Specify attack method? How strict

[RigaMortus2]

In my group, the DM reminds the players and vice-versa. If the DM is about to provoke a combat challenge from the fighter, the fighter gives fair warning and the DM has a chance to rethink his action. Same if a player provokes an opportunity attack from the DM.

That is basically how we do it...

 

[KarinsDad]

There's obviously some sense to that. Still, I think it depends somewhat on the group - and this just won't work for some. In both I play in, the "problem" players play purely for fun; their mistakes are definitely honest (if occasionally frustrating). Telling em off won't work (tried that): what happens is simply that they still make mistakes, but that these mistakes sometimes cost the party dearly. The players in question may be annoyed by their mistake, but they don't really improve.

I've played with hundreds of players over the years and I have never seen a single player who didn't improve. Not once.

It's possible that it could happen in a game where combat is rare, but in our games, there is typically at least one combat encounter per session, often 2 or 3.

This gives every player the chance to repetitively see their mistakes. They might not become tactical geniuses, but they have in every case gotten better and made fewer glaring mistakes over an extended period of time.

Now, there might be players who don't care and just want to see how much trouble they can cause (these are sometimes the same players who want to play insane PCs so that they can do whatever they want whenever they want), but these players are typically doing it on purpose and I have no problem hitting them with the DM bat.

On the topic of the rules, you can't make a melee attack with a melee weapon that you aren't wielding. The "correct" ruling isn't that the attack provokes, it's that the entire situation doesn't make sense and can't occur. You can rule that he used his ranged weapon - even though that obviously wasn't the intent, perhaps in some situations that's a fair punishment - and then he'd provoke, but that's definitely not somehow "correct" in the sense of necessarily following from the rules.

Not necessarily.

The player stated that he attacked, he did not state that he attacked with a melee weapon. If he had done so, then the DM should have said "You don't have a melee weapon out" and it would have definitely been an illegal action.

From the original post, the player did not even state which power he was using and even if he were using Sly Flourish a second time, that can be used for either a ranged or melee attack.

I don't think we can conclude that it was an illegal action, just a player who is not paying attention to the details.

 

[eamon]

I've played with hundreds of players over the years and I have never seen a single player who didn't improve. Not once.

My point was that I doubt that harassing them and puninshing the group will improve players to the point that they'll stop making mistakes. So, let me rephrase: they'll improve - and pointing out annoying mistakes (particularly those that slow things down) occasionally is a good idea. But expecting that to fix the issue entirely is not - so rigorously punishing every mistake is not a good idea, because mistakes will still be made, and pointless (since you can't do anything about it) frustration arise.

I don't think we can conclude that it was an illegal action, just a player who is not paying attention to the details.

Which was the entire point. I don't think it's appropriate for a DM to hide behind the rules. The rules don't require you to punish a character, particularly when it's clear that this interpretation was not intentional. You're punishing a player because you want them to suffer the consequences of failing to play by the rules, and are thus intentionally choosing an unfavorable interpretation.

That's fine - but that's not "the rules". Suggesting that the rules force your hand is simply asking for rules lawyering - not exactly my idea of fun during a session.

 

[mneme]

Which was the entire point. I don't think it's appropriate for a DM to hide behind the rules. The rules don't require you to punish a character, particularly when it's clear that this interpretation was not intentional.

I agree. Both the earlier example (making rolls for characters to wake up rather than just using passive perception) and this one are newbie GM mistakes.

Lets ignore the wakeup issue; in this one, with the player not having specified what they're attacking with, the correct rules-wise response isn't "you draw an OA", but "what are you attacking with?" Because even if the player -didn't- draw his shortsword/rapier (and it's not like he didn't have the actions to spare; rogues don't have much to do with a minor), the character can just as easily make an Improvised weapon attack with the crossbow, or just punch the foe--until the player specifies, you don't know.

Now, the -correct-, non-jerk response to someone accidentally drawing an AO (player or GM) is to remind them of the OA and ask whether they're sure, but -that- isn't required by RAW, just a good idea. But you can't hit players with an OA for making an unspecified weapon attack (rather than asking for clarification).

 

[Nytmare]

I believe in a liberal use of the rewind and edit buttons. There's a lot of distance between a dragonborn paladin who forgets to pick up her sword and shield before she wades into battle and a player sitting at a game table who does the same. The character is going to know, and remember things that the player is not. Opening yourself up to an attack of opportunity should not be a surprise, and claiming it as some kind of victory because a player took their hand off the piece isn't the kind of game that I think D&D is trying to be.

I'm not at the table to punish my players or to teach them how to do things "my way", and I'd assume that they wouldn't be interested in it if I was.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I had a bunch of PCs climbing ropes and they got into an encounter and as they rushed forward, I said "you need to use a minor action to pull out your weapon". So, they moved in (move), pulled weapon (minor), and attacked (standard).

See, personally I would have just said that they move in and attack, unless someone was specifically using their minor action for something else...

That same round when the monsters attacked, one hit because one of the PCs did not yet have out her shield and she said "I wouldn't have gone into the room without putting my shield on first" and I replied "but you did, we are not going back to change it".

... like this.

I suppose that in my approach there's not that deliberate accounting of actions, so I'd need to explain the entire thing after the fact, whereas you just say "well, did any of your actions (move, minor, attack) include getting your shield out?

Additionally, I think that part of the price of not learning the rules has to be that the DM will need to interpret your wishes, and there's not going to be a 100% successful translation into game terms.

 

[KarinsDad]

See, personally I would have just said that they move in and attack, unless someone was specifically using their minor action for something else...

That's the problem in those types of situations. To fight normally, the Cleric needed 2 minors to get out weapon and shield. The Ranger needed 3 minors, get out 2 melee weapons and use Hunter's Quarry. They didn't have enough actions to go around.

It's not important to focus on every single action type in rounds where the PCs are in normal fighting mode like normal, it's important to focus on the action types used when the situation is not normal (like in that example).

The player of the Cleric just assumed "move in and attack" like you specified and made a mistake doing so.

 

[Flipguarder]

I think of it in... idk how to describe it... presets?

I'm totally ok with the group saying "i prepare for a fight" and "I prepare for a jump" and allowing that to immediately mean armor is either summoned or not summoned, weapons, shields what not.

 

[Flipguarder]

But yeah, I'm with KD kinda, remembering the state of your character is an important part of roleplaying. And leads to players getting into their characters more. Rather then just "I kill an orc" playstyle.

 

[Dan'L]

All this reminds me why Quick Draw is such a nice feat.

-Dan'L