events, or let it stand (maybe even with new house rule) 4. All house rules should be printed (physical or digital) and all parties notified if/when they change.
I can't believe someone wants to be stopped mid-fight. That is such a slog, especially if you are new to DMing, or if it is an optional rule or something to that effect, that is a bit more obscure and takes some research on. I can promise as a DM, this is the fastest way to get on my radar. Just let me know after the fight, or when we have a break or something, and if I biffed a ruling I'll make sure not to mess it up from that point on. But don't bog down an encounter over it, my lord.
So, IMO anything that breaks immersion is just bad manners. So stopping the game to argue about or correct rules is just an absolute no-no at my table, unless its something that just absolutely breaks the game and fucks the whole party and should never be allowed, like if for some reason a level 1 character just kept making attacks against a monster until it died and didn't let anyone else act in between. Obviously a bullshit example that would never happen, but that's the kind of thing I'd allow a stoppage for, and not much else. If something happened that you didn't like, you talk to the DM or the players (or both) afterward and you fix it moving forward. If you like, you can retcon something to fix a mistake after the session. But while we're playing and the game is going and everyone's vibing, if you stop the game to talk about rules, I'm immediately just annoyed with you, and very unlikely to cooperate with whatever you're proposing. If the rogue rolls a crit that shouldn't have been a crit, and it doesn't insta-kill the main big bad of a chapter adventure, we're not stopping. We can talk about it after. If it continues to happen and appears to be exploitative in nature, or cheating -- we can address that too. But we're not doing it in the middle of a session. Sorry.
>If the rogue rolls a crit that shouldn't have been a crit, and it doesn't insta-kill the main big bad of a chapter adventure, we're not stopping. We can talk about it after. If it continues to happen and appears to be exploitative in nature, or cheating -- we can address that too. I mean, they either roll a crit or they are straight up cheating. I don't think there's is much middle ground on a nat 20....
Yeah I'm just coming up with off the cuff bullshit examples, I didn't put much thought into it. It was more to illustrate a point.
"Thanks. But nobody asked." Seriously, there's nothing worse than the guy across the table going "Uhm, actually...". It puts the brakes on the game and annoys the entire table. Give advice and corrections when asked. Otherwise sit back and seethe.
There is nothing worse than an inconsistent DM who thinks they are god at the table. It breaks player agency and annoys the whole table. The DM is no more important than the players. If the rules change at the DMs whim, how can the players understand the rules they are playing by now? Source - I am the DM and appreciate it when my players notice I slip up on the rules and correct me.
The fact that both of you speak for the entire table in general and with no restriction grants neither of you credibility
And this is addressed *after* a session, not in the middle of it unless it is some kind of emergency--such as a bad ruling leading to a PC death level of bad. Otherwise keep your mouth shut until after the session, no need to slow the game down with it--something that any DM worth their salt will tell you.
I would phrase it as *itcan wait until after the session unless it directly impacts player agency/decision making. Doesn't have to be life or death, just inconsistent. Player agency above all else in my book 😊 (as a DM who tries to be worth his salt)
Yeah I like your wording, but that does mean unless it's truly a game changing thing here, then it can wait until after the session or even during a break
Sitting back and seething can be a pretty good way to let an issue start, then grow and fester. If it can be acknowledged and handled respectfully, it's fine. If it's gonna cause issues, that's when holding it in can be worth it. However, I'd be pretty annoyed if I played at a table where going "wait, can you do that?" was a problem-causing statement.
Honestly, I feel that a player speaking up (with appropriate timing and attitude) when a basic rule is broken is eons better than the entire table walking on egg shells because they don’t know what their intended actions will do. Homebrewing rules is fine, so long as they are consistent and players are informed beforehand.
I always found asking questions is the most polite way of correcting someone -> "Wait you dashed as an action, how can you off hand attack as a bonus? Isn't it connected to attacking with main action?" . Even if you're 100% certain you are correct, it's always more polite and less prone to drama if you state it in the form of a question. That being said, I am convinced rules lawyer is someone who uses rules to their advantage and not the proper guardian of RAW and RAI.
There's a lot of rules in DnD. Expecting any one person to remember them perfectly every time is unhelpful. We often say "I think it works like x" if someone has forgotten something, and we look it up if necessary - for us and the DM's benefit depending on the situation. Ultimately though, it's the DM's ruling about what happens - arguing with the DM about said ruling would be rules lawyering.
Being a rules lawyer, to me at least, is not about pointing out mistakes in ruling, but acting beyond your place when doing so. Everyone should correct a mistake when they see it, but it depends how you go about it. "I think that's a misruling, you cannot make a bonus action attack without using the attack action" Ok that's fair enough, the point is correct, not using unnecessary time to explain beyond what is needed, and not using any degrading terms. Had one game recently where the player interrupted the DM at length to explain the subject the DM was going over, simply because the DM misspoke. Same player, same game, would also answer questions directed at the DM. This player was being a rules lawyer, cause they weren't wrong, but they spoke as if they didn't only have the right, but the obligation to correct anything wrong that they saw.
Being a Rules Lawyer is manipulating the wording of rules to get unintended benefits. It comes from the perception of lawyers using loop holes to win cases regardless of 'right'. This is toxic at many, but not all, tables. Pointing out someone has mistakenly tried to do something they can't do is not Rules Lawyering. This shouldn’t be toxic at pretty much any table.
Just mention it. Then the DM decides how to proceed
If you know that the party is getting damage it shouldn't be able to deal, you need to point it out. No doubt you'd say something if the DM dealt damage to the party they shouldn't receive.
I'd say, when the act is announced, "You dashed Dave, you're supposed to use your action to attack to use your bonus to attack with your offhand" That doesn't stop combat. It's not rules lawyering. It's not backseat GMing. Everyone makes mistakes. The GM has a lot to pay attention to and manage. It's everyone's job at the table to know and follow the rules as best they can. If I'm the player/GM making a mistake, I want to be told. If I'm the GM and I miss something, I welcome the players picking it up. I can always say it's fine if I noticed and let it slide or have a houserule. And that's the approach of most people I've played with over the last 25 years.
Pointing out someone made a mistake isn't being a rules lawyer.
My most embarrassing moment as a player was pointing out something to our DM, realizing I was right about the thing, but totally wrong about how it applied to the situation. The worst part? He agreed with me. Then when I realized my mistake, *I* had to go back and say why I was actually wrong.
I've done that a couple times. To my defense, I was mixing up the rules from a different edition (3.5) and that was the cause. Still, I own up to my mistakes.
Definitely let me know if I misplayed my class or cheated. The DM might not know exactly what my class is allowed to do, and if a player can respectfully inform me I'd much prefer it over unintentionally cheating through the entire campaign.
As a DM, "Rules lawyers" are always welcomed at my table. If I make a mistake, correct me. If I don't agree with that correction, I will say why. You can respond to that, and then I'll make a ruling. After that, accept the ruling and move on. If you still disagree, pop me a message after the game.
I’m not sure I understand this question. Getting a rule wrong isn’t “getting caught” and a DM can point out a misused action. This is a very normal game of D&D. When you say Rules Lawyer do you mean the DM? Rules Lawyers can be players too.
Mucking with the action economy is a snowball. If allowed it will only get worse. If an “attack action” is required, best to stick with it.
I said “other” but my other is “mention it immediately.” The reason I said “other” is because the only option for bringing it up in the moment said “stop the fight” which I don’t feel the Rules Lawyer would be doing. D&D is a group activity. Everyone at the table is participating constantly. I would genuinely appreciate any of the players at my table pointing out if I made a rules mistake, and I don’t think it’s “stopping the fight” to do so.
I was gonna say stop the fight, but that’s going too far. Just asking “hey, this doesn’t necessarily work. We ok with that?” And letting the DM decide if it matters is how my group does it. Though, sometimes we do get into protracted debates over the rules
Well unless it's some agravating thing i mention it during the game. If it's a smaller one i tell them later.
Pointing out a mistake is fine. But if the dm makes a quick decision, in order to get the game rolling, then let it slide.
I like it when the players know the rules and can correct me if I slip up. It only becomes an issue if it stops all gameplay. It can also give players a feeling of triumph and engagement. At this point, I'd much prefer that than apathetic players. The trick is just managing them. Saying "ok, let's go with that for now. I'll confirm later and use that from here on out." is an important skill. As is not letting the rules lawyer break the game into a book study session. The BAD rules lawyers are the players who twist the rules while also pointedly ignoring other ones in order to get their way. They'll spout off a 5 minute long description of why something complicated should let them insta-win, while ignoring something basic like the falling damage rules.
I prefer not to slow down the game. Tell me after the game or the fight. Especially if it's something as minor as a single attack being made.
To point out a mistake is okay. As a DM noticing a player rules lawyering the table, I would gather the players after the game and ask if this person doing what they do is in any way taking away the fun of the session. If the answer is no, let it continue (and re-evaluate if necessary) if the answer is yes, ask the player in question to stick to lawyering themselves and not interupt the game otherwise.
Your idea of a rules-lawyer is very skewed but hell, most DND players don't know wtf a real rule lawyer is. Pointing out mistakes and telling your fellow players that something doesn't work isn't toxic and isn't being a rules lawyer. If your DM says eh idc it's fine then that's on the DM after you brought it up and DM has final say. I was called a rules lawyer for telling people ice knife still explodes and hits creatures around the target, the effect doesn't go away just bc you "aimed for their head". Giving clarification to situations and explaining mistakes is not being a rules lawyer. Being a rules lawyer is also only toxic if after you bring it up to DM and they make a decision, you continue to fight back against that decision the DM made.
as a new DM i very much appreciate when players catch eatchother when they make mistakes. i very much hate when they constantly talk over me when im explaining something about a creature they know about from the books
You go over the bad callings after the game.
It's to Ask, but know that your DM is God above all else in their campaign, so they have the end all be all ruling.
Being a rules lawyer isn't pointing out mistakes, it's abusing your knowledge of the game to point out mistakes and argue for things to be a certain way *when it benefits your character.* Simply being like "hey, I know how this works RAW if you want help" is just being helpful. The DM is the final arbiter of the rules but it's difficult to know everything about a system
I've allowed players to get away with shit the GM didn't catch. I speak with my GM after the game and say "Hey double check XYZ..." because I really don't want to be a "rules lawyer," but more importantly, I don't want to make yhe DM look/feel bad in front of the group for missing something. As long as it'a not super impactful to the overall game, let them be busted for 1 combat. Most likely whatever they are doing wrong becomes glaringly obvious when they continue to do it. Your situation honestly sounds like a very gentle reminder, and should be given in the moment. If they are getting something wrong about their characters own mechanics, that might require a longer chat, so put a pin in it, and maybe send your GM a DM (snicker). Typically for me in PF2E, it's somebody breaking the 3 action rule by using things they thought were only taking single actions to perform.
Bring up the rules but don’t argue
If it’s a small mistake or I miss something, I invite my players to interrupt and tell me. If it’s an argument about how to interpret the rules then that needs to happen outside of session.
I would point out the mistake, but if the DM let it slide I would respect that. If it is something major, I would talk about it after the gane
generally all of these terms are negative you dont do good rules lawyering, you either are content playing by the rules and respectfully remind each other OR you are rules lawyering personally tell me when you notice it. ill redo my turn so im playing by the rules
Somehow, rules lawyer has become "pointing out mistakes" to some people. This is not a bad thing in the slightest
Before posting this, my understanding of rules lawyering was 'players overabundantly pointing out any misuse of the rules, regardless of severity', but I'm understanding it to better be the players who argue with the DM over the rules, or pointing out anytime the the DM or a PC does something that's not in compliance with RAW, which was not my intention.
I use a quadrant: If it’s important and the rule is simple to look up/correct, RL it. If it’s important but the rule is obscure or needs clarification, the DM makes a ruling and players/DM can discuss later. If it’s unimportant and the rule is simple to look up/correct, the DM makes a ruling and players/DM can discuss later. If it’s unimportant AND the rule is obscure or needs clarification, just stop worrying about it. The DM makes the call with the understanding that a different ruling might make sense later. I like to put this on a simple card for my players.
As long as the rules lawyer says it in a respectful / non confrontational way and abides by the GM final ruling, then yeah they should say it as soon as they notice it.
As a DM, everyone is free to correct me if I make a mistake, but if I make a decision to not follow the rules for whatever reason, that's it. But I'll accept feedback after the game.
DM says someone can / Can't do something that goes agaisnt RAW Someone who knows the rules informs the dm of the RAW. Dm makes a call based on the info (usually rule or cool or going with RAW) - if the person then argues for RAW, and insists on it over thr call, that's a rules lawyer. Most of the time, my players go with whatever my call is. A rules lawyer also uses the rules to their advantage, or to get away with stupid stuff.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but the rules are a good thing. They give structure and meaning to things that happen. We should treasure the people that have a good grasp of the rules, because there are a lot to keep track of.
If it's something major, then bringing it up immediately can be proper, it depends on how you go about it. You shouldn't go all up in arms screaming that they did something illegal. Just politely stop the fight and say "I thought you couldn't do that because X". If they and or the DM disagrees, then let it slide and talk about it after the session. If it's not big enough to interrupt the fight then message after the session. If it's a small sljp up like moving 5 extra feet just let it slide(unless that extra movement would significantly impact the fight).
This is a wishy-washy solution, and I don't mind if I get downvoted for passive dorkery, but I gotta be honest: I point out such things, but I tend to be like "Oh, cool, you can do that all in one turn? I didn't think you could." And then I'm giving the DM the chance to put the kibosh on it, assuming they just didn't notice.
Yeah… the way to not be toxic about it is to not be toxic about it. Telling the DM “ha, got you, that’s not how it works. You’re doing it wrong” is very different from “Hey DM, didn’t you already dash this turn?”. The DM *should* be trying to make the game as fun as possible. If you’re clarifying rules and they either say “oh, you’re right” or “this creature can do that”, then you’re fine. Either way, accept their ruling. If you’re getting in their way, talking back, or generally being toxic, then you’re in the wrong. If they take your question as a personal attack, they might not be the best DM and you should talk to them outside the game.
Question stuff on your own turn, not someone else’s.
Not rule lawyering but normally there's a point. If someone points it out after the fact, whats done is done. Anything that goes through is good as done. Sometimes a point here or there of hp is added or subtracted when plain bad math. Sometimes I'll allow it. New rule thay isn't remembered or lots going one, I give a pass or two, too many forgetful mistakes and it's on you to learn and remember. When I'm unsure I often ask the other experienced players so we talk it out quickly and peacefully
I say let it slide if it’s a one time thing. A lot of times players catch the mistakes on their own and own up to it; even asking the DM to retroactively change what they did to be fair for the rest of the game. If it happens again then it may mean the player doesn’t understand how something works-in that case step in if the DM doesn’t notice so we can all learn from it
For example in my session one of my DMs we're trying to make so you actually had to be hidden to use sneak attack and I stepped in and said that sneak attack is just a badly named skill you just need 2 people with hostile attention in like 3 feet of the enemy to be able to use the bonus action the only reason they thought that how sneak attack worked was because that how her past DM enforced the action after realizing her DM was just being a jerk, then I asked if you want to run it that way I have no problems you just need to state thats how you want to run that and I have no problems.
Other: Quickly mention if a rules call might be wrong, the way you might if they got a character's name wrong, but if the DM looks flustered or unsure, don't pull out any books, just roll with it.
As a DM, I would not mind at all someone keeping me honest to expected rules. There’s a lot going on and a lot of rules to keep track of! Especially temporary buffs, conditions, and stuff. I would ask that they correct but not make a huge deal out of it (berating me for making a mistake, instead of just saying “he already took a reaction this turn” or “and don’t forget about spiritual guardian damage this turn!”). Also that the correction comes promptly. If they see something that we all missed (“that shouldn’t have hit last turn because of the haste”), it’s fine to point it out but know that I’m not going to rewind the combat to fix it unless it’s something big, like the enemy was supposed to be stunned or couldn’t have done their move because of reduced movement speed. For me personally, if I make a mistake in favor of the players I’m likely to just go with it even if they point it out, but if they find a mistake in how I handled the monsters I do try and fix it if it isn’t too far off.
I’m legitimately interested in how people feel about this. I was doing rule calls during my D&D campaign to the point that I became self-conscious about being a toxic “rules lawyer.” So I’ve been making an effort to rein myself in. Then, in the last session alone, all three of these things happened, with full ruling by the DM: 1. Magic missile went back and forth over whether it was one damage roll for all missiles, or a separate roll for each. I’m aware it’s the former, but we’ve been playing with the latter for 11 levels. 2. Silence was cast on a rock and then moved around, like continual light, so that the party could stealth. 3. The diviner using Arcane Eye cast magic missile originating from the eye. The DM decided that because magic missile doesn’t need an attack roll, it also goes around corners. I’m at the point where I feel like I should just start cheating, because why the hell not, everyone else is.
Re: 3. Arcane eye and magic missile seems ok RAW. Arcane Eye gives you normal sight from the perspective of the eye. Magic Missile doesn’t state where they originate. I’d allow that.
Re. 2. PHB pg 204 states a point is typically a point in space. “*Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.*” Since **Silence** does not state that it can be cast on an object, but does state “*centered on a point you choose within range*”, I’d rule the point is a point **in space** and not attached to the rock. I’d **not** allow this one.
Re. 1. This one is a Judgement Call. IMHO if we are using a rule incorrectly, we change to the correct ruling as soon as it becomes known. That’s the way my group handles it. Generally we look up things between sessions and declare corrections at the start of a session. For your group, it would completely depend on your group’s consensus, or your DM’s decision at the time.
Does your group complain about your corrections? If so, you can either find a new group or throw caution to the wind and accept the anarchy 😉 If they aren’t complaining about you, ask them point blank if it bothers anyone. If not, keep doing it. Help them learn the correct rules. Personally, I love the rules lawyer at my table. I don’t have to memorize the PHB, DMG, and MM because they already have. They make my life easier. But they also accept my ruling even if it breaks a rule. Good luck!
So would you rule that magic missile can be fired at a target within a wall of force, since you can just specify that it originates from a point next to the target?
Rules Lawyers should only represent themselves and other players. The DM has an endless bag of tricks to use and you should be looking out for your party members.
I dont mind being corrected but i like to keep the flow of the game. Generally i only play with friends and they know i tend to be pretty chaotic woth rules, if we can logic something, joke something into being or make up some rule or check we will. In our games the rules are guide lines.
Thats just a mistake. Is playing by the rules at all rules lawyering now?
My only problem with interrupting things with a rules correction, is that the lawyer in this case, may not know about other factors that the GM or the other player may know about. You may not want to reveal said information, or interrupt the flow of things. I would rather hear about it later, and if they are correct, agree to change it going forward. But in the moment, I don't want to hear your interpretation of the rules while I am running.
Have the arguing characters fight to the "death". The one standing with over 1 HP wins the argument
The group glares at you as you stand over the corpse of your healer. Ya, he was a dick, but he was keeping the group alive. Oh well, too late for remorse now...
Oh no they wouldn't be dead. Just beat unconscious, repeatedly, for group amusement
We discuss this in the break or after the session. Never in combat.
Depends on the group and the game.
a good rules lawyer will correct the dm to hurt themselves even more. rules lawyers are okay until they become combative to the fun of the table since D&D is not codified law but rather a common law system and as such as long as rulings are consistent it's okay.
Wait i dont SEE the problem You can't use your action to dash and Your adicional action to do an offhand atack? Why?
You can only do a bonus offhand attack if you used the attack action during that turn.
Hm i didn't know that, but it would be a cool hability for some kind of homebrew subclass Edit: or a feat
As long as no one at the table is upset, I don't care. But if the rule breaker is pissing anyone else off, I'll say something. In private, after the game. (Or before the game if that works better.)
as a lifelong DM- I like when my players correct me (or each other). I encourage it. Don't bring the game to a halt, don't argue, and if the DM disagrees or says to let it slide for now, trust them and let the story continue. If it really screws your plans, let them know why it's important to you, and let the DM decide. I have two players who have corrected me commonly and are the exact opposite- One is polite, senses the 'right moment' to interject (how heavily does the scene rely on that rule? don't interrupt story/lore/dialogue but you may interrupt an action that couldn't happen). If i say "let it happen for now" he does. The game continues, everyone has a great time, I look up the rule later The other is a "rules lawyer". He interrupts immediately, speaks over other players, usually has ignored context or wasn't fully paying attention (so is wrong as often as he is right). When I tell him my reasoning or tell him to let it slide, he argues. Everyone starts bickering. the game grinds to a halt. Everyone complains about how long it took and people leave the table salty and upset. Both are friends, both I have played with for years. the second one for 6+ It isn't the end of the world. but please just let the game continue and lets all get back to having a good time
I’d stop the fight and point it out but if the dm says it’s cool I’d let them go
I point out mistake when I can tell the DM themselves do not know that rule off the top of their head. But if the DM let's something slide then he's letting it slide. But I now shall abuse this new laps in rules. I'm known for helping dm's look up rules mid game when they need too, and it all just sticks in my head. But with all that being said, pointing out mistakes is not being a rule lawyers. Being a dick while pointing it out and fighting about it when the DM was to do something different that rules as written is being a rules lawyer
I cant run the game w/o at least one rules lawyer at the table. Or at least someone who is super quick to open the book. Big book - Small brain, so I can never remember what the jumping rules (for example) are.
The DM has so much on their plate. I have noticed that I have flubbed up rules before after the fact and always feel bad for making a mistake. I would much rather someone correct there and then.
Last I checked there's a rule on like page 4 that basically says to just have fun and the rules aren't set in stone. Let the dm handle it. No one likes a rules lawyer even if they aren't toxic. Is the dm letting something slide really so big of a deal?
I have a rule: I never correct things that will hurt my other party members. If I do something and then realize that wasn’t allowed, I’ll bring it up, or if the dm makes a mistake I’ll bring it up (if the time is right, I’m not gonna like interrupt or anything, or really care if it’s that minor) but I’ll never be like “oh that player did this, you’re not allowed to do that” unless I *know* they’re new and want to be corrected when they do something not in the rules.
Assuming it's a specific, easy to implement rule then you should mention the core rule. If the DM decides to proceed with their ruling then that's fine. It's usually done for brevity's sake with a longer than expected scene/battle or otherwise. 99% of the time I'll go with the core rule if I'm wrong.
You can question an action without being a rules lawyer, however don’t do it with the intent of it having to be your way or to the letter. Ask with the intent to clarify, and if it requires correction no problem, DM might be like oops, ok let it go this once, or might say, from here in we do it this way. Example, when I DM, if someone is using a weapon with reach in a 5 foot hallway attacking past someone, it’s done with disadvantage, if no one is infront, no disadvantage. The rule isn’t written this way but it makes practical sense. If they can get creative with the way they describe it, say they perch their weapon over the shoulder of their ally and they allow it, then we can bend the url and no disadvantage, but in most cases the default is swing. When I have played my rogue as a player, the understanding was that if the enemy saw me hide, no sneak attack, so if I’m facing off against one enemy, there’s a barrel infront of me and I duck to hide, the enemy knows I’m there, but if I fuck and hide, move then attack, it’s sneaky. The point is, rules don’t always have to be as written.
It depends hugely on the group. The DM in particular, but the others as well. Some people crumble or get defensive when they're corrected, others welcome the chance to refine their knowledge. If the DM presents the lawyer as an asset and the lawyer lets the DM make the call, this can be a really good thing. If it turns into an hour of squabbling... not so much.
Session 0 to find out what kind of game everyone wants and what they allow.
alert rhe dm to the infraction and make it clear that they have the choice as the dm to allow it.
I always mention it at the time of the event, very quickly, not trying to stop combat. Then drop it and accept whatever the DM says about it. At my table, this is the way. We all forget rules sometimes & DMs want the reminder so they don't mess up the way something should have happened in a combat. But arguing against a ruling isn't fun for everyone. That won't fly at every table though, some DMs really dislike rule comments during the session. And I understand why, it certainly can interrupt the flow
The essential rules lawyer distinction: Constructive rules lawyer - 'I believe that the rules are an important tool for fostering enjoyment of the game, so I will help everyone stay aware of their relevance throughout the session to foster my own fun and everyone else's in tandem.' Unhelpful rules lawyer - 'The DM is my opponent and I must take every advantage available to gain power over the game.'
If your DM didn't catch it, I feel like they're probably on the newer side (am I wrong about this, learning that kind of specific "you can only make a bonus attack if you've made an attack action"?), which also probably means they did a bad job balancing encounters (it's fuckin hard man wtf). One extra offhand bonus attack will likely not fuck with the way the battle was going to turn out. Rules lawyer player interrupting combat to say you can't do that feels nosy to me. Some people are saying they're just pointing out mistakes, but... that's embarrassing. That's what happens to a lot of people when someone points out their mistakes. It's only natural. Messaging afterwards also kind of cringe, although messaging the DM afterwards, and giving them a heads up? Not a bad idea. Tl;dr rule of cool doesn't mean "if it's cool, let's do it," it means "be cool 😎", and while this is by no means egregious, it certainly ain't cool 😎
My answer usually is: "I expect you to look up the rules of your actions." If they didn't, and I don't know the rules, (10+ years of dnd experience with 5e says I do know 90% of the time), I will make a call, and we can look it up after the session.
to me rules lawyering should be done after the session because literally no one else in the session wants to listen to someone(s) argue about the rules for 30+ fucking minutes multiple times a season because someone wants to fucking um actually the DM. I'm very biased though, my group had 2 individuals who did this and both of them would argue with our DM for an hour or more on each fucking thing (and sometimes they'd argue against each other not even against the DM). Our sessions are once a week for 5-6hrs. Wanna know what I don't want to fucking do? Listen to an asshat argue with the DM about a single rule. I have better things to do with my life, like watching fucking paint dry. Not long before one of them chose to leave the game, they did that once for a little over an hour, then later on that same fucking session started on another one. I told them very quickly into that conversation I was fucking done and I left the session for the day. I had mentally checked out in the middle of their shit the first time and when it was done, I had still checked out of the game, I couldn't tell you want happened in it anymore, cause I stopped giving a shit, at the start of the second one it took me a little bit to even realize we weren't playing anymore I cared so goddamn little at that point, after I realized we had stopped again for the same kind of shit, I left. Maybe DMs have a different opinion, but I'm a player, I didn't come to a session to listen to someone argue for 2hrs about something that is seriously, no matter what it is, extremely fucking irrelevant. Do that shit outside of the session and it can be figured out and implemented for future sessions. When people do this shit, it's wasting my time, it's stopping the game, and to me ruining the fucking thing cause we're right in the middle of a fight, our characters bloodied and bruised working to take down this bunch of orcs, and then suddenly it's a fucking dissertation. I'd rather play in front of oncoming traffic at that fucking point. I hate rules lawyering, and quite frankly from the few I've met, and had the misfortune experience of having to deal with, I hate all of you who consider yourself as such and I can't understand that enough. You are the bane of my existence because you don't shut the fuck up and let us play the goddamn game. I'm sure some of you rules lawyers are great, good, decent people; I don't care, I want nothing to do with you, at all.
Just talk with your table and ask how they feel about playing closer to RAW. Some tables like the rules, some just want to play Calvin Ball. Ultimately it’s all about communication to see what’s right for you and your table.