ExploderWizard
Hero
Casting sacred flame IS an attack, just as fireball is an attack. There is no attack ROLL. A minor quibble, but if some cleric is forcing you to save each round or take radiant damage then he/she is certainly ATTACKING you.
D&D 5E Traps for DMs to Avoid
- Thread starter Werebat
- Start date
Casting sacred flame IS an attack, just as fireball is an attack. There is no attack ROLL. A minor quibble, but if some cleric is forcing you to save each round or take radiant damage then he/she is certainly ATTACKING you.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Really? Because there's over 35 years of history where that term has a pretty clear general meaning. And for it to be an ad hominem, who am I attacking? What exactly am I not backing up?
Yeah, it's a pejorative term, but that's not the same as what you're trying to say here. And I'm pretty sure that term, and the meaning behind it, is not just "knowing the rules better than the DM." I think your mistaken interpretation of it is probably why you are taking it personally.
There are game terms and most of them different meanings in the real world.
Attack = anything attack that requires an attack roll
Attack action = when you take the attack action, not just making an attack which could say come from a bonus action.
I would rather have a table full of rules lawyers than a bunch of people who have to ask what so and so does, or how do a make a skill check again, or has to be explained the rules about attacks of opportunity --every single session.
I also enjoy optimizers and min/maxers at my table, I want people who understand what/when/how to make rolls and not talk about their characters hairstyle and fashion for thirty minutes every session.
Attack = anything attack that requires an attack roll
Attack action = when you take the attack action, not just making an attack which could say come from a bonus action.
I would rather have a table full of rules lawyers than a bunch of people who have to ask what so and so does, or how do a make a skill check again, or has to be explained the rules about attacks of opportunity --every single session.
I also enjoy optimizers and min/maxers at my table, I want people who understand what/when/how to make rolls and not talk about their characters hairstyle and fashion for thirty minutes every session.
To me, "rules lawyer" is not a pejorative--it just denotes someone with extensive knowledge of the rules. I am my table's resident rules lawyer and proud of it. The DM routinely consults me on tricky rules questions. Sometimes he overrules my interpretation, of course. That's fine. I'm the lawyer, but he's the judge. 
The problem is the rules lawyers who can't seem to get it through their heads that there is a difference between "make an argument to the judge" and "argue with the judge."
The problem is the rules lawyers who can't seem to get it through their heads that there is a difference between "make an argument to the judge" and "argue with the judge."
Nergal Pendragon
First Post
Me: "And a pair of black leather pants, with pockets on the..."
DM: "I get it! Your clothes have a lot of pockets! Moving on!"
Four sessions later...
Me: "Okay, I pull the dagger out of one of my pockets..."
DM: "Wait... That's thirty daggers now. How many friggin' pockets do you have? Where are all of these pockets?"
Me: "Remember that description you wouldn't let me finish?"
Sacrosanct
Legend
To me, "rules lawyer" is not a pejorative--it just denotes someone with extensive knowledge of the rules. I am my table's resident rules lawyer and proud of it. The DM routinely consults me on tricky rules questions. Sometimes he overrules my interpretation, of course. That's fine. I'm the lawyer, but he's the judge.
The problem is the rules lawyers who can't seem to get it through their heads that there is a difference between "make an argument to the judge" and "argue with the judge."
That's what a rules lawyer is. Someone knowing the rules, and helping the DM or pointing this out to the DM is not a rules lawyer. A rules lawyer is someone who uses the rules to gain an advantage at the expense of the spirit of the game arguing against the DM (or other player). That's why it has the word "lawyer" at the end of it. Otherwise it would just be a rules expert. Not many people I know have a problem with a rules expert. Pretty much everyone I know has a problem with someone who acts like a lawyer, looking for exploitable loopholes to argue with the DM and essentially shutting the game down and making it crappy for everyone else.
GameDoc
Explorer
It seems like that might be a thor subject.
Calling someone a rules lawyer is attacking the person, not his argument. If the other party had a good reply, he'd not need to use the term rules lawyer, regardless of it it actually applied or not.
The only times in my years of gaming I've seen anyone either called a rules lawyer or have to act like one is in instances where the DM refused to admit he had the rules actually wrong and/or determined the way the player was playing the game was badwrongfun and should have to enjoy the game the way the DM wanted them to.
I have yet to see a rules lawyer that wasn't created because of GM intransigence.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Sacrosanct
Legend
You have been remarkably blessed in your gaming life, then.
rules lawyers always say its the DM's fault ;-)
see what I did there ;-)
Similar Threads
