[DM Issue] - How would you have handled this?

[Zappo]

I would have let it slide. Readying an action to attack first if I'm hit is evidently contradictory, so it's clear that the player wasn't intending that.

 

[Umbran]

I also would have either asked for clarification, or let it slide and used the most reasonable interpretation of what they said.

In general, we can hold players to the letter of the law of what thwey say, but doing so will perhaps seem a bit petty. And, being too picayune with the rules is apt to turn players into rules-lawyers.

 

[Blue Sky]

I would have let him take the attack, before the opponent's swing. Of course, me and mine aren't english majors, so we tend to use language... casually.

 

[Oni Baloney]

If I was in your game, I would have packed up my books and never would play with you again. People play games to have fun, not to have someone judge us harshly for verbal mistakes. You should have enough sense to know that the player simply made a mistake in his word choice, and you decided to simply be a mean DM.

 

[reiella]

I'd personally say it's impossible to ready an action for being hit (or specifically someone being hit), as it breaks the presented flow for readied actions.

Situation is that a readied action will occur -before- the triggered action, and readying against damage would often result in the headache that is "but I dealt enough damage for him to go unconscious before he dealt damage to me, but if he didn't deal damage to me, I wouldn't have been able to take my readied action."

Honestly, I'd just assume that "they attacked me" is what was meant .

 

[Breakstone]

If I was in your game, I would have packed up my books and never would play with you again. People play games to have fun, not to have someone judge us harshly for verbal mistakes. You should have enough sense to know that the player simply made a mistake in his word choice, and you decided to simply be a mean DM.

Wow, harsh.

Everyone makes mistakes. The player made a mistake by not clarifying, and you made a mistake by taking it too literally. But if you both learn from this mistake, future games will run even more smoothly.

 

[Piratecat]

If I was in your game, I would have packed up my books and never would play with you again. People play games to have fun, not to have someone judge us harshly for verbal mistakes. You should have enough sense to know that the player simply made a mistake in his word choice, and you decided to simply be a mean DM.

That would certainly seem like overreacting to me. If it was a life or death situation I might argue it, or if (a) his readied action would have disrupted a spell or (b) the attack he readied for had dropped him unconscious. Other than those, it simply would'nt be worth worrying about as a player. It certainly wouldn't be worth leaving a game over.

As a DM, I would have gone with the intent instead of the original wording and allowed him to take his attack first. It seems pretty clear what he meant, and I try to give the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Oni Baloney]

If I was in your game, I would have packed up my books and never would play with you again.

Wow, harsh.

That would certainly seem like overreacting to me. If it was a life or death situation I might argue it, or if (a) his readied action would have disrupted a spell or (b) the attack he readied for had dropped him unconscious. Other than those, it simply would'nt be worth worrying about as a player. It certainly wouldn't be worth leaving a game over.

As a DM, I would have gone with the intent instead of the original wording and allowed him to take his attack first. It seems pretty clear what he meant, and I try to give the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, that was pretty harsh, and an overreaction. I think I had a flashback to one of my worst gaming experiences, but I make excuses. I appologize reveal.

I think I may have become a little jaded when it comes to gaming . As a player there needs to a certain level of trust that the DM will forgive small mistakes and accept our intent. Sure, I could see harsh rulings if issues like this become commonplace or a player trys to take advantage of the DM. But if you game continued without a hitch, then no harm done.

Wow. I bet you're glad I'm not in your group.

 

[Ranes]

As a DM, I would have gone with the intent instead of the original wording and allowed him to take his attack first. It seems pretty clear what he meant, and I try to give the benefit of the doubt.

Ditto.

 

[BeauNiddle]

"I'm hit by anyone around me"

He said 'hit' not 'hurt' so you stopping him from attacking until a blow got through his armour was wrong.

Now you could have limited to only reacting after a blow hit his armour or hurt him (i.e. would it have landed if it was a touch attack) but then you start getting into questions about how magical deflection bonuses, luck bonuses work, etc. (do they affect the blow before or after it 'hits').

All in all I'd say your ruling added no fun to the game and therefore IMO was wrong.

No harm was done tho so no worries