Why Rules Lawyering Is a Negative Term

[Maxperson]

In my group I was given the joking title of "Rules Lawyer of Justice". This is because while I have rules lawyered on my behalf and others, just as often it was on the DM's behalf (including times that it went seriously against my own interests).

However, I recognize that in the end the DM's word is law. Admittedly, in my younger days somewhat less so.

For many years I held a similar position. I had a reputation for coming up with the right rule, even if it was good for the DM and bad for the players. Eventually, the DM recognizing that I was being fair and impartial with what I came up with, flat out assigned me the role of "rules lawyer" for the group. Whenever a situation came up that he wasn't sure about, he'd call on me to get the answer while he moved on to something else.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not sure that's the best example. The DM is free to invent any abilities they want for a monster, so I'd never challenge a DM on that basis.

I won't challenge a DM just because I disagree with a ruling, but I might if I consider that the ruling is unfair and is hurting the fun at the table. I don't try to twist the rules, but I will make the DM aware of the rules and even argue on the behalf of other players. If a rules call is ruining the fun at the table already, then IMO there's not much harm in taking the time to hash out the situation.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about goblins using their bonus action, orcs getting to close in on enemies, a phase spider phasing in. Or maybe I thought it would be more cinematic to have the PCs see the bad guy slip through a door just ahead of them only to have the challenge of "How did he do that? Did he have a readied action? If he did, he can't lock the door behind him!" In reality, the bad guy had plenty of movement and an action; playing by the rules he moved/closed the door/locked it on his initiative. But having them see him getting away was more fun and also told them where he went.

In fact, I invite the same behavior when I am DMing, even though it goes against the common wisdom. A player who tries to twist the rules in their favor will find themselves shut down hard in my game. But if players have a serious issue with one of my rulings, we put the game on pause and hash it out. IME, it's lead to a table where players really only challenge my rulings when I've made a bad ruling. And I've learned the humility to admit when I make a bad ruling and retcon it.

Once in a blue moon, I really, really, obviously screw up. Nobody's perfect. But if it's not life or death or a really, really important let's deal with it after the game. I'm always open to discussion, just not in game.

A lot of these things are minor, nit-picky things. It's not that I'm granting fire immunity to something that should only have fire resistance, it's that their questioning why the dire wolf the goblin is riding has advantage.

As another player pointed out, challenging a DM at the table can lead to issues, as some DMs will take it personally. IMO, it's actually a useful and important DMing skill to not take such challenges as personal attacks. It's a matter of hearing your players and recognizing when you've made a poor call that is pulling them out of their engagement with the game. It can definitely be an issue with a DM who hasn't learned those skills. At that point, it's definitely important for the rules guru/lawyer to be able to identify whether the issue is worth pursuing (is the mood already ruined by the call, such that challenging it can only make things better or leave them the same, or is the rest of the table willing to accept it such that you should just swallow your protest and move on).

At it's best it is co-DMing, but admittedly at it's worst it is backseat DMing. I'll grant that there is a peculiar sort of player who tries to rules lawyer in order to twist the rules and power game, but in my personal experience that's been a rarity at my table. Much more often it's been about calls the player disagrees with because they feel it is unfair or simply because the call makes what they were doing play out in an unexpected manner (such as a player who has expertise in Acrobatics wanting to run across a tightrope but the DM calling for an Athletics check).

This has nothing to do with humility or accepting that I do not know all the rules, or never make mistakes. It's about interrupting the flow of the game for the DM who is juggling the scene, the monster's actions, what's going to happen because the party just did X when you were certain they were going to do Y. It's about interrupting a story being built by the entire group for a rules discussion and disrupting the flow of the game.

For many years I held a similar position. I had a reputation for coming up with the right rule, even if it was good for the DM and bad for the players. Eventually, the DM recognizing that I was being fair and impartial with what I came up with, flat out assigned me the role of "rules lawyer" for the group. Whenever a situation came up that he wasn't sure about, he'd call on me to get the answer while he moved on to something else.

I have absolutely no problem calling for advice as a DM if I don't remember a rule. If I seem confused or unsure, mumbling "how do I do" to myself (well mumbling to myself more than normal) that's all good.

But if it's minor, if it's just "how did that goblin have a chance to make a stealth check after he fired an arrow at me", then we can discuss it later. If I really implemented something wrong, I'll fix it in the future. This is also a question of frequency. Does it happen once every 5 or 10 game sessions? Not a big deal. Every session? Multiple times per session*? Then we have a problem.

EDIT
*Especially if I always double check the rule and haven't messed up or explain that the bad guy really moved/closed/locked the door on his initiative and you keep on interrupting "just to check".

 

[Fanaelialae]

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about goblins using their bonus action, orcs getting to close in on enemies, a phase spider phasing in. Or maybe I thought it would be more cinematic to have the PCs see the bad guy slip through a door just ahead of them only to have the challenge of "How did he do that? Did he have a readied action? If he did, he can't lock the door behind him!" In reality, the bad guy had plenty of movement and an action; playing by the rules he moved/closed the door/locked it on his initiative. But having them see him getting away was more fun and also told them where he went.



Once in a blue moon, I really, really, obviously screw up. Nobody's perfect. But if it's not life or death or a really, really important let's deal with it after the game. I'm always open to discussion, just not in game.

A lot of these things are minor, nit-picky things. It's not that I'm granting fire immunity to something that should only have fire resistance, it's that their questioning why the dire wolf the goblin is riding has advantage.




This has nothing to do with humility or accepting that I do not know all the rules, or never make mistakes. It's about interrupting the flow of the game for the DM who is juggling the scene, the monster's actions, what's going to happen because the party just did X when you were certain they were going to do Y. It's about interrupting a story being built by the entire group for a rules discussion and disrupting the flow of the game.



I have absolutely no problem calling for advice as a DM if I don't remember a rule. If I seem confused or unsure, mumbling "how do I do" to myself (well mumbling to myself more than normal) that's all good.

But if it's minor, if it's just "how did that goblin have a chance to make a stealth check after he fired an arrow at me", then we can discuss it later. If I really implemented something wrong, I'll fix it in the future. This is also a question of frequency. Does it happen once every 5 or 10 game sessions? Not a big deal. Every session? Multiple times per session? Then we have a problem.

Sure, if it's nitpicking, that is problematic rules lawyering. I addressed that in the post you responded to, in that a good rules guru/lawyer can differentiate between times when they might have ruled differently were they DMing, and times that the entire table has ceased to have fun due to a bad call and it needs to be addressed. The former case is, IMO, problematic rules lawyering whereas the latter is potentially beneficial (provided that the DM is open to "constructive criticism").

I wasn't saying that it was a matter of ego on your part. Just that I've encountered DMs for whom that was the case. They weren't simply annoyed at the interruption but clearly framed it as a personal attack.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, if it's nitpicking, that is problematic rules lawyering. I addressed that in the post you responded to, in that a good rules guru/lawyer can differentiate between times when they might have ruled differently were they DMing, and times that the entire table has ceased to have fun due to a bad call and it needs to be addressed. The former case is, IMO, problematic rules lawyering whereas the latter is potentially beneficial (provided that the DM is open to "constructive criticism").

I wasn't saying that it was a matter of ego on your part. Just that I've encountered DMs for whom that was the case. They weren't simply annoyed at the interruption but clearly framed it as a personal attack.

There are some bad DMs out there, I've run into my fair share. I'm sure we all have stories of bad DMs, but I also have empathy for the guy on the other side of the screen. I'm just trying to be sure I was clear; if it's really important and really obvious I'll raise an issue. Otherwise I'll just wait until after the game.

 

[Maxperson]

I have absolutely no problem calling for advice as a DM if I don't remember a rule. If I seem confused or unsure, mumbling "how do I do" to myself (well mumbling to myself more than normal) that's all good.

But if it's minor, if it's just "how did that goblin have a chance to make a stealth check after he fired an arrow at me", then we can discuss it later. If I really implemented something wrong, I'll fix it in the future. This is also a question of frequency. Does it happen once every 5 or 10 game sessions? Not a big deal. Every session? Multiple times per session*? Then we have a problem.

As a DM I don't mind someone saying, "Wait, he had an arrow in his leg. How did he stealth?" As a DM, I'm tracking so many things that sometimes I forget the arrow and a reminder is good. If I respond, "I'm aware." and they keep continuing, that's when the line has been crossed. Sometimes the goblin is wearing Boots of Stealth Anyway.

 

[Hussar]

For many years I held a similar position. I had a reputation for coming up with the right rule, even if it was good for the DM and bad for the players. Eventually, the DM recognizing that I was being fair and impartial with what I came up with, flat out assigned me the role of "rules lawyer" for the group. Whenever a situation came up that he wasn't sure about, he'd call on me to get the answer while he moved on to something else.

This is a truly horrifying thought.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

As a DM I don't mind someone saying, "Wait, he had an arrow in his leg. How did he stealth?" As a DM, I'm tracking so many things that sometimes I forget the arrow and a reminder is good. If I respond, "I'm aware." and they keep continuing, that's when the line has been crossed. Sometimes the goblin is wearing Boots of Stealth Anyway.

There is no rule in 5e that prevents stealth when legs are punctured by arrows.

;-)

 

[Maxperson]

Deleted personal attack

Since I know you wouldn't be attacking me personally here, I have to assume that for some reason you find being fair and impartial to be a horrifying thought. That seems really odd to me.

Edit: deleted a personal attack against me.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no rule in 5e that prevents stealth when legs are punctured by arrows.

;-)

Yeah, I thought of that when the example came up, but just went with it. The idea behind the example was sound, even if the example wasn't.

 

[Hussar]

Since I know you wouldn't be attacking me personally here, I have to assume that for some reason you find being fair and impartial to be a horrifying thought. That seems really odd to me.

Oh no. That was 100% personal based on the rules interpretations you’ve tried to argue in the past.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh no. That was 100% personal based on the rules interpretations you’ve tried to argue in the past.

Then either delete it, or I'll report it in the morning when I wake up. I won't allow personal attacks like that.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't consider being a Rules Lawyer something negative, just one way to play. What many posters here have an actual problem is not with rules lawyerism is with munchkinism. A rules lawyer finds loopholes and exploits, however annoying that might be. What a rules lawyer doesn't do is outright cheat.

The thing is, a rules lawyer as we've defined the term goes hand and hand with cheating.

If you don't cheat, and you don't consider arguing with the DM part of the resolution process of the game, then you are not a Rules Lawyer.

The term for someone who exploits the rules but is not cheaty about it is an Optimizer.

And Optimizers are OK. I mean, they make great play testers, I'll give them that. They will find the points in your rules where you've left loopholes, exploits, and so forth. And if they are actually pretty good at it, what they give you is some amount of insurance against a TPK, because they can often win through even bad luck. And I expect all players to do at least some sort of optimization, because it's not fair to deliberately play a weak link in the team.

However, it's a short step from Optimizer to Rules Lawyer, and that step is simply this: you decide that your rules interpretation of some ambiguous language has precedence over the DM's interpretation, and that the DM is just trying to screw you over. That decision tends to mean that you are springing on the DM your loophole with the expectation of validation, or else playing under your own rulings without confirmation by the DM. And both of those things get pretty 'cheaty', and examples of that have been discussed in this thread.

And the problem that I have with your profession is that if you just told me that you were basically an Optimizer, I would assume that you were the sort of person who wouldn't blow things out of proportion and if the DM didn't agree with you over some matter you'd take it in stride. But you've also told me you are a Drama Queen, so essentially what you are telling everyone on these boards is that you are a dysfunctional person who blows small things out of proportion.

It's hard to understand hos you consider that statement anything but a profession of weakness and guilt, to be accompanied by a litany of "mi culpa, mia maxima culpa".

UPDATE: There has been a quibble about my language. If you don't like the word 'Optimizer', feel free to substitute the term of art 'Power Gamer' in the above discussion. For my purposes, the argument remains the same.

 

[Maxperson]

The thing is, a rules lawyer as we've defined the term goes hand and hand with cheating.

If you don't cheat, and you don't consider arguing with the DM part of the resolution process of the game, then you are not a Rules Lawyer.

The term for someone who exploits the rules but is not cheaty about it is an Optimizer.

And Optimizers are OK. I mean, they make great play testers, I'll give them that. They will find the points in your rules where you've left loopholes, exploits, and so forth. And if they are actually pretty good at it, what they give you is some amount of insurance against a TPK, because they can often win through even bad luck. And I expect all players to do at least some sort of optimization, because it's not fair to deliberately play a weak link in the team.

Exploiting rules and loopholes makes you a power gamer. Optimizing is just picking the best option, not exploiting the game.

 

[lowkey13]

I'm not sure that's the best example. The DM is free to invent any abilities they want for a monster, so I'd never challenge a DM on that basis.

I won't challenge a DM just because I disagree with a ruling, but I might if I consider that the ruling is unfair and is hurting the fun at the table. I don't try to twist the rules, but I will make the DM aware of the rules and even argue on the behalf of other players. If a rules call is ruining the fun at the table already, then IMO there's not much harm in taking the time to hash out the situation.

In fact, I invite the same behavior when I am DMing, even though it goes against the common wisdom. A player who tries to twist the rules in their favor will find themselves shut down hard in my game. But if players have a serious issue with one of my rulings, we put the game on pause and hash it out. IME, it's lead to a table where players really only challenge my rulings when I've made a bad ruling. And I've learned the humility to admit when I make a bad ruling and retcon it.

As another player pointed out, challenging a DM at the table can lead to issues, as some DMs will take it personally. IMO, it's actually a useful and important DMing skill to not take such challenges as personal attacks. It's a matter of hearing your players and recognizing when you've made a poor call that is pulling them out of their engagement with the game. It can definitely be an issue with a DM who hasn't learned those skills. At that point, it's definitely important for the rules guru/lawyer to be able to identify whether the issue is worth pursuing (is the mood already ruined by the call, such that challenging it can only make things better or leave them the same, or is the rest of the table willing to accept it such that you should just swallow your protest and move on).

At it's best it is co-DMing, but admittedly at it's worst it is backseat DMing. I'll grant that there is a peculiar sort of player who tries to rules lawyer in order to twist the rules and power game, but in my personal experience that's been a rarity at my table. Much more often it's been about calls the player disagrees with because they feel it is unfair or simply because the call makes what they were doing play out in an unexpected manner (such as a player who has expertise in Acrobatics wanting to run across a tightrope but the DM calling for an Athletics check).

There's really a lot here, and I'm trying to think of how to address it.

There's a famous saying, "If you sit down at a poker table, and you don't know who the mark is, you're the mark."

(Sometimes generalized to, "If you can't spot the sucker, it's you.")

It's also used in competitive classes (see, e.g., law school)- "If you don't know who the gunner is, you're the gunner."*

I think that these phrases, and common variations of them, go to the issue of self-awareness. We are all the protagonists in our own stories, aren't we?

No one thinks that they are a bad rules lawyer- no. We are the good rules guru! We are the individual who the DM ... relies on. Who really knows the rules. Who helpfully points out when there is a rules issue, and only ... reluctantly ... engages in a lengthy disruptive conversation when "the ruling is unfair and hurting the fun at the table."

It's not being a rules lawyer ... IT'S ALTRUISM!

Really, it's shocking that anyone could possibly have a bad opinion of people that just know the rules, and stand up the tyranny of BAD DMs with their LACK OF RULES KNOWLEDGE.

And, of course, how do you know the DM is bad? Because only a bad DM "will take it personally."

Again, not to single you out, because several people have made this argument (and few as eloquently as you have) and I am sure you are quite delightful at the table! But it's like everything else. There are, in fact, bad DMs out there- but they wouldn't say that, they would just that they need to be forceful because of REASONS.

Just like no one would say that they are the bad rules lawyer. Every ... single ... time ... they would believe that they have been justified. But, IMO, no amount of rules lawyering saves you from a bad DM.

None.

We all have to do what we have to do, but anyone who thinks that their rules lawyering is met with acclaim and the hosannas of a grateful public might want to ask why they have been the subject of such vitriol for over 40 years.


I mean, maybe there is an exception- the altruistic, helpful, rules guru that everyone loves having at their table. Much like the person who went home to roll up their Paladin and got the 17 in Charisma and the 18/00 strength, I am sure it happened, somehow, maybe.


*A gunner is a person who tries to answer every question, show off their knowledge, etc.

 

[Celebrim]

Exploiting rules and loopholes makes you a power gamer. Optimizing is just picking the best option, not exploiting the game.

I'm not going to quibble with that. Optimizer and Power Gamer are closely related terms, synonyms or near synonyms, with potentially negative connotations. Power Gamer generally just means something like, "A player focused on making his character as powerful as possible.", which pretty much is what Optimizer means. So basically, we'd be arguing over which slang term carries the most negative connotation. If you think Power Gamer is the more negative, OK, let's go with that. So long as I'm understood, I don't care what words we use.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, maybe there is an exception- the altruistic, helpful, rules guru that everyone loves having at their table. Much like the person who went home to roll up their Paladin and got the 17 in Charisma and the 18/00 strength, I am sure it happened, somehow, maybe.

Hey now. I only had to roll up a few hundred characters to get those numbers. All the rest are farmers or died on their way to the dungeon. Honest!

 

[Fanaelialae]

There's really a lot here, and I'm trying to think of how to address it.

There's a famous saying, "If you sit down at a poker table, and you don't know who the mark is, you're the mark."

(Sometimes generalized to, "If you can't spot the sucker, it's you.")

It's also used in competitive classes (see, e.g., law school)- "If you don't know who the gunner is, you're the gunner."*

I think that these phrases, and common variations of them, go to the issue of self-awareness. We are all the protagonists in our own stories, aren't we?

No one thinks that they are a bad rules lawyer- no. We are the good rules guru! We are the individual who the DM ... relies on. Who really knows the rules. Who helpfully points out when there is a rules issue, and only ... reluctantly ... engages in a lengthy disruptive conversation when "the ruling is unfair and hurting the fun at the table."

It's not being a rules lawyer ... IT'S ALTRUISM!

Really, it's shocking that anyone could possibly have a bad opinion of people that just know the rules, and stand up the tyranny of BAD DMs with their LACK OF RULES KNOWLEDGE.

And, of course, how do you know the DM is bad? Because only a bad DM "will take it personally."

Again, not to single you out, because several people have made this argument (and few as eloquently as you have) and I am sure you are quite delightful at the table! But it's like everything else. There are, in fact, bad DMs out there- but they wouldn't say that, they would just that they need to be forceful because of REASONS.

Just like no one would say that they are the bad rules lawyer. Every ... single ... time ... they would believe that they have been justified. But, IMO, no amount of rules lawyering saves you from a bad DM.

None.

We all have to do what we have to do, but anyone who thinks that their rules lawyering is met with acclaim and the hosannas of a grateful public might want to ask why they have been the subject of such vitriol for over 40 years.


I mean, maybe there is an exception- the altruistic, helpful, rules guru that everyone loves having at their table. Much like the person who went home to roll up their Paladin and got the 17 in Charisma and the 18/00 strength, I am sure it happened, somehow, maybe.


*A gunner is a person who tries to answer every question, show off their knowledge, etc.

You're not wrong. I'm more than willing to admit that there have been times that I went too far and made the game less fun for everyone. In the heat of the moment I indulged in self rightousness. I did my best to admit when I was in the wrong and learn from my mistakes though.

I don't consider it to be particularly altruistic. I did it because I wanted myself and others to have a good time at the table. My group didn't name me Rules Lawyer of Altruism.

It's true that we're each the hero of our own stories. It's also true that human beings love to view things as black or white, good or bad. It's how our brains are wired to think, and it takes effort to learn to find the nuance in things.

As to rules lawyering not saving you from bad DMing, based on my experience I'm forced to disagree. There were multiple occasions where the DM did change his ruling based on my pushback. Certainly not always. But at least some of the time a call that would have ruined my and/or another player's night was reversed and we all got to enjoy that night. That is not nothing.

Maybe I'm unique, though I doubt it. But the fact that my friend had Rules Lawyer of Justice engraved on my groomsman's giftfor his wedding tells me that my efforts did not go entirely unappreciated at the very least.


As to those who are associating Rules Lawyering with cheating, I don't see a strong correlation. That hasn't been my experience at all. Perhaps most Cheaters are Rules Lawyers (I haven't had enough cheaters at my table to suggest a pattern) but that does not logically equate to most Rules Lawyers being Cheaters.

 

[billd91]

As to those who are associating Rules Lawyering with cheating, I don't see a strong correlation. That hasn't been my experience at all. Perhaps most Cheaters are Rules Lawyers (I haven't had enough cheaters at my table to suggest a pattern) but that does not logically equate to most Rules Lawyers being Cheaters.

If you don't see the strong correlation, it probably has more to do with not being in touch with the common usage than anything else. I wouldn't say most cheaters are rule lawyers either. That's definitely just a subset of cheater.

But the idea that a rules lawyer is someone who digs for exploits and interpretations that are "technically correct" but questionable to a layman's reading of the rule (just like lawyers finding technical loopholes in the law) is very widespread in the hobby and has been for well over 20 years. All you have to do is look at the long-running Knights of the Dinner Table as a standalone comic and back in its early days in Shadis Magazine to see how long the idea has been around.

 

[lowkey13]

As to rules lawyering not saving you from bad DMing, based on my experience I'm forced to disagree. There were multiple occasions where the DM did change his ruling based on my pushback. Certainly not always. But at least some of the time a call that would have ruined my and/or another player's night was reversed and we all got to enjoy that night. That is not nothing.

Respectfully, I think that you're incorrect.

A bad DM doesn't care what players, including but not limited to, a RL, says. A RL doesn't save a session, s/he just makes it worse. If the DM is, in fact, a bad DM, then everyone will recognize it and pretty soon leave. OTOH, if the problem is the RL, then they are ruining it for everyone else.

However, a decent DM will listen to a player who briefly states that a ruling was incorrect. As I pointed out earlier, at my table it's pretty simple-

1. Ruling.

2. Brief objection (if any) is made.

3. Play moves on. If necessary, further comments after game.


See, the difference between a RL and a regular player who happens to know the rules is that there is no overarching belief in doing something for "justice" or whatever justification is needed - just, "Hey, doesn't it work like this? No, okay."

But for every night you think you've saved, go back in your history (when you went too far, as you put it) and think about how many nights, and parts of nights, have been wasted for absolutely no good reason?

*shrug* Again, no one thinks of themselves as the bad guy. But there's a reason people generally do not enjoy having Rules Lawyers at the table. In my experience, being right, and having fun, are not the same thing.

(And all of this is assuming that the RL is "right." Which ... well, is not always the case.)

 

[MoonSong]

The thing is, a rules lawyer as we've defined the term goes hand and hand with cheating.

If you don't cheat, and you don't consider arguing with the DM part of the resolution process of the game, then you are not a Rules Lawyer.

If you need to cheat, it means you have a paper-thin case. Which means you aren't very good at finding loopholes. I stand my ground cheating= munchkin and not a rules lawyer.

However, it's a short step from Optimizer to Rules Lawyer, and that step is simply this: you decide that your rules interpretation of some ambiguous language has precedence over the DM's interpretation, and that the DM is just trying to screw you over. That decision tends to mean that you are springing on the DM your loophole with the expectation of validation, or else playing under your own rulings without confirmation by the DM. And both of those things get pretty 'cheaty', and examples of that have been discussed in this thread.

That's why you go for the most ironclad case you can build. In fact, many times these interpretations end up being validated one way or another. And if the DM is convinced am I really imposing my own interpretation? How different is that from gaming the DM? At least I'm playing by the book.(And I play by more of the rules than most as in my words: "Flavor is rules and rules create flavor")

And the problem that I have with your profession is that if you just told me that you were basically an Optimizer, I would assume that you were the sort of person who wouldn't blow things out of proportion and if the DM didn't agree with you over some matter you'd take it in stride. But you've also told me you are a Drama Queen, so essentially what you are telling everyone on these boards is that you are a dysfunctional person who blows small things out of proportion.

It's hard to understand hos you consider that statement anything but a profession of weakness and guilt, to be accompanied by a litany of "mi culpa, mia maxima culpa".

Why the assumption I'm dysfunctional? I'm perfectly functional thank you. It's just that when I break, I break, and won't let you forget it until you apologize -long enough for my liking n_n -.

(The full motto btw was "I'm a rules-lawyering drama queen, but not a munchkin. If you call me a munchkin I'll be upset. Don't make me upset.")

UPDATE: There has been a quibble about my language. If you don't like the word 'Optimizer', feel free to substitute the term of art 'Power Gamer' in the above discussion. For my purposes, the argument remains the same.

I disagree with both terms. Neither of them really fits considering I couldn't powergame to save my life. Real story, when I got invited to an epic game I came off with something I found was too much so I switched to something I considered more balanced... In the end not only my character is way below the power level of the party, the one I thought overpowered comes short too.

Now that I think of it, I probably resort to exploits in part to compensate my inability to powergame. -food for thought....-