I've heard the term thrown around plenty of times but I'm starting to wonder where the line is drawn.
Am I considered a rules lawyer for pointing out that the druid can't animal growth themselves and take improved natural attack even if they can wildshape?
Or is it just for especially specific rules like if you have 3 ranks in acrobatics your AC bonus for full defense goes up?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good ones cite their sources and show people all relevant RAW in an impartial way, regardless of who it helps or hinders. They also try not to disrupt the game too much.
Bad ones are much more vague and selective when explaining the rules, or they distrupt the game a lot.
Good ones cite their sources and show people all relevant RAW in an impartial way, regardless of who it helps or hinders. They also try not to disrupt the game too much.
Bad ones are much more vague and selective when explaining the rules, or they distrupt the game a lot.
There was actually a problem with that recently where I was asked to cite where it says specifically that a druid doesn't gain the animal/magical beast/elemental type when using wild shape. Obviously I wasn't able to find that and the final verdict was that it was on the game to disprove player assumptions.
I consider myself a Rules Lawyer, but I don't interrupt others during play.
If there is something that I know is just dead wrong ("no, enlarge person does not stack with itself and no, you can't use it on ammunition mid-flight") I will just look at my GM and raise an eyebrow
- he makes the decision wheter this is something that he needs help with.
He has admitted that he likes having me as a safety net of sorts, since we both know that I know the rules better than him he will ask for my help when he needs it.
If he doesn't ask, I just get on with it and play, and leave the rules/houserules to him - it's a trust thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my experience bad lawyer is one that argues with DM, while good is the one that points out things other might not know.
If someone says "I wanna fight defencively to get +2 AC" and you say "you have 3 acro so you get +3" that seems good to me (might delay a little if GM want to check, but easier with internet acces to prd)
If someone says "I move 25ft here, jump on table and attack" and you like "You cant because Hop Up takes 10ft of movement and 10 acro" and then GM is "whatever, he can jump on table, its not that high" and you still "BUT RULES SAY YOU NEED 10 FEEEEEEEEET" is bad rules lawyer IMHO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, the rule you were looking for about why Animal Growth doesn't work is because Animal Growth targets only creature type animal. Your druid, even while wild shape, is his original creature type. Wildshape, and polymorph in general, do not change creature type. To confirm that look under the Magic chapter in the Core Rule Book. Specifically in the polymorph section.
This can be overcome by taking the feat Animal Soul, which allows you to be affected as though you were animal.
However, more importantly polymorph effects and size change effects do not stack. You could be affected by Animal Growth, but when he tried to use Wildshape he would have to choose which effect actually affected him. This is also under the polymorph rules.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a regular rules lawyer, I quickly learned that talking to people about how they are incorrectly using the rules, provides detriment to fun. It's perfectly acceptable to point out a mistake that might be game changing, but if you nag too much, it will slow game down and potentially start endless rule debates. There is a limit where rules become hindrance so I learned to keep my mouth shut. It worked great so far.
Adam
By the way, the rule you were looking for about why Animal Growth doesn't work is because Animal Growth targets only creature type animal. Your druid, even while wild shape, is his original creature type. Wildshape, and polymorph in general, do not change creature type. To confirm that look under the Magic chapter in the Core Rule Book. Specifically in the polymorph section.
This can be overcome by taking the feat Animal Soul, which allows you to be affected as though you were animal.
However, more importantly polymorph effects and size change effects do not stack. You could be affected by Animal Growth, but when he tried to use Wildshape he would have to choose which effect actually affected him. This is also under the polymorph rules.
Both the Druid and the DM wanted a sentence that specifically said druids don't change type with wildshape
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've heard the term thrown around plenty of times but I'm starting to wonder where the line is drawn.
Am I considered a rules lawyer for pointing out that the druid can't animal growth themselves and take improved natural attack even if they can wildshape?
Or is it just for especially specific rules like if you have 3 ranks in acrobatics your AC bonus for full defense goes up?
I am going to list some things in no specific order.
Actually know what you are talking about. Nobody is right all the time, but if you are going to correct someone you should be right most of the time.
Pointing things out to the GM, and arguing with the GM are two different things. If the GM is wrong let it go until after the game. <---Some will be more open to your advice after the session, but they do not want the game to be stopped. Also learn your GM so that you know when to let things go.
Be fair----->Do not only argue for a rule when it benefits you and "forget" when it will work against you.
Don't be a jerk. How you explain something is also important. If you come across as "What is wrong with you? Everyone knows that is not right." then you might not be well-liked.
I am sure there are others I am missing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both the Druid and the DM wanted a sentence that specifically said druids don't change type with wildshapeBy the way, the rule you were looking for about why Animal Growth doesn't work is because Animal Growth targets only creature type animal. Your druid, even while wild shape, is his original creature type. Wildshape, and polymorph in general, do not change creature type. To confirm that look under the Magic chapter in the Core Rule Book. Specifically in the polymorph section.
This can be overcome by taking the feat Animal Soul, which allows you to be affected as though you were animal.
However, more importantly polymorph effects and size change effects do not stack. You could be affected by Animal Growth, but when he tried to use Wildshape he would have to choose which effect actually affected him. This is also under the polymorph rules.
That is in the magic chapter under the polymorph section. In 3.5 it actually said you changed creature type, but in Pathfinder you just get the form.
Here is Jason Bulmahn the lead rules developer saying it does not change the type.
That is in the magic chapter under the polymorph section. In 3.5 it actually said you changed creature type, but in Pathfinder you just get the form.Here is Jason Bulmahn the lead rules developer saying it does not change the type.
Ah thank you thank you, wish I had been able to find that sooner.
Another problem was that the druid took improved natural attack with the rationale that since he could wildshape into something that had claws, he could then take INA for claws and so forth.
This opened up a huge thing where, so long as you could eventually fulfill the prerequisites, you could take feats without actually fulfilling them. An example given was, if the druid had 10 str, but had a form that pushed him above 13, he could take Power Attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both the Druid and the DM wanted a sentence that specifically said druids don't change type with wildshape
As concerro pointed out Jason's post about the subject and provides some good concrete evidence to point out to your GM, it is also important to know this.
You can't prove a negative, generally speaking. What you should have asked is where it said that Wildshape changes creature type (and heres a hint, it doesn't anywhere). It did in 3.5 and was specifically changed because it was deemed to be too powerful.
Anytime someone asks you to prove something doesn't exist, instead ask them to prove that it does. You can't prove that there is a line saying that polymorph doesn't change your creature type, because such a line doesn't exist. But you shouldn't have to, the burden of proof should be on them to prove it does exist.
The situation is a logical fallacy that many people fall into, but recognizing it can help to avoid the situation.
A negative proof (known classically as appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
Or
You do not know what X is. Therefore we do.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is in the magic chapter under the polymorph section. In 3.5 it actually said you changed creature type, but in Pathfinder you just get the form.Here is Jason Bulmahn the lead rules developer saying it does not change the type.
Ah thank you thank you, wish I had been able to find that sooner.
Another problem was that the druid took improved natural attack with the rationale that since he could wildshape into something that had claws, he could then take INA for claws and so forth.
This opened up a huge thing where, so long as you could eventually fulfill the prerequisites, you could take feats without actually fulfilling them. An example given was, if the druid had 10 str, but had a form that pushed him above 13, he could take Power Attack.
His power attack idea is wrong. You must have a permanent score to take a feat. For the sake of argument even if the GM was nice and allowed him to take it, he could not use the feat when he was not qualified for it, so he really is taking a part-time feat.
Permanent ability scores actually increase your ability score, that is why you qualify. Temporary ability score bonuses give you some of the benefits, but your score does not actually increase until 24 hours has passed.
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.
This matters because even though wildshape allows you to use a higher score you actually still have a lower score. It is similar to how ability damage makes you take penalties as if your ability score was lower, but your score is actually still the same.
As for improved natural attack I don't think it is allowed, but many GM's do allow it. Unless the GM was a real stickler for the rules I would let it go. If he is then someone here can probably find the text if I don't find it.
As concerro pointed out Jason's post about the subject and provides some good concrete evidence to point out to your GM, it is also important to know this.
You can't prove a negative, generally speaking. What you should have asked is where it said that Wildshape changes creature type (and heres a hint, it doesn't anywhere). It did in 3.5 and was specifically changed because it was deemed to be too powerful.
Anytime someone asks you to prove something doesn't exist, instead ask them to prove that it does. You can't prove that there is a line saying that polymorph doesn't change your creature type, because such a line doesn't exist. But you shouldn't have to, the burden of proof should be on them to prove it does exist.
The situation is a logical fallacy that many people fall into, but recognizing it can help to avoid the situation.
A negative proof (known classically as appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
Or
You do not know what X is. Therefore we do.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.
I did so, they just kept quoting the first paragraph of Wildshape in defense and wouldn't listen.
At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bad Rules Lawyer is the one the DM doesn't like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As concerro pointed out Jason's post about the subject and provides some good concrete evidence to point out to your GM, it is also important to know this.
You can't prove a negative, generally speaking. What you should have asked is where it said that Wildshape changes creature type (and heres a hint, it doesn't anywhere). It did in 3.5 and was specifically changed because it was deemed to be too powerful.
Anytime someone asks you to prove something doesn't exist, instead ask them to prove that it does. You can't prove that there is a line saying that polymorph doesn't change your creature type, because such a line doesn't exist. But you shouldn't have to, the burden of proof should be on them to prove it does exist.
The situation is a logical fallacy that many people fall into, but recognizing it can help to avoid the situation.
A negative proof (known classically as appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
Or
You do not know what X is. Therefore we do.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.I did so, they just kept quoting the first paragraph of Wildshape in defense and wouldn't listen.
At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing...
If they are not going to listen to the guy who wrote the rules then there is not much you can say to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is in the magic chapter under the polymorph section. In 3.5 it actually said you changed creature type, but in Pathfinder you just get the form.Here is Jason Bulmahn the lead rules developer saying it does not change the type.
Ah thank you thank you, wish I had been able to find that sooner.
Another problem was that the druid took improved natural attack with the rationale that since he could wildshape into something that had claws, he could then take INA for claws and so forth.
This opened up a huge thing where, so long as you could eventually fulfill the prerequisites, you could take feats without actually fulfilling them. An example given was, if the druid had 10 str, but had a form that pushed him above 13, he could take Power Attack.
His power attack idea is wrong. You must have a permanent score to take a feat. For the sake of argument even if the GM was nice and allowed him to take it, he could not use the feat when he was not qualified for it, so he really is taking a part-time feat.
Permanent ability scores actually increase your ability score, that is why you qualify. Temporary ability score bonuses give you some of the benefits, but your score does not actually increase until 24 hours has passed.
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.This matters because even though wildshape allows you to use a higher score you actually still have a lower score. It is similar to how ability damage makes you take penalties as if your ability score was lower, but your score is...
Actually there's a precedent about taking feats without permanently satisfying the requirements.
The particular example is a synthesist summoner and feats that require physical scores, with the obvious caveat that he has the benefits of the feat only when he is in the condition so satisfy the requirements (e.g. able to power attack only when fused with the eidolon).
I think a similar point can be made with the Druid that can wildshape entire hours per day.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've said your piece, I'd let it go.
Letting something go so the game can continue is the mark of a good rules lawyer.
I like to think that I'm a pretty good player who happens to know the rules fairly well - here's my approach when I notice an error:
"I'm not sure it works that way." - A phrase like this shows that you think there's a problem, but it's non-confrontational and it allows that the speaker could be wrong.
At this point the GM can tell me that there's info I don't have, or that we're doing it this way for now and we'll check later. If he does I stop. I trust my GMs.
If he's open to discussion, I'll cite the relevant rule from my memory, or look it up very quickly. If I can't look it up in moments it's generally not worth delaying the game, unless it's character life or death; that's worth a minute or so.
If it's going to take a while or involve a big discussion, let it be until after the game.
It's possible that you won't convince your GM. People are allowed to be wrong about things and you can't fix that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your aim is for the sake of garnering an undue benefit for your personal advantage in the game, you're a bad rules lawyer.
This. If you only point out rules issues when it's to your benefit/someone else's detriment, you're a bad rules lawyer (and something of a jerk, but the two go together frequently).
I've found that PbP makes it much easier to be a good rules lawyer, as you're not really disrupting the flow of the game to have discussions.
...
That is in the magic chapter under the polymorph section. In 3.5 it actually said you changed creature type, but in Pathfinder you just get the form.Here is Jason Bulmahn the lead rules developer saying it does not change the type.
Ah thank you thank you, wish I had been able to find that sooner.
Another problem was that the druid took improved natural attack with the rationale that since he could wildshape into something that had claws, he could then take INA for claws and so forth.
This opened up a huge thing where, so long as you could eventually fulfill the prerequisites, you could take feats without actually fulfilling them. An example given was, if the druid had 10 str, but had a form that pushed him above 13, he could take Power Attack.
His power attack idea is wrong. You must have a permanent score to take a feat. For the sake of argument even if the GM was nice and allowed him to take it, he could not use the feat when he was not qualified for it, so he really is taking a part-time feat.
Permanent ability scores actually increase your ability score, that is why you qualify. Temporary ability score bonuses give you some of the benefits, but your score does not actually increase until 24 hours has passed.
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.This matters because even though wildshape allows you to use a higher score you actually still have a lower score. It is similar to how ability damage makes you take penalties as if your ability score was
The synthesis ability score is a permanent one not a temporary one, and wearing that belt to qualify before 24 hours is not supported by the rules. If that is the intent they need to clarify it, and give the reason why permanent scores even matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually there's a precedent about taking feats without permanently satisfying the requirements.
The particular example is a synthesist summoner and feats that require physical scores, with the obvious caveat that he has the benefits of the feat only when he is in the condition so satisfy the requirements (e.g. able to power attack only when fused with the eidolon).
I think a similar point can be made with the Druid that can wildshape entire hours per day.
The reason a synthesist can take feats is because the synthesist uses his eiodolen's ability scores whine suited up. Since there are no conditions on when the synthesist uses those scores, presumably he uses them for everything, including feat prereqs.
Ability score bonuses are temporary until after 24 hours has passed.
See here(official PRD), or here (d20pfsrd)
Ability Score Bonuses
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
*****
Details on what ability score bonuses affect what.
*****
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.
The ability score bonus would have to last for more than 24 hours
Note that activating multiple wildshapes doesn't help - The druid's enhancement bonus might have been constant over 24 hours, but reactivating wildshape ends the old effect, and it's passed duration doesn't add to the old one.
A druid with level 13 wild shaping (e.g. a level 13 vanilla druid, a level 11 saurian shaman etc) and Beast of the Society could get a duration long enough. There might be another way like an item or something to do it as well. I don't know of one though. If a druid with 11-12 strength wild shaped into something medium they could qualify after 24 hours (up until wildshape runs out).
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between the good and bad meanings of "rules lawyer" are kind of like the good and bad meanings of a certain racial n-word. It's always referring to the same general category of people, but whenever you call someone out for using it as a perjorative, they'll be quick to point out that there are some people who use the term among their friends in a completely non-offensive way and therefore the term isn't inherently insulting. They seem to believe that fact somehow makes their own comment into something other than petty, elitist name-calling, just because the word they used has a non-offensive usage as well.
10% of lawyers give the rest a bad name. If your aim is game precision for the sake of fairness and understanding, you are a good rules lawyer. If your aim is for the sake of garnering an undue benefit for your personal advantage in the game, you're a bad rules lawyer. It's really ideal to have one person in the game with a high degree of system mastery and precision understanding of the rules as a reference. After all, if someone reads the rules and builds their character based on the rules being followed, but then someone else (even the GM) just decides to disregard certain rules with impromptu houserules or, even worse, the GM doesn't even know the rules himself, this is more harmful to the game than interrupting for the sake of clarity. After all, you'd be rightfully pissed if your GM brought out a bunch of opponents who use Vital Strike on their AoOs and you knew that Vital Strike doesn't work on AoOs. Should you wait until after they wipe the floor with you because of their undue advantage and then, after the session, mention, "Oh, btw, you seem not to have been aware of this, but Vital Strike doesn't work on AoOs... or Charge... or anything else but the basic Standard Attack action."? Or do you bring it up on the spot? This is a case of good rules lawyering. A good GM, at this point, would realize his error and use the feat properly. A bad GM would say, "Well, then it's a houserule so it works anyway."
By contrast, say it's our rules lawyer using Vital Strike on his AoOs and Charges. The GM still doesn't realize that Vital Strike can't be used on AoOs, Charges, etc. This rules lawyer knows very well that this is against the rules, but he argues for it anyway. Meanwhile, maybe one other member of the group has heard off-hand that Vital Strike doesn't work on all attacks, but he doesn't speak up for fear of interrupting the game or being out-voted by everyone else. In this case, our rules lawyer is a bad one; using his understanding of general lack of rules competency in order to...
Exactly, I point out most stuff I think is wrong as a player or as a DM. I expect the same courtesy in return.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Snappy answer:
Bad Rules Lawyer: Can't win any argument.
How to be a Good Rules Lawyer:
1) Know your facts. If your facts are wrong, you loose credibility.
2) Speak up once. It is OK to tell folks it does not work that way, the first time. Then it can be decided what the house rule is. After the ruling is made, that should be the last said during the game. Outside of game time, it should only be brought up if it is a major issue with you or is otherwise causing havoc in the game.
3) Research it later. Propose research between sessions for future use but use whatever incorrectly(?) for the session. I.e. "I don't think that is how it works. I'll look it up later."
4) Submit to fun. If the argument/discussion detracts from the common enjoyment of the session, don't do it then, or curtail it for later research/discussion.
5) Know yourself. I am a rules layer. I try to be good, but sometimes the moment seizes me. I try to make notes about stuff I find incorrect so I can later email my GM.
/cevah
In our gaming group of 7 people, there are 4 Rules Lawyers of varying degrees. Two of them really know what they are talking about. One is a GM (He is one of those types who reads the books as casual reading material). He keeps silent and only points things out when things are really needed. Another player has pointed things out in polite discussion but has learned when to stop. (He has been yelled at once or twice). Another knows stuff but I notice he pipes up only during conversation about rules.
The last guy is the problem. He THINKS he knows all the rules. He keeps pointing out what he THINKS he knows during the game and we keep telling him to shut up. [long sigh] The game goes well otherwise.
Ahhhh fun and Role Playing Games!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a DM and I have a rules lawyer. To me, he is an invaluable resource. If players have rules questions during the game, I frequently have him make interpretations so that I can keep focused on running the story. It helps that he has similar priorities for the game. Playing the game > Talking about the game > Reading rules about the game > Arguing about the game > No game. And he's quite agreeable to table things until after the session, which is my biggest thing.
We don't always agree, but mutual respect and communication keeps things on track more often than not. I'm really happy he joined the group.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say... His "Best By" date!
*Ba-Dum, Chesseh!*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good rules lawyer is one who knows when to let it go. If the GM allows someone to take Power Attack when they're not supposed to be able to take Power Attack, it doesn't do any real harm to the game. If you spend several minutes trying to persuade the GM he's wrong, it does harm the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to be the rule lawyer for my group as well. Though it's not that I know all the rules by heart, but I do know where in the book the rules are explained, and can quickly reference them. The GM often calls upon me to look up any rules questions during the game.
One of my gamer buddies has said I'm the most polite rule lawyer she knows. I've started calling myself the "Rule Paralegal" in jest.
I have argued for and against me and my group in any rules debate. Partially out of fairness, and partially because if I argue against the group, the GM is more likely to allow a ruling for the group on a rule disagreement if I do bring it up. Though there have been a few times when I dragged out a rule disagreement a lot longer than I should have.
There are times I phrase my rule question rather subtly, uncertain if my GM is making a houserule to override the book, or if he is unaware of what the real ruling is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The good rules lawyer speaks up once, then shuts up when the GM makes his decision.
The bad rules lawyer makes sarcastic comments all throughout the fight about how the GM's "wrong" decision is hurting the group.
The really bad rules lawyer just keeps arguing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good one makes the game better.
A bad one makes the game worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is when the GM says, "Oh, well, I know you're flanking, and that would normally give you sneak attack, but that's bad for me so I houserule that this creature is really good at watching you and is immune to sneak attacks." Or, half-way into a campaign, "Oh, btw, did I mention that I houserule that you can totally TWF with a 2-h weapon and armor spikes? I didn't? Hmm, wierd... well, here comes an Orc Ranger with a greatsword and spiked armor.
That's not a problem that a rules lawyer can sort out - the GM is openly making up his own rules (in an annoying manner). Rules lawyers are for when the GM is under the mistaken impression that you can't sneak-attack undead creatures by RAW.
A good one makes the game better.
A bad one makes the game worse.
Which, depending on who you ask, can be a single person.
Namely, a "bad" rules lawyer is someone who argued over minutiae that you think is irrelevant.
A "good" rules lawyer discusses the intricacies of rules interactions that have long reaching ripples throughout the game.
Again, probably the same person depending on who you ask.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A good one makes the game better.
A bad one makes the game worse.Which, depending on who you ask, can be a single person.
Namely, a "bad" rules lawyer is someone who argued over minutiae that you think is irrelevant.
A "good" rules lawyer discusses the intricacies of rules interactions that have long reaching ripples throughout the game.
Again, probably the same person depending on who you ask.
If I'm understanding where you're going with this, another way to phrase it might be:
A good rules lawyer is one whose listeners understand the implications of what he's saying. A bad rules lawyer is one whose listeners don't understand why it matters.
A good one makes the game better.
A bad one makes the game worse.Which, depending on who you ask, can be a single person.
Namely, a "bad" rules lawyer is someone who argued over minutiae that you think is irrelevant.
A "good" rules lawyer discusses the intricacies of rules interactions that have long reaching ripples throughout the game.
Again, probably the same person depending on who you ask.
If I'm understanding where you're going with this, another way to phrase it might be:
A good rules lawyer is one whose listeners understand the implications of what he's saying. A bad rules lawyer is one whose listeners don't understand why it matters.
That's a good summary of my feeling. I will add that I don't think it is the "lawyers" responcibility to explain why it is important to everyone, everytime. If you tell me that I can't stand up, cast a standard action spell, and 5 ft shift in the same round then I shouldn't have to explain the implications to greater action economy AND argue the distinction between "move" and "move equivilant" actions. And the dude at the end of the table who thinks I'm just trying to get away with something doesn't have any inherent right to my explanation.
/rant.
I GM 95% of the time anyway because people never accuse the GM of being a rules lawyer.
About a decade ago I played in a group for about three years that was comprised of about six rules lawyers. When the group first convened games moved somewhat slowly but that improved over time as the general degree of precision and understanding improved for all players. We didn't mind taking a few minutes to look up and resolve any rules disputes that arose. If it wasn't found expediously we just houseruled it and someone (usually two or three of us) would research it after the game or sometime before the next week.
The only bad rules lawyering I have ever seen was from a player who didn't actually know the rules but constantly insisted that his random rules were completely and absolutely true, no matter how many times I proved him wrong.
|
|
A good rules lawyer is the player at the table the GM turns to and asks "Is that right?" because the rapport and trust that the player has garnered through faithful and thorough understanding of the rules, while communicating that knowledge in a polite, respectful, and not disruptive way.
Correcting the GM isn't a bad thing, tea bagging the GM with your sack full of esoteric and selective rule interpretation of rules is.
The rules lawyer is as bad for the players as often as he is good, and when the GM over rules something in favour of narrative or fun, should also be ready to give it up quickly. There is a whole different thread here on bad GMs butchering the rules willy nilly that will leave for another rant.
|
As similar as PF is to 3.5, I find it is often better to double cheack the current edition(what you are playing at the table, not 5th as is the case of this post) then to just blurt out what is wrong or right. _Many_ things have changed. Letting something slide for a combat so you can look it up better enables you to be right closer to 100% if the time. If you can show your evidence repeatedly, your interruptions are mire often respected than if you are only right 66% of the time.
Remembe that sometimes you have to look at the FAQ or errata, nit just the printed book. As many changes ad there are, unroll PF says it works differently, I still value the wisdom of older additions and would point to it as prescedent, though youshould point out what edition it is from in those cases.
The good rules lawyer speaks up once, then shuts up when the GM makes his decision.
No. No, absolutely not. The GM is subject to the rules too. If he's changing something that you inherently expect then you have players with mismatched preconceived notions. I can forgive it if the GM is upfront about what will be different during their game, but the GM is subject to the rules like any other player. Throwing a player a curve ball when there's existing rules for something is just going to start a fight. I know this concept of the GM as the final decision maker on the rules has been well-established in this hobby but it's a silly concept. I don't afford a GM any special treatment just because they're the GM. At a table all the players need to be on the same page about what they can and can't do. And if you're arbitrarily making decisions on rules as opposed to figuring out how they really work you're doing everyone and yourself a disservice.